Requires policing agencies to conduct an inventory of, and develop a publicly-available policy for, any artificial intelligence used to aid criminal investigations.
This bill would add a new section to the New York Executive Law regulating the use of artificial intelligence by policing agencies in criminal investigations. It defines “covered AI” broadly to include tools used to generate investigative leads, identify suspects or witnesses, perform biometric or forensic analysis, track vehicles or cameras, analyze social media or financial data, and generative AI used to draft or materially assist police reports. The bill excludes ordinary administrative software and basic spelling or grammar tools.
The measure requires police agencies to publish a public inventory of covered AI systems before using new products, or within 180 days for systems already in use. Each disclosure must identify the system, describe its capabilities and limits, explain inputs and outputs, state authorized and unauthorized uses, and provide internal validation and performance materials. Agencies must update disclosures when systems change, and smaller agencies without websites may satisfy the requirement by providing records on request. The bill also requires disclosure of AI use in criminal investigation reports, notice to prosecutors and defendants or their attorneys, and special labeling, retention, and audit-trail requirements for reports created with generative AI.
The bill would also direct the Attorney General to issue a model policy for police use of covered AI within 90 days, review it annually, and require each police agency to adopt that policy or one that meets or exceeds it. The policy must limit use to expressly authorized purposes and warn that violations may lead to administrative discipline. The Attorney General may enforce the law through civil action, and private residents may sue for declaratory or injunctive relief to enforce the inventory and policy-posting requirements after giving 90 days’ notice. The bill would therefore create new transparency, reporting, and oversight obligations for law enforcement agencies and new public access rights regarding AI tools used in policing.
Because there is no recorded committee transcript or vote history provided, there is no documented floor or committee sentiment to summarize. Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears aimed at increasing transparency, accountability, and due process protections around police use of AI, while imposing significant compliance and disclosure duties on agencies. The absence of recorded debate means no specific opposition or support can be attributed from the provided materials.
The main points of potential contention are likely to be the breadth of the definition of covered AI, the requirement to disclose internal validation and performance checks, the obligation to reveal AI use in investigations and reports, and the private right of action with attorney’s fees. Police agencies may view the bill as administratively burdensome or as requiring disclosure of sensitive operational information, while supporters would likely argue that public inventories, audit trails, and mandatory policies are necessary to prevent misuse, bias, and unreliable AI-driven policing.
The bill would amend the New York Executive Law by adding a new section governing police use of artificial intelligence. It would impose statewide disclosure, inventory, reporting, policy-adoption, and recordkeeping requirements on policing agencies that use AI in criminal investigations, and it would authorize enforcement by the Attorney General and private civil actions. The bill would affect law enforcement agencies, prosecutors, criminal defendants, and members of the public seeking access to information about police AI use.
No committee discussion or vote record was provided, so there is no direct evidence of legislative support or opposition in the supplied materials. The bill’s structure suggests a reform-oriented approach focused on transparency and oversight of police technology, which would likely be viewed favorably by civil liberties and accountability advocates. At the same time, the breadth of the requirements suggests that law enforcement agencies could be cautious or resistant due to compliance and disclosure burdens.
The likely areas of contention are the scope of “covered AI,” especially the inclusion of many investigative technologies and generative AI used in report writing; the requirement to publicly disclose system names, capabilities, limitations, and validation materials; and the mandate to disclose AI use to prosecutors and defendants. Another likely point of dispute is the private right of action, which allows residents to sue for enforcement and recover attorney’s fees after notice. Supporters would likely emphasize transparency, accuracy, and accountability, while opponents may argue the bill could expose sensitive investigative methods, create administrative burdens, and chill adoption of useful tools.