>Whose AI? Trained on what data? The government. Trained on data to maximize accuracy and minimize constitutional violations.

>We've had numerous studies show how AIs can be biased, and a police dept. is going to choose whatever AI "works best for them"

Violating the constitution means that evidence gets thrown out in court and the victims get financially rewarded. It is not in the police's interest to violate people's rights.

>the AI would similarly be given bad or falsified inputs.

And then those cops should be severely punished for intentionally violating people's constitutional rights.

>There is no resolution for violating someone's rights

There is already resolution for having your constitutional rights violated. You sue for damages and to have them stop violating your rights.

>no ability to search without a warrant, which isn't true. If circumstances warrant it

There are other situations where it doesn't warrant it which is what we are talking about here. Refer to TFA.

>Part of the point of having a separate branch of government involved, too

And I'm pointing out that this involvement is not needed by the constitution. Branches of government is an arbitrary degree of separation.