Was Your Police Report Written by AI? Axon Draft One in Florida, and the Draft Nobody Keeps

A police report reads like the officer’s memory set down in the officer’s words. For a growing number of reports, the first version of those words came from software. Axon, the company that sells body cameras and Tasers to police departments across the country, sells a product called Draft One that listens to the audio from an officer’s body camera and writes the narrative section of the report. The officer edits it, approves it, and it becomes the report.

I read police reports for a living, and the report is usually the first account of a case that a prosecutor, a judge, or a defense lawyer sees. So the question of who wrote which sentence is a practical one.

What Draft One Does

According to the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which studied the product and obtained records about it from police agencies, Draft One works from the audio of the body camera recording. It does not process the video. It uses a large language model, which EFF identifies as ChatGPT, to turn the audio into a draft narrative. The draft includes bracketed blanks where the officer is supposed to add or remove information. The officer reviews and edits the draft, signs an acknowledgment that Draft One was used, and copies the text into the agency’s report system.

The Hillsborough County Sheriff’s Office describes the same design from the other side. In its announcement, the Sheriff’s Office said the tool relies on audio narration, so deputies must clearly describe events and observations on camera, that the system prompts deputies where more detail may be needed, and that deputies are required to review, edit, and approve every report before it is submitted.

Two consequences follow from that design. Anything the officer saw but did not say out loud is not in the audio, so it has to come from the officer’s edits. And anything the software got wrong has to be caught by the officer before approval. Both steps happen on the officer’s screen, and neither leaves a copy of the draft behind.

Where It Is Used in Florida

The Hillsborough County Sheriff’s Office announced Draft One in a press release dated February 26, 2026. The release says that “at this time, the tool will be used only for non-criminal calls for service.” It says that twice. As of that release, then, a Hillsborough deputy’s report on a DUI arrest or a felony arrest should not have been drafted by Draft One, and a report on a non-criminal call could have been. Calls that begin as non-criminal do not always stay that way, and the policy can change, which is why the question is worth asking in every case rather than assuming the answer.

The Palm Beach County Sheriff’s Office uses Draft One too. EFF reported that the agency requires deputies to end any Draft One narrative with a written disclosure acknowledging that the report was generated from a digital recording using Draft One, that the deputy reviewed and edited it, and that the deputy is willing to testify to its accuracy. EFF also reported that the agency allows Draft One only in incidents that do not involve a criminal charge, and that many of the reports it received involved mental health calls or domestic disputes. Because of the disclosure, the agency’s records manager could find every Draft One report in a time period with a keyword search for “Draft One.”

Not every agency requires that disclosure, and EFF found agencies that could not tell which of their reports had been drafted with the software. Axon’s own system logs when an officer asks Draft One to generate a draft, when an officer signs the Draft One acknowledgment, and when settings change. Those logs, and the disclosure where an agency uses one, are among the few ways to learn whether a particular report started as an AI draft.

The First Draft Is Gone

The detail that matters most for a criminal case is what happens to the original draft. EFF quoted an Axon product manager speaking at a public roundtable: “We don’t store the original draft and that’s by design.” He explained the goal as avoiding more disclosure headaches for police agencies and prosecutors. EFF’s review found no record that shows which parts of a finished report came from the software and which came from the officer.

Think about a sentence like “the subject made a threatening gesture.” Audio cannot capture a gesture. If that sentence is in a report drafted with Draft One, it was either added by the officer from memory or produced by the software from something it heard. Without the draft, the only way to find out is to ask the officer, under oath, and to compare the report against the recording.

The same problem has surfaced outside Florida. 404 Media reported in September 2026 that a Texas sheriff’s office used Draft One on a report documenting a license plate camera search connected to a woman who had had an abortion, and that part of the report summarized the deputies’ own discussion of the legal implications.

Why the Report Carries So Much Weight

A police report is usually hearsay and is not itself evidence at trial. It still shapes almost every step of a case. The prosecutor reads it to decide what to charge. A judge reads it at first appearance. The officer rereads it before a deposition, a suppression hearing, or trial, and many officers testify from what the report says rather than from an independent memory of an ordinary shift months earlier. When the report and the officer’s testimony match, a judge or jury tends to believe both.

