Reports that survive cross-examination

Prosecutors have grown wary of machine-drafted reports. King County's prosecuting attorney instructed police chiefs not to submit AI-assisted narratives at all, citing error and perjury concerns.^[1],[2] States now legislate the question: Utah requires disclosure when AI drafts a report, and California requires it from January 2026.^[3],[4] A Dewie report never raises the question — the app contains zero generative AI, so there is no drafting tool to disclose, no model to explain on the stand, and no doubt about who wrote the words.

Cross-examination of a DUI arrest usually attacks the procedure: were the instructions given verbatim, were the clues counted correctly, was each step done in order? Dewie walks the officer through each SFST, ARIDE, and DRE step with the NHTSA instructions built in and captures observations as they happen — clue by clue, with diagrams — rather than as a narrative reconstructed hours later at the station.

Submitted reports cannot be edited or deleted — by the officer, the department, or Dewie itself. The restriction is enforced in the database, not just the interface: no update or delete path exists. What was documented at the roadside is exactly what appears in discovery and at trial.

Every report renders to the same clean layout regardless of which officer wrote it: the SFST core, the ARIDE supplement with the officer's own diagram markings, or the full 12-step DRE evaluation. Advocacy groups warn that AI-generated reports create accuracy and accountability risks for prosecutions^[5] — a structured, officer-authored record avoids that entire category of challenge.