Op-ed: Will AI Sycophancy Contaminate Law Enforcement?
The following op-ed authored by Jake Laperruque first appeared in Tech Policy Press on August 6, 2026. A excerpt of the text has been pasted below.
Society’s growing reliance on artificial intelligence has given rise to concerns about AI sycophancy. This dark pattern—the tendency of AI systems to tailor responses to flatter users and validate their point of view—has alarming social ramifications: commentators worry it could warp human values and expectations or prop up reliance on digital yes men, and it’s been documented amplifying dissociations and delusions. Beyond these general risks, we need to account for problems AI sycophancy may cause when the tech is applied to specific, high-risk functions. In particular, we ought to examine how it could impact the use of AI in policing.
AI is becoming incorporated into an array of law enforcement tasks as a virtual assistant. Companies like Axon are pushing AI services that scan body camera footage and write automated police reports. Vendors like Truleo promote AI systems serving as a virtual detective, taking investigative case files and providing summaries, timelines, surfacing leads, and providing analytics. The company prompts police to take a “scan the case – what am I missing?” approach with its systems, promising an AI system that “summarizes, organizes, and provides critical insights or gaps.” These tools are being pushed to prosecutors as well as investigators: Thomson Reuters offers a CoCounsel Legal AI tool for prosecutors to summarize evidence files, review discovery materials to “identify key facts” and “create comprehensive timelines” for cases, as well as conduct legal review on evidentiary questions and even draft charging documents and plea agreements.
British Public Oppose Secret Surveillance Powers and Want Strong Protections for Encrypted Communications
CDT released nationally representative polling data revealing that a the British public are broadly concerned about the security, privacy, and free speech consequences of allowing law enforcement to access encrypted communications.
Changing Course to Get It Right: The Advisory Committee Reviews Its AI Evidence Rule
CDT is keeping a close eye on Proposed Federal Rule of Evidence 707, which would govern when AI-generated information can be admitted as evidence in federal court — and many state courts where the federal rules are routinely adopted — without a human expert to explain it.
Absent meaningful guardrails, ALPRs — which can effortlessly reconstruct where a person lives, works, shops, socializes, seeks medical care, and more — can be weaponized for pervasive surveillance and misconduct
