AI Police Report Laws by State: 2026 Tracker

© 2026 Barricade AI. Copy it, quote it, build on it, feed it to your AI — with credit to Barricade AI and a link to barricade.tech/articles/ai-police-report-laws-by-state. No attribution, no license. License terms

As of November 2026, U.S. states regulate law-enforcement AI in four overlapping areas, and the map above lets you filter by each. For AI-written police reports, two states have enacted laws, California (SB 524) and Utah (SB 180), both requiring disclosure and officer certification, with California also mandating that agencies retain the original AI draft and keep an audit trail; New Jersey has a pending bill directing an Attorney General study, while Minnesota's prohibition bill lapsed at the May 2026 adjournment and New York's bills stalled in committee when the 2026 session ended on June 5, 2026 (they expire with the 2025–26 term in January 2027). Prosecutors in Connecticut (statewide), King County, Washington, and Wayne County, Michigan (county-level) have imposed non-statutory restrictions. For police facial recognition, roughly 14 states have enacted limits (warrant requirements, "not the sole basis for arrest" rules, or outright moratoria); every 2026 bill tracked here failed or lapsed, and New Jersey's Supreme Court expanded defendants' right to discovery of police FR use (State v. Miles, June 2026). For investigative AI, dedicated law is still emerging; New York's broad "Covered AI" bill was the furthest along but lapsed at sine die in June 2026 and is expected to be reintroduced in 2027. And several public-sector AI-governance laws and executive orders (Texas's TRAIGA and SB 1964, California, New York's LOADinG Act, Connecticut, Maryland, Vermont, Kentucky, Indiana, Washington, Oregon) reach law-enforcement AI even when they don't name it.

At a glance, November 2026: 2 states with an enacted AI police-report law · 2 live bills (New Jersey pending, Virginia carried to 2027) · 1 statewide prosecutor moratorium (Connecticut) · 3 county-level prosecutor restrictions (King County WA, Wayne County MI, Hays County TX) · 14 states with statutory limits on police facial recognition.

This tracker is a research compilation, updated November 2026. It is not legal advice, verify the current text and status of any law with the official source before relying on it. Laws here are changing quickly.

How to read the map

In the All laws view, a state is green only when every law it has is enacted. If a state has an enacted law and something pending or restricted in another category, it shows as Mixed, open that state to see each category broken out. Switch the filter to a single category (Police reports, Investigations, Facial recognition, or Gov’t AI) to see the precise status for just that category.A distinct orange status marks non-statutory statewide restrictions, a prosecutor policy or court ruling rather than a statute (Connecticut, New Jersey). City- or county-level actions (e.g., Detroit PD, King County WA) are shown in a state's detail but do not color the whole state. City- or county-level actions (e.g., Detroit PD, King County WA, Wayne County MI, Hays County TX) are shown in a state's detail but do not color the whole state.

AI police report laws

California - SB 524 (enacted, effective Jan 1, 2026). The most comprehensive in the country. When a report is generated wholly or partly by AI, the agency’s policy must ensure disclosure of the AI program used, an officer’s certification that they reviewed it for accuracy, retention of the first AI-generated draft for as long as the final report, and an audit trail tied to the source footage or audio. Only the final report counts as the officer’s statement, and vendors are barred from reselling agency data.

Utah - SB 180 (enacted, effective May 7, 2025). The first state to act. Requires a written generative-AI policy, a disclaimer on any AI-assisted report, and officer certification of accuracy. Utah does not require retaining the draft. A 2026 follow-up bill (SB 205) that would have required annual policy review, locked AI safeguard settings, and public posting of agency policies passed the Senate but died in the House in March 2026.

Pending - New Jersey's A3076 would require the Attorney General to study police use of AI to generate reports and recommend a statewide policy requiring officer review for accuracy; the AG's office says it is pursuing statewide governance but has given no timeline. Lapsed - Minnesota's SF 4575 / HF 4536, which would have prohibited generative AI in official records including police reports, died without a hearing when the 2025–26 biennium adjourned in May 2026. New York's S10425 / A9253-A was the most ambitious (its "Covered AI" definition expressly included generative report-writing AI, with a public inventory, disclosure, first-draft retention, and both Attorney General and private enforcement), but it stalled when the Legislature adjourned sine die on June 5, 2026; reintroduction is expected in 2027.

Restricted by prosecutors (no statute): Connecticut's Chief State's Attorney imposed a statewide moratorium on using AI to draft or narrate criminal reports (April 2026). King County, Washington's Prosecuting Attorney's Office won't accept AI-assisted report narratives (memo, Sept 2024). In September 2026, Wayne County, Michigan Prosecutor Kym Worthy wrote to every police chief in the county urging agencies to be "cautious and restrained" with AI-generated reports and announced a countywide policy, and Hays County, Texas commissioners voted down funding for Axon's AI tools after a sheriff's office trial, with Kyle PD declining to use them at the District Attorney's request. Virginia's HB 1294 was carried over to 2027; Nevada's SB 199 ban failed in 2025.

