With a comprehensive reform of the Police Act, Saxony is setting new standards for the use of digital technologies in police work. Following intensive political negotiations, the Saxon State Parliament passed the amendment by a narrow majority. The new regulations establish the legal framework for the use of artificial intelligence in video surveillance, biometric identification procedures and other digital investigative tools. At the same time, the law has reignited a fundamental debate on the tension between public safety and the protection of civil liberties.

Digitalisation of police work

The reform significantly expands the technical capabilities of law enforcement agencies. In future, the police will be permitted to use AI-supported systems to analyse video footage in areas with high crime rates. The technology is designed to track individuals across multiple cameras, detect conspicuous behaviour patterns and identify potentially dangerous objects. Furthermore, the law permits the use of real-time remote biometric identification for the first time.

The police are also being granted additional powers in the field of digital investigations. Investigators will be permitted to cross-reference biometric features, such as faces or voices, against publicly accessible data sources on the internet. Furthermore, the amendment creates the legal framework for source telecommunications surveillance using so-called ‘state Trojans’, enabling the analysis of encrypted communications under certain legal conditions.

In addition, Saxony is expanding the powers for the use of automated number plate recognition to search for stolen vehicles, as well as measures to counter unmanned aerial vehicles.

Court rulings increased the time pressure

The amendment to the law did not arise solely from security policy considerations. The background was a ruling by the Saxon Constitutional Court, which in early 2025 declared parts of the previous Police Act to be unconstitutional and demanded new legislation by the end of June 2026. Without a timely amendment, key police powers would have lapsed.

According to the state government, the new law is intended to comply with constitutional requirements whilst also addressing the challenges of modern crime-fighting. Representatives of the governing parties point in particular to the ever-increasing volumes of data, which could hardly be analysed efficiently without automated analysis methods.

Political compromise

Parliamentary approval was only secured following extensive negotiations. The minority government, comprising the CDU and SPD, was reliant on the votes of the Sahra Wagenknecht Alliance (BSW). In the course of the talks, individual provisions were amended.

For instance, the coalition abandoned the originally discussed use of the analysis platform developed by the US company Palantir. The use of Tasers was also restricted to special units. However, the law’s fundamental focus on greater digitalisation of police investigative work remained unchanged.

Criticism of surveillance and infringements of fundamental rights

Whilst supporters view the law as a necessary modernisation of the security framework, critics see significant risks to data protection and civil liberties.

Opposition parties and civil rights organisations warn against the increasing automation of state surveillance. The use of biometric identification methods and AI-supported decision-making processes, in particular, has come under fire. Sceptics fear that algorithmic assessments could influence police actions in future without their functioning being sufficiently transparent.

The Chaos Computer Club has also expressed considerable reservations about the expansion of digital surveillance tools, pointing to potential risks of abuse. From the critics’ perspective, it also remains to be seen whether alternative analysis systems can actually dispel the constitutional concerns raised by the software originally under discussion.

Signal effect beyond Saxony

With this reform, Saxony joins the ranks of those federal states that have enshrined the use of artificial intelligence in police work particularly extensively in law. The new legislation is therefore likely to be closely monitored nationwide. Given similar discussions in other federal states, the law could serve as a benchmark for further modernisation projects – as well as for future constitutional debates on the limits of digital security powers.

One thing is certain: digitalisation is fundamentally changing police work. Whether the expanded use of technology will actually lead to greater security without jeopardising the balance between effective threat prevention and the protection of fundamental rights will become clear as the new powers are put into practice.