High-risk § 3.6.7

The use cases listed in p oint 6 (and point 1) of Annex III, which are particularly relevant for law enforcement, do not encompass all AI systems used for law enforcement purposes. These use cases primarily address situations where AI systems are applied directly to natural persons or have the capacity to materially influence decision-making. Consequently, many AI applications employed by law enforcement that do not meet these criteria may fall outside the use cases covered by point 6 (and point 1).

Below are some examples of AI systems used by law enforcement authorities that would not generally be classified as high-risk pursuant to Article 6(2) AI Act and point 6 of Annex III⁷⁸. This list is provided for orientation purposes only and is not exhaustive, since there are many other AI systems used in law enforcement beyond those mentioned below.

• AI systems used for automating administrative tasks (e.g., administration and accounting, case management, equipment management, AI systems scheduling patrol shifts). Such AI systems are intended for purely ancillary administrative activities and therefore do not fall within the use cases listed in point 6 of Annex III.
• Chatbots on police websites providing general information, guiding users through the website. Such AI systems are intended for purely ancillary administrative activities and therefore do not fall within the use cases listed in.
• Automated number plate readers seeking to identify concrete vehicles. Such AI systems are not considered as biometrics within the meaning of point 1 and do not involve profiling withing the meaning of point 6 of Annex III, since the technology itself is vehicle-focused, not person-focused. However, how the data is used, stored, and interpreted can, at a later stage, create risks of surveillance overreach or privacy violations (e.g. if enabling the reconstruction of individuals’ travel patterns).
• AI systems checking whether road safety rules are broken (e.g. speeding cars, running red lights, motorbike riders failing to wear a helmet , smartphone use while driving ). Such AI systems do not fall within the use cases listed inin point 6of Annex III, nor do they constitute biometrics within the meaning of point 1 of Annex III.
• AI systems intended for the detection of objects (e.g. weapons, suspicious parcels, dangerous objects, stolen goods including cultural objects and fine art ). Such AI systems do not fall within the use cases listed in point 6 of Annex III, nor do they constitute biometrics within the meaning of point 1 of Annex III.
• AI systems intended for the detection of unusual behaviour or movements, such as running, raised arms, a fighting stance, a physical position that could indicate someone is holding a weapon, etc., real-time or in video feeds (not identifying a person, but whether a process or behaviour is potentially unlawful).
• AI systems detecting gunshot sounds in real time. Such AI systems do not fall within the use cases listed in in point 6 of Annex III, since they function based on the detection of sounds and not people.
• AI systems used by custom authorities to assess consignments (goods crossing the border). Custom authorities checking consignments normally do not classify as law enforcement authorities within the context of point 6 of Annex III. In addition, those systems evaluate the compliance of goods with EU legislation based on verifiable data (e.g. container number, description of goods, routing, transport, payment method), not personal characteristics or behaviour or persons. In certain cases, such AI systems may also process information about the prior involvement of the importer or exporter in irregularities related to the import of goods, their affiliation to criminal organisations, or a criminal record for drug trafficking. Such systems, as noted in the Guidelines on prohibited artificial intelligence practices (para. 214), fall outside thescope of the prohibition in Article 5(1)(d)AI Act because any prediction of the likelihood of a natural person being involved in the import or export of illicit goods is not solely based on profiling, but on objective and verifiable information related to the goods and the importer or exporter’s prior involvement in criminal activity and subject to a human review to determine whether the situation requires a customs control or risk mitigation action.
• AI systems used by customs and/or law enforcement authorities to analysedata related to the movement of goods and transport operations, such as shipping routes, frequency and patterns of consignments, anomalies in declared cargo, transport modalities, etc., to detect misuse of commercial transport systems to transport traffic ked goods. Such AI systems do not fall within the use cases listed in point 6 of Annex III, since they do not seek to predict the likelihood of a natural person committing an offence or to profile a natural person. Rather , they review objective and verifiable data relating to the commercial transportation of goods to determine an anomaly that may require further investigation.