Home / AI Police Reports in California Criminal Cases
This page was written, edited, reviewed & approved by William S Kroger following our comprehensive editorial guidelines William S. Kroger, the Founding Partner, has 30+ years of legal experience as a criminal defense attorney.
AI Police Reports in California Criminal Cases
By William Kroger / Last Updated July 14, 2026
AI Written Police Reports Are On The Rise
Police reports have long played a crucial role in criminal cases, affecting charging decisions, plea offers, witness preparation, cross-examination, and trial strategies. Nowadays, artificial intelligence is transforming the way some reports are created.
AI police reports in California criminal cases raise new questions about accuracy, discovery, bodycam review, and officer credibility. If AI helped write the report, the defense may need to know what the officer actually saw, what the footage showed, what the AI system added, and what changed between the first draft and the final signed report.
Can Police Use AI to Write Reports in California?
California law does not ban police from using artificial intelligence to help draft reports. However, SB 524 added Penal Code § 13663, which places rules on AI-assisted police reports in California.
The law applies when a law enforcement officer or another agency member uses AI, in whole or in part, to generate an official police report. This may include reports drafted from body-worn camera footage, dashcam footage, recorded audio, officer dictation, or other source material.
According to California Penal Code § 13663, an AI-assisted police report must identify the AI program used, such as Axon Draft One, a report-writing tool that may raise discovery, accuracy, and bodycam review issues in a California criminal case. The report must also state whether it was written entirely or partly with AI. The officer or agency member who prepared the official report must sign it and verify that they reviewed it and that the facts are true and correct.
That verification is important in a criminal case. The officer cannot simply rely on an AI-generated narrative and treat it as finished. The final report remains a human-reviewed document, and the defense may have reason to examine how it was created.
What Must Be Disclosed in an AI-Written Police Report?
The newly added law requires that a police report generated, in whole or in part, with artificial intelligence identify the AI program used. The statute also requires the report to state whether it was written entirely or in part using AI.
The disclosure must be easy for the reader to see. The law allows the statement to appear on each page of the official report or within the body of the text, as long as the identification is readily apparent.
The statute also requires the signature of the officer or agency member who prepared the official report. By signing, the person verifies that they have reviewed the contents of the report and that the facts in it are true and correct.
That signature requirement is important. The officer cannot simply rely on the AI tool and treat the report as machine-generated paperwork. The final report remains a human-verified document.
For the defense, that creates fair areas of inquiry regarding the use of AI in writing police reports. Your lawyer may ask what the officer reviewed, how long the review took, whether the officer compared the draft to the bodycam footage, whether the officer changed anything, and whether the officer noticed any errors before signing the report.
Why the First Draft May Be Important
One of the most important parts of Penal Code § 13663 is the first-draft retention requirement. If a law enforcement officer or agency member uses AI to create an official report, the first AI-generated draft must be retained for as long as the official report is retained.
That first draft may show what the AI system produced before human edits. It may also show whether the final report became more detailed, more certain, less favorable to the accused, or more aligned with the prosecution's theory after revisions.
A first draft can matter for several reasons. It may reveal missing facts. It may show language that did not come from the officer. It may show that the AI system summarized body-cam footage in a way that omitted context. It may show that the final report changed in ways that need explanation.
California law also says that, except for the official report, a draft created with AI does not constitute an officer’s statement. That language may affect how the draft is used in court. It does not mean the draft has no value. It may still help the defense examine how the report was created, what changed, and whether the final report can be trusted.
In a criminal case, the defense may want the first AI-generated draft, the final report, the audit trail, and the video or audio used to create the report. Those items may help test whether the written narrative matches the actual evidence.
The Audit Trail Requirement
Penal Code § 13663 also requires the law enforcement agency using AI to maintain an audit trail for as long as the official report is retained. At a minimum, the audit trail must identify the person who used AI to create the report and any video or audio footage used in its creation, if any.
This requirement can be important in cases involving body-worn camera footage, dashcam footage, jail interviews, traffic stops, domestic violence calls, DUI investigations, robbery reports, assault reports, and other cases where recorded evidence exists.
The audit trail may answer basic questions:
Who used the AI system?
What footage was used?
Was bodycam audio included?
Was dashcam video included?
Was officer dictation used?
Was any source material left out?
Was the AI draft based on a full recording or a shorter clip?
Those questions are significant because AI tools can summarize, condense, reorder, or phrase information in ways that make it sound more complete than the underlying evidence. A polished report can create confidence. But confidence is not the same as accuracy.
The defense should compare the AI-assisted report against the source material. If the video shows uncertainty, confusion, poor audio, missing context, or a different sequence of events, the report should not control the case.
How AI Reports May Affect Criminal Defense
AI police reports may affect criminal defense in several ways. First, they affect discovery. In California criminal cases, the use of artificial intelligence is becoming more prevalent. Penal Code § 1054.1 requires the prosecution to disclose certain materials and information to the defense, including relevant real evidence, exculpatory evidence, witness statements, and reports connected to witnesses the prosecution intends to call at trial. When a police report was generated using AI, the defense may need the first draft, the final version, the audit trail, and the footage or audio used to generate the report.