Police facial recognition laws

Fourteen states have enacted statutory limits on law-enforcement facial recognition, and the approaches cluster into a few patterns. Warrant or court-order requirements appear in Washington (RCW 43.386), Montana, Massachusetts, Maryland, Utah, and as of July 1, 2026 Virginia, which now requires facial recognition to be expressly authorized by statute, with FR data kept confidential and accessible only by warrant. “Not the sole basis for arrest” safeguards appear in Alabama, Maryland, Montana, and Washington. Near-total moratoria exist in Maine (broadest government ban, narrow carve-outs) and Vermont (only a child-exploitation exception). Body-camera-only prohibitions, barring facial-recognition analysis of body-cam footage, are in place in Minnesota, Oregon, and New Hampshire. Kentucky makes evidence from non-compliant FR use inadmissible.

Every 2026 facial-recognition bill tracked here (New York, Illinois, Wisconsin, West Virginia, Wyoming) failed or stalled; South Carolina's H. 4675 was a broader surveillance-data bill that did not address facial recognition and died at sine die. Earlier proposals failed in Florida, Georgia, Idaho, and Hawaii. In states without statutes, courts have stepped in: New Jersey's Supreme Court held in State v. Miles (June 24, 2026) that defendants are entitled to discovery identifying the facial-recognition tools police used and how, even when the State won't offer the match at trial, building on State v. Arteaga (2023); and a Michigan settlement bars Detroit PD from arresting on a face match alone.

AI in investigations

Dedicated law for investigative AI, predictive policing, biometric matching, automated license-plate readers, and AI-assisted case analysis, is the least developed of the four areas. New York's "Covered AI" bill (S10425 / A9253-A) was the furthest along, requiring a public inventory and disclosure of investigative AI systems, but it lapsed at sine die in June 2026 (expected to return in 2027). Most other constraints flow indirectly from facial-recognition statutes and the public-sector AI-governance laws below. New Jersey's State v. Miles (2026) is the most significant recent development, establishing a discovery right to the investigative AI tools police used."

Government / public-sector AI laws

Several states regulate government AI broadly enough to reach law-enforcement use, even without naming police. Texas's HB 149 (TRAIGA, effective Jan 1, 2026) covers government AI and bans social scoring and rights-infringing biometric identification, though a security/investigation carve-out exempts much law-enforcement use; Texas's SB 1964 (effective Sept 1, 2025) separately requires a state inventory of agency AI systems and an AI code of ethics for state and local governments. New York's LOADinG Act requires state agencies to inventory automated decision systems and limits rights-affecting automated decisions; its original impact-assessment and human-review mandates were narrowed by 2025–2026 chapter amendments, which also extended anti-displacement protections to local governments. Connecticut (PA 23-16), Maryland (SB 818), Vermont (Act 132), and Kentucky (SB 4) require agencies to inventory and assess high-risk and generative AI, and Kentucky’s registry captures the State Police. California (AB 302 / SB 896) and Washington (Executive Order 24-01) add inventory and disclosure duties and flag law enforcement as high-risk; Oregon's Executive Order 26-26 (Sept 2026) directs the state CIO to set safety-review standards for AI procured by executive agencies, including State Police

One trap worth flagging: Colorado’s AI Act (SB 24-205) was repealed and replaced by SB 26-189 (effective 2027), which applies persons doing business in Colorado" in listed domains - education, employment, housing, lending, insurance, health care, and government benefits eligibility. Policing and criminal investigations are not covered domains, so it does not reach law-enforcement AI use. Colorado does, however, have an enacted facial-recognition law (SB 22-113).

State-by-state at a glance

Status of enacted laws, pending bills, prosecutor restrictions, and failed proposals as of November 2026, across all four categories. Investigative AI is the least developed area; “—” means no specific law or bill in that category.

* Colorado’s AI Act (SB 24-205) was repealed and replaced by SB 26-189 (effective 2027), under which policing is not a covered domain, so it does not reach law enforcement. Colorado’s enacted facial-recognition law (SB 22-113) still applies. States not listed (e.g., Alaska, Oklahoma) have no specific law or bill, though some agencies have set local policies.

What this means for agencies.

An agency that builds its policy around the strictest current requirement, California’s, will already satisfy Utah’s and nearly everything proposed elsewhere. In practice that means five decisions before the first AI-assisted report is filed.

Decide how the report will say it. California prescribes the exact sentence; Utah and the New York bill leave the wording to the agency but require a disclaimer on every AI-assisted report or record. Put the statement where a prosecutor and a defense attorney will both see it, not in metadata.

