Cleveland Judge Excludes Clearview Facial Recognition Evidence in Murder Case
A Cleveland judge excluded facial recognition evidence obtained by police using Clearview AI's system in a murder case, finding the identification unreliable without corroborating evidence and noting that Clearview's own terms state the results are inadmissible in court. The judge determined that relying solely on the facial recognition match was equivalent to using an anonymous tip and insufficient to establish probable cause for a search warrant.
What happened
Blake Story was shot and robbed on the streets of Cleveland in February 2024. Although police obtained footage of the incident, the perpetrator's face was not clearly visible. Several days later, officers examining real-time CCTV cameras identified footage of a person with similar build, hairstyle, clothing and gait patterns captured six days after the murder at a different location, which was submitted to the Northeast Ohio Regional Fusion Center for analysis using Clearview AI's facial recognition system.
Clearview AI's facial recognition produced eight photos, two of which belonged to Qeyeon Tolbert, who became the main suspect. Police obtained a search warrant for Tolbert's premises based on the facial recognition match and recovered a gun and other evidence. In the search warrant affidavit, detectives did not disclose that facial recognition was used to identify the suspect nor did they include Clearview's disclaimer that its results are not admissible in court.
Reported impact
During a hearing on January 9th, Judge Richard McMonagle ruled that the facial recognition match was comparable to information from an anonymous informant, which alone is insufficient to establish probable cause for a search warrant. The judge determined that the search warrant affidavit was misleading and relied on inadmissible evidence and excluded the facial recognition evidence from the case.
Index analysis
Judge McMonagle cited Clearview AI's own disclaimers regarding the use of its results as legal evidence or grounds for arrest, and noted concerns about transparency in how the technology was employed during the investigation and the absence of corroborating evidence connecting the suspect to the crime scene. The decision highlighted a lack of training for law enforcement in using facial recognition as well as shortcomings in oversight and regulation.
Governance controls
The ruling emphasizes the need for supplementary investigative methods beyond algorithmic identification and establishes parameters around the technology's evidentiary value. The case reflects a broader trend of judicial and legislative bodies working to establish clear standards for the use of biometric evidence in criminal proceedings.
Classification
Sources and evidence
This record was researched and written by the Index, based on the following original reporting.