Second, AI reports may affect cross-examination. If an officer testifies in a way that differs from the report, the defense may examine the inconsistency. If the officer cannot explain what came from memory, what came from video, and what came from AI, that may affect credibility.
Third, AI reports may affect impeachment. Under Evidence Code § 780, the court or jury may consider issues that bear on witness credibility, including inconsistent statements and the witness’s ability to perceive, recall, or describe events. Evidence Code § 770 also addresses the use of inconsistent statements during testimony. If the officer’s testimony, body-cam footage, first AI draft, and final report do not align, those differences may become important.
Fourth, AI reports may affect motions. If the report was used to support an arrest, search, warrant, or charging decision, defense counsel may need to examine whether the report accurately stated the facts. An AI-assisted report that adds certainty, removes context, or misstates what the video shows can affect pretrial litigation.
Fifth, AI reports may affect negotiations. A prosecutor may rely heavily on a police report when making a plea offer. If the report was AI-assisted and has not been checked against the source footage, the defense may need to push back before discussions become anchored to an inaccurate narrative.
Bodycam Footage and AI Summaries
Bodycam footage can help test an AI police report, but it can also create its own issues. Bodycam video may be incomplete. Audio may be hard to hear. The camera may not show what the officer saw. The officer may turn away at key moments. Multiple officers may record different parts of the same event.
An AI tool that summarizes bodycam footage may miss those limits. It may produce a smooth narrative from messy source material. It may make uncertain events sound certain. It may compress a long encounter into a few confident paragraphs.
That is why the source footage matters. The defense should not stop with the final report. A proper review may include the first AI draft, all available bodycam footage, dashcam footage, dispatch audio, CAD logs, witness statements, photographs, and any officer notes. The goal is not to attack technology for its own sake. The goal is to test accuracy.
Questions a Defense Attorney May Ask About AI-Generated Reports
When an AI-generated police report appears in a California criminal case, the defense may ask:
What AI program was used?
Was the report written fully or partly with AI?
Did the report include the required AI disclosure?
Who used the AI system to create the report?
Who signed the final report?
Did the signing officer personally review the report for accuracy?
Was the first AI-generated draft retained?
What video or audio was used to create the report, including any generative content?
Was body-worn camera footage used?
Was dashcam footage used?
Was officer dictation used?
Were all recordings used, or only selected clips?
What changes were made between the first draft and the final report?
Did the AI tool add facts that were not in the footage?
Did the AI tool leave out facts favorable to the accused, raising concerns about the police's failure to disclose all relevant information?
Did the officer rely on the AI draft when writing the final report?
Did the officer independently remember the events?
Did the final report match the footage?
Did the prosecution disclose the AI draft and audit trail?
These questions can help identify whether the report is reliable, whether the discovery is complete, and whether the officer’s testimony should be challenged.
AI Police Reports and Reasonable Doubt
A criminal case cannot be proven by a polished report alone. The prosecution still has to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt.
AI does not change that burden. It does not replace human observation. It does not turn uncertain footage into reliable testimony. It does not remove the defense’s right to test the evidence.
In some cases, generative AI may speed up report writing, allowing police departments to draft reports more efficiently. In others, it may create new problems. A report may sound more organized than the officer’s actual memory. It may contain language the officer did not choose. It may summarize the video in a way that favors the prosecution. It may leave out uncertainty, hesitation, context, or facts that help the defense.
That is why AI police reports deserve close review in California criminal cases. The issue is not only whether the officer signed the report. The issue is whether the report accurately reflects admissible evidence.
Consult A Los Angeles Criminal Defense Lawyer If You Have Concerns Regarding AI-Generated Police Reports
AI police reports add a new layer to California criminal defense. A person accused of a crime should not assume the police report is accurate simply because it looks complete. If artificial intelligence helped draft the report, the defense may need to examine the first draft, the audit trail, the source footage, and the officer’s review.
Attorney William S. Kroger defends people accused of crimes in Los Angeles. If your case involves an AI-generated police report, bodycam evidence, disputed officer statements, or incomplete discovery, it is advisable to speak with a Los Angeles criminal defense lawyer before making decisions about your case.
Contact William S. Kroger, Attorney at Law, to discuss your defense by calling 323-655-5700 or by filing out the confidential online contact form.
Attorney William Kroger is a respected author, expert, and influencer, frequently sought by news organizations for his insights, expert analysis, and commentary on legal issues. He has been interviewed by national media outlets such as CNN, CNBC, Fox News, The Los Angeles Times, and The Orange County Register, as well as other national and local newspapers. His commentary spans topics from airport crimes, drug trafficking, and money laundering to white-collar crimes and complex criminal defense cases. Additionally, Attorney William Kroger has received the 10 Best Attorneys Award from the American Institute of Criminal Law Attorneys.
