Artificial intelligence has been a hot topic lately, and we recently talked about some of the problems it’s causing in the legal world when people over-rely on the technology. Many legal professionals understand that AI can be a helpful tool, but it’s not a perfect science and there need to be checks and balances in place to ensure the technology isn’t abused or mismanaged. In hopes of getting ahead of these potential issues, the St. Paul Police Department recently released some guidelines for how the department will and won’t be using AI technology. In today’s blog, we explore the St. Paul police department’s plan for AI implementation.
St. Paul Police AI Regulations
You can look at the official statement regarding the department’s vision for implementing AI technology, but we’ll break down some of the main takeaways below. For starters, here’s what is expressly forbidden when it comes to departmental AI use:
- SPPD personnel shall not use GenAI systems to rationalize a law enforcement decision, or as the sole basis of research, interpretation, or analysis of the law or facts related to a law enforcement contact or investigation.
- SPPD personnel shall not use Al tools for any activities that may be harmful, illegal, unethical, or in violation of any other department and city policies, including but not limited to the CJIS policies, Minnesota Data Policies, or code of conduct policy.
- SPPD personnel shall not create user accounts in their official capacity or input work-related data (including information learned solely in the scope of their employment) into publicly available GenAI systems unless the system has been approved by the Chief of Police or the authorized designee for the intended use.
- SPPD personnel shall use AI-generated content as an informational tool and not as a substitution for human judgment or decision-making.
- SPPD personnel should not represent AI-generated content as their original work
Basically, officers are able to lean on AI technology to assist with some processes like report generation or summation of an audio transcript, but these tools cannot go unchecked. Officers are required to review reports for accuracy and not assume that AI tools always have everything correct on their own. For example, AI technology may be able to generate a police report based on details about the incident entered by the arresting officer, but that officer will need to review, edit and add information to this basic report to ensure all key details are listed and all information is correct.
We think it’s understandable that many industries want to streamline some processes with the help of AI, and it’s encouraging to see that the St. Paul Police Department appears aware of some of the potential pitfalls and is remaining rather limited in their scope of use as they introduce the technology. If we get this technology wrong and it ends up affecting cases in the courtroom, that is not justice. It’s important to have policies like this in place to ensure justice still prevails in the courtroom.
If you or someone you know needs legal help and wants a real person who will put forth a strong defense, connect with Avery and the team at Appelman Law Firm today at (952) 224-2277.
