Michigan City reviews updated police manual emphasizing duty-to-intervene, AI limits and video-retention rules

At a March 9 workshop, the Michigan City Board of Public Works and Safety reviewed a proposed overhaul of the Michigan City Police Department’s policy manual that the department said was prepared with vendor Lexipol and covers use-of-force, training, artificial-intelligence guidance, and body-camera procedures.

The department’s presenter said the full manual — roughly 800 pages — consolidates state-mandated model policies and local procedures and will make policies easier for officers to find and for the department to update as case law changes. “We haven't done this since 2018,” the presenting chief said, describing the work with Lexipol over the last year and a half.

Why it matters: the manual sets operational rules for patrol officers and supervisors and frames how the department documents and reviews serious incidents. Board members focused on several provisions that have immediate legal and operational implications: a spelled-out duty to intervene when an officer observes objectively unreasonable force, documentary requirements when a conducted-energy device (taser) is used, body-camera activation and retention rules, and a new policy governing the use of generative AI in reports and summaries.

Use-of-force and duty to intervene The presenters said the manual primarily re-numbers and reorganizes existing policies but does include substantive clarifications. One notable addition is a duty-to-intervene clause that requires any officer present and in a position to act to step in to prevent objectively unreasonable force. The department also described a standing use-of-force review process: a board of commanders and defensive-tactics instructors meets at least monthly to review incidents and to recommend further review when warranted.

Board members asked whether the review board should include a civilian member or a role for the police civil service commission when disciplinary matters arise. Presenters described the review board as an internal body composed of instructors and commanders but acknowledged there are models in other jurisdictions that use outside civilian participation for transparency.

Tasers, cameras and data retention The manual requires photographing probe-contact points when a taser is used to effectuate an arrest; that documentation may occur in a controlled environment such as during booking, the presenters said. The department also described technical safeguards for body cameras: recent devices can be geo-fenced to begin recording automatically when officers arrive within a specified radius of a dispatched call, though presenters acknowledged technological failures can occur.

On retention, presenters said state rules set a baseline retention period of 190 days for general law-enforcement recordings; Michigan City currently configures general recordings to be held about 200 days, with longer retention for felony cases, pending criminal actions or when a member of the public requests preservation. Presenters also noted the department keeps physical copies (discs) of critical-incident footage as an additional preservation step.

AI guidance and report writing The department presented a new policy on generative AI that treats AI-produced summaries as drafts. The manual would require officers to review and edit AI-generated content before incorporating it into official reports; presenters said vendor demonstrations include technical blocks that prevent direct copy/paste of an AI summary until the user has edited the text by a configurable percentage. “AI-generated content shall be treated as a draft,” the presenter said.

Training, implementation and costs Presenters described Lexipol’s searchable policy and procedure platform, daily training bulletins and a process that requires officers to scroll and acknowledge each policy online. The department said the initial contract had higher upfront costs and lower ongoing fees, and that the budget will cover the expense; exact figures were not provided at the workshop and staff said they would supply cost details in a later meeting.

What’s next Board members and staff said they would return the manual to the board for final approval after edits and clarification. Presenters said they will highlight priority policies for expedited review and provide cost information and tracked changes for subsequent sessions.

Attribution and transcript notes This article relies on remarks presented at the March 9 workshop and on exchanges between the presenting chief and board members. The workshop transcript uses a single speaker label for multiple voices; when a specific speaker name was not provided in the transcript this story attributes remarks to the presenting chief or generically to board members. Known, explicitly named participants appearing in the transcript include Lieutenant Steve Westwall, Chief Cooney, Candace and Scott.

The workshop adjourned after scheduling follow-up sessions to complete the manual review and return to the board for formal approval.