← Risk register SOC 33-3021 · reviewed 2026-08-11

Detectives and Criminal Investigators

114,430 US workers · median $93,790/yr · Protective Service

SAFE

The paperwork half of the job — incident narratives, warrant affidavits, records checks, phone-dump and financial-record triage, link analysis — is exactly what AI does well, and agencies are already buying tools for it. But the core of the job is sworn, physical, and adversarial: knocking on doors, interviewing hostile witnesses, working informants, processing scenes, executing arrests, and testifying under cross-examination where a human's credibility and personal accountability are the evidence. Judgment about probable cause and charging recommendations sits with a badge, not a model.

10-year outlook: Headcount holds roughly flat while report-writing and records work compresses hard; detectives who become interviewers, informant handlers, and courtroom witnesses gain leverage, and those whose day is mostly paperwork see their caseloads doubled instead of their jobs cut.

US employment, 2019–2025+8.3%
105,620114,430 workers

Headcount grew steadily across the period.

Median pay $83,170 → $93,790 -9.8% in real terms (nominal +12.8%, less ~25% US inflation over the period)

The job count is not the verdict

This line is counted by the Bureau of Labor Statistics — the one figure on this page that isn't a judgement of ours. Headcount moves on demand, offshoring, demographics and the business cycle, and automation is one term among several, often not the loudest.

So a falling line is not evidence that AI did it, and a rising one is not evidence that it won't. Both happen in this register: some occupations resist automation and shrink anyway, others are highly automatable and keep growing. The marked year is 2020.

BLS projection, 2024–2034

-0.7% 117,900 → 117,100 on the projections basis

Hard to automate, but shrinking anyway

The work resists current AI, yet the BLS projects -0.7% by 2034. Whatever is shrinking this occupation, the evidence does not point to automation — demand, demographics, offshoring and industry decline all shrink jobs that no machine could do.

Different clocks. The score is what current AI could do to this work today. The projection is how many of these jobs will exist in 2034. Everything between the two — how fast employers actually adopt, whether demand grows in the meantime — is why they can point opposite ways without either being wrong.

~7,800 openings a year on average, including replacing people who leave.

One email if this score changes. Watch as many occupations as you like from the same address — no account, and nothing is sent on a schedule, only when a verdict actually moves.

Also known as — 24 job titles this covers

Titles reported by people doing this work, from the US Department of Labor's O*NET survey. If your job title is here, this page is about your work even though the name doesn't match.

SpyAnalystDetectiveAir MarshalCriminalistInvestigatorCrime AnalystSpecial AgentState TrooperCity DetectivePolice OfficerThreat AnalystUndercover CopVice DetectiveVictim LiaisonDefense AnalystNarcotics AgentCriminal AnalystPolice DetectivePolice InspectorSecurity AnalystAccident ExaminerCriminal ProfilerEnforcement Agent

Score — 69/100 resistance

Holding it up: judgment & accountability (17/20). Weakest point: trust premium (12/20).

Five dimensions, 0–20 each, summed. Higher means more protected. The arithmetic is shown so you can check it: 12 + 15 + 13 + 12 + 17 = 69. · Scored 2026-08-11, and re-examined when evidence accumulates rather than on a schedule.

Task resistance 12/20

Mixed — a routine tier and a judgment tier Cellebrite extraction reports, NIBRS-coded incident narratives, subpoenaed bank-record spreadsheets and CDR link charts are already machine-triaged, but nothing yet gets a reluctant witness to change their story on a third doorstep visit or reads a suspect's tell across a table during a Reid-style interview — that split, roughly half desk and half street, is what puts it at 12 rather than 16.

Embodiment 15/20

Hands-on in uncontrolled environments Detectives clear rooms on warrant service, kneel in the blood spatter to photograph and swab before the scene is released, drive surveillance in traffic, and physically take custody of resisting arrestees in whatever weather and neighborhood the call happens in; it stops short of 18 only because a meaningful share of the shift is spent at a desk building the case file.

Liability shield 13/20

Licensed human required and personally liable Peace-officer certification is a statutory prerequisite (POST or state equivalent), your sworn name goes on the warrant affidavit under penalty of perjury, and Section 1983 exposure follows you personally when qualified immunity fails — but the badge is a license to act rather than a professional monopoly on the analytical work, which caps this below the 17-plus range of physicians and attorneys.

Trust premium 12/20

Some relationship component Confidential informants talk to a specific detective, not to a department, and a prosecutor's willingness to file often rests on which investigator brought the case; it lands at 12 rather than 16 because most victims and witnesses meet whoever is assigned to the case number and have no prior relationship at all.

Judgment & accountability 17/20

Exists to be accountable for ambiguous calls You decide on incomplete facts whether probable cause exists, which charge to recommend to the DA, whether to Mirandize now or keep it consensual, and whether to bring in an unstable suspect tonight or hold surveillance — calls that get relitigated at a suppression hearing years later with your name on them and the case dying if you got it wrong.

Confidence: high · reviewed 2026-08-11 · how scoring works

What this job involves — and which parts are yours

The verdict above describes this occupation as a whole. Almost nobody does the typical version of a job — tick what's actually in your week and see how your own mix sits.

