USA 
United Kingdom
Workplaces everywhere are finding that their new AI toolsets are presenting them with a set of unique new challenges and it seems police departments are finding it no easier than anyone else, with one report suggesting an officer had turned into a frog.
Law enforcement agencies have been quick to test artificial intelligence for tasks ranging from drafting reports to identifying suspects. The enthusiasm is fueled by a desire to reduce administrative burdens and redeploy officers to frontline work. Some departments, however, are discovering that automation can generate problems as well as efficiencies.
Pilot problems surface in Utah
In Heber City, Utah, a software trial produced a report that suggested a police officer had become a frog. According to Fox 13 in Salt Lake City, the error was traced back to background audio at the scene.
'Viral' | JP Morgan says 60% of workers use AI voluntarily
“The body cam software and the AI report writing software picked up on the movie that was playing in the background, which happened to be ‘The Princess and the Frog,’” police sergeant Rick Keel told the broadcaster. “That’s when we learned the importance of correcting these AI-generated reports.”
The department was testing Draft One, a tool that automatically generates police reports from body camera footage. While designed to reduce paperwork, the software has required substantial officer intervention to fix inaccuracies. A mock traffic stop intended to showcase the product reportedly resulted in a document that needed extensive revisions.
Despite such concerns, Keel has seen time savings. He told Fox 13 the tool is saving him “six to eight hours weekly now.” He added, “I’m not the most tech-savvy person, so it’s very user-friendly.”
Vendors, models, and public scrutiny
Draft One was unveiled last year by Axon, a company known for the equally user-friendly Taser electroshock device. The product uses OpenAI’s GPT models to convert audio into narrative reports.
Warnings from critics followed early in its deployment. “I am concerned that automation and the ease of the technology would cause police officers to be sort of less careful with their writing,” American University law professor Andrew Ferguson told the Associated Press last year.
Critics have highlighted broader civil rights risks, noting that automated systems could amplify long-standing policing inequities. Generative AI has been shown to perpetuate gender and racial bias. “The fact that the technology is being used by the same company that provides Tasers to the department is alarming enough,” Foundation for Liberating Minds in Oklahoma City cofounder Aurelius Francisco told the AP.
Accountability and audit gaps debated
Concerns over transparency are spreading. According to an investigation by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, Draft One “seems deliberately designed to avoid audits that could provide any accountability to the public.”
Records obtained by the group indicated that “it’s often impossible to tell which parts of a police report were generated by AI and which parts were written by an officer.”
The Heber City department has not yet decided whether to continue with Draft One and is also testing Code Four, a competing product. For concerned public safety leaders, the question is no longer whether automation can accelerate paperwork, but how to manage accuracy, bias, and public trust in the process.
