The Washington Post examines how detectives at the Oklahoma City Police Department are using Longeye to cut through overwhelming digital evidence — and the legal questions AI tools are raising in courts nationwide.
The Washington Post published an in-depth look at how law enforcement agencies across the country are beginning to use AI tools like Longeye — and the thorny legal questions those tools raise in courtrooms.
Reporter Katie Mettler profiles Detective Lauren Cunningham of the Oklahoma City Police Department, who initially approached Longeye with skepticism. The 20-plus hours per week she would normally spend monitoring jail calls from murder suspects had been reduced to less than five. A sex crimes investigator used Longeye to translate 10 suspect phone calls, uncovering a confession that turned a child rape case headed for trial into a likely plea agreement.
The story places Longeye in a broader landscape of AI tools being marketed to law enforcement — license plate readers, facial recognition, ballistics analysis — many of which have drawn scrutiny from civil liberties advocates. Longeye’s approach, built on a closed sandbox using only evidence investigators upload, is presented as a deliberate response to those concerns.
CEO and founder Guillaume Delépine tells the Post: “Dirty doesn’t work in the justice system. You have to build a much more deeply thinking machine.”
The article also covers the Oklahoma Department of Corrections, which is using Longeye to sift through the nearly 50 million minutes of prison phone calls it monitors annually, and notes that in 2026 Longeye has streamlined approximately 34 years’ worth of detective work into just a few months — processing 25 million files across 35 law enforcement agencies.