Decide who signs. Every enacted law and every live bill treats the officer, not the software, as the author. The certification should say what was reviewed, not merely that review occurred, because that is the question that will be asked on cross-examination.

Decide what to keep. California requires the first AI draft to be retained as long as the final report; New York and Virginia proposed the same. Even where it is not required, retention is the only way to show what the officer changed, which is the point most likely to be litigated.

Decide what the audit trail records. The minimum under California is who used the tool and which video or audio it drew on. The New York bill went further, to every input including photographs, prior reports and phone records. Build to the broader standard; it costs little and it is where the proposals are heading.

Decide what the vendor may do with your data. Only California has written this into law, but a contract clause barring resale or secondary use of agency data is standard practice and removes a line of attack in discovery.

Then ask your prosecutor. Connecticut’s Chief State’s Attorney has paused AI-drafted reports statewide; King County’s prosecutor will not accept them; Wayne County’s prosecutor has told chiefs to be cautious and restrained; and Hays County’s commissioners declined to fund the tool after a trial. A compliant report that a prosecutor refuses to charge on is not compliant in any sense that matters.

A note on our perspective: Barricade AI builds multimodal, auditable AI for law enforcement, so we have a commercial interest here. We keep this tracker factual and sourced because an honest accounting of the law serves agencies better than spin and because the standards these laws converge on are the standards any responsible system should meet.

This tracker covers four categories of state action on law-enforcement AI: statutes and bills on AI-generated police reports, AI used in criminal investigations, facial recognition and biometric surveillance, and public-sector AI-governance laws that reach police agencies. Every entry is checked against the legislature’s own bill-status page or the codified statute; where the action is a prosecutor policy or court decision rather than a statute, we link the official release or opinion and, failing that, the news report that documents it. Statuses are re-verified monthly, and bills are marked failed or lapsed only when the session has ended or the legislature’s record shows the bill cannot advance. Consumer-privacy and private-sector AI laws that exempt government are deliberately excluded. Spotted a change or an error? Tell us and we will verify and correct it.

Frequently asked questions

Which states have laws on AI-written police reports?

As of October 2026, two states have enacted laws: California (SB 524, effective January 1, 2026) and Utah (SB 180, effective May 7, 2025). New Jersey has a pending bill directing an Attorney General study. Minnesota's bill lapsed and New York's stalled in committee. Connecticut (statewide), King County, Washington, and Wayne County, Michigan have prosecutor-led (non-statutory) restrictions.

What does California SB 524 require?

Disclosure of the AI program used, an officer’s certification that they reviewed the report, retention of the original AI-generated draft for as long as the report is kept, an audit trail, and a prohibition on vendors selling agency data.

How many states regulate police facial recognition?

Fourteen states have enacted statutory limits as of November 2026 including warrant requirements (Washington, Montana, Massachusetts), “not the sole basis for arrest” rules (Alabama, Maryland), and near-total moratoria (Maine, Vermont). Every 2026 facial-recognition bill tracked here (New York, Illinois, Wisconsin, West Virginia, Wyoming) failed or stalled; New Jersey's Supreme Court expanded discovery rights over police FR use in State v. Miles (June 2026)."

Are AI-written police reports banned anywhere?

Not by statute, but Connecticut’s Chief State’s Attorney imposed a moratorium, and King County (WA) won’t accept AI-assisted report narratives. A statutory ban in Nevada (SB 199) failed in 2025.

Do broad state AI laws apply to law enforcement?

Sometimes. Public-sector AI-governance laws in Texas (TRAIGA), New York (LOADinG Act), Connecticut, Maryland, Vermont, Kentucky, and Indiana can reach law-enforcement AI though some, like Texas, carve out security and investigative uses. Colorado's revised AI Act (SB 26-189) does not list policing as a covered domain and does not apply to police.

Is there a federal law on law-enforcement AI?

No. There is guidance (DOJ COPS Office, IACP) and a proposed Federal Rule of Evidence (FRE 707) on machine-generated evidence, but no binding federal law specific to law-enforcement AI as of October 2026. The White House's March 2026 AI policy framework asks Congress to preempt some state AI laws but expressly excludes laws governing a state's own use of AI, so the public-sector laws above are outside its stated target.

Sources are linked per state in the interactive map above. Last updated November 2026. Not legal advice.

Open research, attribution required. The Barricade AI State AI Laws for Law Enforcement Tracker is licensed under CC BY 4.0. You may quote, reproduce, or build on this research, including in automated or AI-assisted tools, provided you credit “Barricade AI” and link to https://barricade.tech/articles/ai-police-report-laws-by-state. Reproduction without attribution is not licensed. The underlying statutes and bill numbers are public record; the compilation, analysis, and text are © 2026 Barricade AI.

Cite as: Barricade AI, AI Police Report Laws by State: 2026 Tracker, https://barricade.tech/articles/ai-police-report-laws-by-state (updated Nov 2026).