AI already does these at usable quality

These still need a person

Active moats on the surviving side: embodiment, liability, judgment

How to future-proof this job

Where to go deeper on what this job runs on: Coursera — active listening and communication skills free to audit · Toastmasters — public speaking practice at local clubs worldwide low · Khan Academy — reading and vocabulary, all levels, free free · Coursera — critical thinking and logic, audit free free to audit · Coursera — active listening and communication skills free to audit · Purdue OWL — the standard reference for professional writing free

All 35 skills ranked by how many jobs they open →

What would move this back up — beyond any one person

The moves above are yours to make. This is the other half: what would have to change in the world for the occupation itself to score higher. None of it is in any one person's gift, but it is where the floor actually comes from. Scores here are not a one-way ratchet. Only two of the five dimensions — task resistance and embodiment — track what machines can do. The other three track law, what buyers will pay for, and who is answerable, and those move in both directions, often in response to the same pressure AI creates. If every lever below landed, this occupation would score around 81/100, still SAFE.

5 specific changes that would raise this score
  • already happening liability shield +4

    Courts and legislatures formalizing that a sworn officer must personally attest, under penalty of perjury, to the factual basis of any AI-drafted warrant affidavit and disclose the tool's involvement — already in motion via King County (WA) prosecutors' 2024 ban on AI-written police reports, Utah SB 180 (2025) requiring disclosure of generative AI in police reports, and California SB 524 (signed 2025) mandating AI-drafted report disclosure plus officer certification of accuracy. If a Brady/Giglio-style disclosure duty attaches to tool use, the sworn signature becomes non-delegable and audit-tracked.

  • already happening judgment accountability +2

    Suppression rulings or consent decrees that treat 'the model flagged it' as failing the independent-judgment requirement for probable cause (the Franks v. Delaware / Aguilar-Spinelli lineage applied to algorithmic tips), forcing a named detective to build and own independent corroboration before charging — as already litigated around facial-recognition-led arrests in Detroit's 2024 ACLU settlement, which requires independent evidence beyond an algorithmic match.

  • plausible task resistance +3

    Task-mix shift: this job genuinely has two tiers. If report narratives, phone-dump triage, records checks and link analysis are absorbed by Axon Draft One-type tools and Cellebrite/Magnet analytics, the residual day is interrogation, informant handling, hostile-witness work, scene judgment and cross-examination prep — the tier no current model performs at usable quality. Watch caseload-per-detective ratios rising without narrative-writing hours.

  • plausible embodiment +2

    Shift of unit composition toward warrant service, undercover and field-contact work as digital-forensics analysis is centralized into civilian analyst units — meaning the remaining sworn investigator role concentrates the physically unpredictable share. Watch agency reorganizations that move digital forensics to non-sworn analysts.

  • plausible trust premium +1

    Limited route: private-sector demand for licensed human investigators where a testifying witness is required — insurance SIU and corporate internal investigations contracting ex-detectives specifically because a deposable human is needed. This is a real but small market and does not move public-agency staffing.

The limit. Headroom is mostly in liability_shield; trust_premium is near its realistic ceiling since the buyer is a government budget, not a client choosing a human, and budget pressure cuts the other way — agencies adopt these tools to close vacancy gaps, so higher per-detective resistance can coexist with fewer detective positions.

These are conditions, not forecasts — what would have to happen, not what will. Specific rules, cases and bills are named so you can go and check whether they exist and where they stand; verify before relying on any of them. Nothing here is legal or financial advice.

Where this work is, and what it pays there

BLS metro figures for 288 areas. The verdict above does not change by city — the rubric judges what the work involves, not where it happens — but pay and headcount do, and the national median hides a very wide range.

Most of these jobs

New York-Newark-Jersey City, NY-NJ 7,580 $106,440 +13%
Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV 4,830 $156,750 +67%
Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim, CA 3,240 $127,890 +36%
Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Roswell, GA 3,070 $69,900 -25%
San Diego-Chula Vista-Carlsbad, CA 2,990 $124,840 +33%
Chicago-Naperville-Elgin, IL-IN 2,290 $102,260 +9%
Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE-MD 2,160 $97,580 +4%
Miami-Fort Lauderdale-West Palm Beach, FL 2,110 $99,080 +6%

Best paid

San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA 280 $158,640 +69%
Brunswick-St. Simons, GA 240 $158,060 +69%
Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV 4,830 $156,750 +67%

Percentages are against this occupation's national median of $93,790. Counts are jobs in that metro, not vacancies. Metros where the BLS suppressed the cell are absent rather than shown as zero.

Who is actually doing this — nobody, on the record

We have no reported case of a named organisation automating this occupation. Not one deployment, not one announcement.

That is worth saying out loud next to a score of 69. The verdict above is about what the work exposes — what current AI could do to these tasks. It is not a claim that anyone has done it. For this occupation those two things have come apart completely: the capability argument is on this page, and the evidence column is empty.

Read that as a gap in the reporting we can see, not proof of absence — the dispatch runs on English-language feeds and misses plenty. If you know of a case, tell us, or add a field report from inside the job.

Quick take — do you do this job?

Has AI actually changed your work? One tap, anonymous, and the running tally is public. Nothing else is asked of you.

Self-reported and unverified — a sentiment signal, not a survey. One response per person per occupation; you can change your answer.

Field reports — what people say has changed

No field reports yet. A written account takes a paragraph rather than a tap, goes to an editor before it appears, and is the one thing on this page the rubric cannot produce on its own.

File a field report

Concrete beats general: a tool that arrived, a task that moved, a headcount decision you watched happen. Don't include anything that identifies you or your employer if that would put you at risk.

Watch this verdict
Kept current

Rather than check back: get the digest and we'll tell you what changed — or watch a single occupation from its own page.