AI Regulation & Ethical Use in Law Enforcement — Pakistan 2025 Guide

A practical framework for policymakers, police IT units, prosecutors, defence lawyers, and citizens on deploying AI (e.g., facial recognition, language models, analytics) with legality, necessity, proportionality and transparency.

Predictive Policing Facial Recognition Digital Evidence Data Protection Human Oversight

Jump to: Legal Baseline • Common Police AI Uses • Risks & Red Flags • Mandatory Safeguards • Procurement & Vendor Controls • AI as Evidence • Citizen Rights • Governance Models • FAQ • Useful Tools

Advertisement

1) Legal baseline (what must guide AI in policing)

• Legality & authorization: Any AI use must have a clear legal basis (statute, rules, or notified SOPs) and be tied to a legitimate policing objective.
• Necessity & proportionality: Techniques should be the least intrusive option to achieve the aim and used for limited, specified purposes.
• Due process: AI cannot replace judicial warrant requirements, fair trial rights, or disclosure duties.
• Data protection principles: purpose limitation, data minimization, accuracy, retention limits, and security controls.
• Non-discrimination: Agencies must prevent disparate impact based on gender, ethnicity, religion, or socioeconomic status.

Tip: Draft a department-wide AI policy and publish public-facing summaries to build legitimacy and clarity.

2) Common AI use-cases in law enforcement

Operational

• Face matching against vetted watchlists with strict thresholds.
• License-plate analytics for stolen or wanted vehicles.
• Gunshot or anomaly detection alerts for dispatch triage.
• Language tools for report drafting and translation under supervision.

Investigative & forensic

• Video triage to prioritize clips; not a substitute for human review.
• Pattern analysis across fraud, cybercrime, or organized crime datasets.
• Open-source intelligence (OSINT) enrichment with audit trails.
• Digital forensics assistance: timeline reconstruction, keyword clustering.

3) Key risks & red flags

• Bias & false positives: Misidentification in low-quality footage; unequal error rates across demographics.
• Function creep: Systems repurposed beyond original scope without new legal basis.
• Opacity: Black-box models that can’t be explained undermine defense rights and judicial scrutiny.
• Over-reliance: Officers treating AI scores as determinative rather than advisory.
• Data leakage: Inadequate vendor security or insecure data sharing across agencies.

Warning: High-risk uses—real-time mass facial surveillance in public spaces, predictive policing that profiles neighborhoods, or bulk data scraping without warrants—require heightened scrutiny or outright prohibition by policy.

4) Mandatory safeguards (checklist)

Control	What to implement	Outcome
Use policy	Public SOPs defining purpose, legal basis, datasets, retention, access roles, and audit frequency.	Clarity, accountability, consistency.
DPIA/HRIA	Data Protection & Human-Rights Impact Assessments before deployment; publish summaries.	Risk identification and mitigation.
Human-in-the-loop	All alerts reviewed by trained officers; no automated adverse decisions.	Prevents automation bias.
Explainability	Record model rationale, features, and limitations; provide case-level explanations to courts.	Supports due process and appeal.
Quality & bias testing	Independent pre-deployment and periodic accuracy/bias tests; publish metrics.	Detects drift and unfairness.
Logging & audits	Tamper-evident logs of queries, matches, overrides; external audits annually.	Traceability and deterrence of misuse.
Retention & deletion	Short retention for non-matches; fixed timelines and secure deletion.	Minimizes privacy harms.
Training & certification	Role-based training, legal refreshers, model limitations, and ethics modules.	Competent, rights-respecting use.

5) Procurement & vendor controls

• Require security-by-design and privacy-by-design in RFPs; insist on local data hosting if mandated by policy.
• Include model documentation (training data sources, accuracy metrics, known limitations, update cadence).
• Negotiate audit rights, source/weights escrow where feasible, and incident notification SLAs.
• Prohibit vendor marketing use of case data; define IP ownership and export restrictions.
• Set sunset clauses and performance thresholds for renewal.

6) Using AI outputs as evidence

• AI outputs are investigative leads; independent corroboration is required.
• Disclose model type, parameters, confidence scores, and error rates when relied upon in court.
• Maintain chain of custody for input data and generated results; preserve versioned models.
• Offer defendants meaningful opportunity to challenge methodology with expert access where ordered by the court.

7) Citizen rights & remedies

• Right to privacy and data protection in surveillance and analytics operations.
• Right to be free from discrimination; challenge biased or unlawful deployments.
• Access to information: seek public SOPs, DPIA summaries, and audit findings.
• Judicial review and complaints to oversight bodies for misuse or unlawful profiling.

For communities: Encourage community briefings and public dashboards that show usage volumes, accuracy rates, and complaint outcomes.

8) Governance models (what good oversight looks like)

Inside the agency

• Chief Data/AI Officer with legal counsel sign-off on deployments.
• Internal Ethics Board including independent members.
• Quarterly KPI reports on accuracy, overrides, complaints, and retention compliance.

External oversight

• Parliamentary or provincial committee reviews and public hearings.
• Independent regulator/ombud with audit and sanction powers.
• Court-issued practice directions on disclosure and admissibility standards.

Advertisement

9) FAQ — quick answers

Is real-time facial recognition allowed everywhere?

High-risk deployments should be strictly limited to clearly defined, lawful purposes with prior authorization, auditing, and public SOPs. Blanket, always-on scanning is poor practice.

Can police rely only on an AI score to arrest?

No. Arrests must meet legal thresholds based on human assessment and admissible evidence, not automated scores alone.

Do vendors have to reveal their models?

Courts and regulators can require documentation sufficient to test reliability and fairness. Contracts should embed audit and disclosure obligations.

What if a person is wrongly flagged?

Agencies should have rapid correction pathways, notice (where it will not prejudice investigations), and logging to support complaints and remedies.

Useful internal tools & guides

Drafts, filings, and fee computations for related matters:

Open Legal Toolkit Court Fee Calculator Stamp Duty Calculator Cybercrime Complaint Assistant Online Consumer Complaint Form

Disclaimer: This guide provides general information for 2025. Agencies should follow the latest statutory rules, court directions, and internal SOPs before deploying any AI system.