Abstract
Artificial intelligence (AI) has rapidly crept into nearly all aspects of life, including in government, the criminal justice system, and policing. While Supreme Court Due Process jurisprudence has outlined certain boundaries for police interrogations, much police conduct is left for the states to regulate. Such regulation is sporadic and less restrictive than the public might assume, especially in the realm of police deception. Across jurisdictions, courts allow police to deceptively inform suspects that a witness identified the suspect of the perpetrator of a crime. That the suspect’s finger prints, DNA, or shoe prints were found at the scene of the crime. Police can even present fake evidence to suspects in an interrogation, including falsified lab reports, photograpghs, and more. With AI’s use expanding into law enforcement, there is a clear need to regulate police deception in interrogations before constitutional rights are infringed. This Note argues that while courts have long permitted various deceptive police tactics, the increasing sophistication and accessibility of AI tools pose unprecedented risks such as false confessions, bias, and potentially unwarranted public repremand. Through an analysis of case law, the evolution of Miranda and Due Process jurisprudence, and emerging AI applications in policing, this Note demonstrates how AI-enabled deception could exacerbate Due Process violations, undermine public trust, and increase wrongful convictions. It concludes by urging state legislatures to preemptively prohibit the use of AI to create false evidence in interrogations, advocating for a state-by-state legislative approach as the most effective means to safeguard constitutional protections in a rapidly evolving world.
Recommended Citation
Landon Brickey,
Police and AI: When Abundantly Helpful Becomes Intrinsically Harmful,
91 Brook. L. Rev.
627
(2026).
Available at:
https://brooklynworks.brooklaw.edu/blr/vol91/iss2/6