From legal exposure to community backlash, here’s what’s waiting for unprepared agencies—and how to prevent it.
Your AI Experts In Law Enforcement
AI doesn’t just automate decisions—it creates new exposure.
Public safety leaders are increasingly evaluating AI for dispatch, analytics, transcription, and investigative triage. But few have built the governance frameworks needed to manage the risks that come with these tools. Here’s what every agency should be watching for.
Without a written and enforceable AI policy, your agency lacks a framework for oversight, training, or escalation. That’s the foundation—and too many agencies skip it.
Treating all AI tools the same leads to overregulation of low-risk tools and dangerous underregulation of high-risk ones. You need a risk-tiering framework.
Systems making or influencing decisions need to be reviewed—and logged—by trained personnel. “We trusted the system” isn’t defensible.
If your agency can’t produce audit trails of system access, outputs, and review decisions, you can’t defend your use—or improve it.
Letting vendors define what counts as AI—or what data they retain—creates procurement and legal risk. Your contract must lead the relationship.
What happens if something fails? If the public files a complaint? Agencies without kill switches, review logs, or disclosure plans get caught flat-footed.
If the community, council, or oversight board doesn’t know what tools you’re using or how they’re governed, trust erodes. And media stories fill the vacuum.
You can’t deploy AI tools if staff don’t know how to use them—or how to flag errors. Training should match your policy and risk level.
Is your AI use compliant with local, state, and federal standards? Can you answer a FOIA request with confidence? If not, pause.
You don’t have to be perfect—but you need to show that your agency has a process in place, is documenting its decisions, and is ready to respond to questions.
We won’t give your details to third party