That is why the details matter at a suppression hearing, where the question is often exactly what the officer saw and knew before a stop, a search, or an arrest. A phrase in a report that supplies reasonable suspicion is only as good as its source. If the source is software interpreting audio, the defense is entitled to test that the same way it tests any other account.

What Florida Discovery Reaches

Florida’s criminal discovery rule, Rule 3.220, requires the prosecutor to disclose the statements of people with information about the case. The rule defines that term broadly. The term “statement” “is specifically intended to include all police and investigative reports of any kind prepared for or in connection with the case, but must not include the notes from which those reports are compiled.” Every police report in a case is a statement the defense receives, whoever or whatever wrote the first draft.

The exclusion for notes raises a question I have not seen a Florida court answer: whether a discarded AI draft is a note from which a report was compiled, or something else. For now the practical point is simpler. The draft is not kept, so there is nothing to produce. What does exist, and what a defense request can name, is the body camera recording the draft was made from, any Draft One disclosure or acknowledgment attached to the report, the agency’s written policy on the tool, and the audit entries showing whether the officer requested a draft for that incident. Under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87 (1963), evidence favorable to the accused that is material has to be disclosed, and a report that conflicts with the recording is the kind of discrepancy that matters.

Florida’s public records law offers a second route in some situations. EFF’s guide to requesting Draft One records is written for the public, and it shows how an agency that uses the disclosure can search for those reports by keyword. Records connected to an active criminal case can be handled differently, so in a pending case discovery is the first tool, and public records requests are a supplement.

What This Means If a Police Report Is in Your Case

If a police report is central to the case against you, three questions come out of this. Was the narrative drafted with AI, and does the report carry a disclosure saying so? What changed between the draft and the report, and can the officer say which details came from their own observation? And where is the recording, the one account of the incident the software did not write? The recording is also the best check on any report, AI or not, and it is usually the first thing a defense lawyer asks for.

The firm’s page on the motion to suppress covers how a report and a recording are compared when the lawfulness of a stop or search is challenged.

Common Questions

Do Florida police use AI to write police reports?

Some agencies do. The Hillsborough County Sheriff’s Office announced Axon Draft One on February 26, 2026, and said it would be used only for non-criminal calls for service at that time. EFF reported that the Palm Beach County Sheriff’s Office uses it with a required disclosure and only for incidents that do not involve a criminal charge. Other agencies may use it with different policies.

How can I tell if my police report was written with AI?

Look for a disclosure at the end of the narrative; some agencies require one. If there is none, the agency’s Draft One policy and the audit entries showing whether the officer requested a draft for that incident can answer the question. The officer can also be asked directly under oath.

Is the AI’s original draft saved?

No. EFF quoted an Axon product manager saying the company does not store the original draft, by design. The finished report, the body camera recording the draft came from, and certain audit entries remain.

Can my lawyer get the police report and the body camera recording?

Florida’s discovery rule defines a statement to include all police and investigative reports prepared for or in connection with the case, and the prosecutor must disclose them. The body camera recording is evidence the defense requests as well, and comparing the two is how errors in a report are found.

Further Reading

1. HCSO Launches AI-Assisted Report Writing Tool, Hillsborough County Sheriff’s Office, release 26-24, February 26, 2026
2. Axon’s Draft One Is Designed to Defy Transparency, Electronic Frontier Foundation, July 2025
3. EFF’s Guide to Getting Records About Axon’s Draft One AI-Generated Police Reports, Electronic Frontier Foundation, July 2025, with the Palm Beach County disclosure
4. Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 3.220, Discovery, The Florida Bar
5. Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), Justia

This post is general information about Florida and federal law, not legal advice, and it does not create an attorney-client relationship. The descriptions of Axon Draft One and of agency policies are as stated by the Hillsborough County Sheriff’s Office in its February 26, 2026 release and by the Electronic Frontier Foundation in its July 2025 reporting; agency policies can change, and the post makes no claim about any particular report. The Texas report is as described by 404 Media. The authorities discussed are Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.220 and Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). Every case turns on its own facts, and past results do not guarantee a similar outcome.