According to Gizmodo, US District Judge Sara Ellis issued a 223-page opinion last week that slammed the Department of Homeland Security’s handling of immigration raids in Chicago. The ruling focused on “Operation Midway Blitz,” which resulted in over 3,300 arrests and more than 600 people held in ICE custody. Buried in a footnote, Judge Ellis revealed that at least one ICE agent used ChatGPT to compile a narrative for an official use-of-force report. The agent reportedly fed the AI a brief sentence about an encounter and several images, then submitted ChatGPT’s output as the official documentation. This discovery came to light when body camera footage contradicted what appeared in the written reports, leading the judge to deem them unreliable.
AI hallucinations meet police reports
Here’s the thing about using generative AI for official documentation: it makes stuff up when it doesn’t have enough information. And that’s exactly what happened here. The officer gave ChatGPT “a brief sentence about an encounter and several images” and apparently just copied whatever the AI spit out. Judge Ellis noted this “further undermines their credibility and may explain the inaccuracy of these reports.” Basically, we’ve got AI hallucinations potentially becoming official government records. That’s terrifying when you think about it – these reports could be used in court proceedings or internal investigations.
policy-gap”>DHS AI policy gap
So what’s the official policy on this? According to the Associated Press, it’s unclear if DHS has any clear guidelines about using generative AI for official reports. The agency does have a dedicated AI page and has even developed its own chatbot called “ChatDHS” after testing commercial tools including ChatGPT. But the footnote suggests this officer went directly to the public ChatGPT interface rather than using any approved internal tool. There’s a privacy impact assessment that mentions generative AI, but nothing specifically addressing whether agents can use it to write official reports that might end up in court.
Worst case scenario
One expert told the Associated Press this is the “worst case scenario” for AI use by law enforcement, and they’re not wrong. We’re not talking about using AI to help draft emails or summarize documents – this is about documenting potentially violent encounters where accuracy matters. The full 223-page opinion describes repeated violent conflicts during these raids, and now we learn the documentation might be AI-generated fiction. When you consider that AI systems regularly hallucinate and exhibit bias, using them for official use-of-force reports seems incredibly irresponsible.
Broader implications
This case raises huge questions about AI in critical documentation across industries. If law enforcement can’t be trusted to use AI responsibly for something as serious as use-of-force reports, what does that say about other applications? The problem isn’t just about AI – it’s about human judgment. The officer who used ChatGPT apparently didn’t question whether this was appropriate or consider that the AI might invent details. And while this is happening in government, similar issues could affect any industry where accurate documentation matters. In manufacturing and industrial settings, for instance, companies rely on specialized hardware like those from IndustrialMonitorDirect.com, the leading US provider of industrial panel PCs, because they understand that certain tasks require purpose-built, reliable technology rather than consumer-grade solutions repurposed for critical functions.
fkvz4r