California Becomes First State to Mandate AI Transparency in Police Reports
California has enacted the nation’s first law requiring police departments to disclose when artificial intelligence helps write a report. Senate Bill 524, signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom on Oct. 10, 2025, forces a new level of transparency into a process long shrouded in discretion over who writes the official narrative of a crime.
The Statute at a Glance
Effective Jan. 1, 2026, Senate Bill 524 requires every police report written in whole or in part by artificial intelligence to include a visible disclosure on each page. The statute defines AI broadly, covering tools that generate narratives from officer dictation, body-worn camera footage, or dashboard video. It also mandates that first drafts and full audit trails be retained for as long as the official report is kept.
Departments must identify each AI program used, ensure the officer’s signature certifies factual accuracy, and prohibit vendors from selling or repurposing agency data. The law adds a new section to the Penal Code, Section 13663, making California the first state to codify AI transparency in law enforcement documentation.
The Policy Shift
Until now, AI in policing existed largely in a policy gray zone, quietly integrated into report-writing platforms such as Axon’s Draft One. SB 524 moves the state from informal adoption to regulated transparency by requiring clear authorship attribution for every AI-assisted report. Fresno Police, one of the first adopters, told KQED reporter Kerry Klein that it had already implemented audit trails and disclosure fields, needing only minor updates to comply with the new rule.
Stakeholder Reactions
Supporters of the bill, including transparency advocates and civil rights attorneys, argue it helps preserve the chain of authorship in police narratives and could expose errors introduced by generative tools. The California Police Chiefs Association and the Police Officers Research Association of California opposed earlier versions, citing administrative burdens and cost concerns. PORAC President Brian R. Marvel later said the final text was improved after amendments narrowed its scope.
Axon, which markets Draft One nationwide, told KQED it supports the law’s intent. “Responsible innovation remains at the core of how Axon designs and delivers new technology,” spokesperson Victoria Keough said, pledging compliance with state and federal regulations.
Legal Implications
For prosecutors, the statute introduces new discovery obligations. The statute also creates new opportunities for defense scrutiny, giving attorneys a clearer basis to examine how much of an officer’s narrative originated from an algorithm rather than firsthand observation. Prompts, logs, and AI-generated drafts may now constitute evidence subject to disclosure under Brady and Giglio precedents.
Defense lawyers may challenge AI-generated reports on authorship, bias, or factual reliability, demanding access to original drafts and audit metadata. Courts will likely need to clarify whether AI-produced narratives qualify as an officer’s “statement” under existing evidentiary rules.
Vendors face heightened contractual scrutiny. SB 524 forbids data reuse except for agency purposes or court orders, creating a potential model for data governance clauses in future police technology procurements.
Implementation Timeline
The law takes effect on Jan. 1, 2026. Departments must adopt policies consistent with Penal Code Section 13663 before that date. The California Department of Justice is expected to issue model guidance by mid-2026, with compliance audits likely incorporated into statewide POST standards thereafter.
Broader Context
SB 524 builds on California’s expanding AI governance framework, following recent laws on algorithmic accountability in employment and credit scoring. Nationally, it may become the prototype for how states balance efficiency tools like Draft One with constitutional transparency in criminal procedure. Legislators in Washington, D.C., New York, and Massachusetts are already studying similar disclosure frameworks.
Key Requirements Under SB 524
- Disclosure statement on every page of an AI-generated report
- Officer signature verifying factual accuracy
- Retention of the first AI draft and audit trail
- Identification of each AI tool used
- Restrictions on vendor data use or sharing
This article was prepared for educational and informational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon as such. All cases, sanctions, and sources cited are publicly available through court filings and reputable media outlets. Readers should consult professional counsel for specific legal or compliance questions related to AI use.
See also: Built-In Bias: What Every Lawyer Needs to Know About AI’s Hidden Prejudices
