Police facial recognition identifications made without defendant disclosure
Police departments across the United States have used facial recognition software to identify suspects in hundreds of arrests but routinely failed to disclose this to defendants, preventing them from challenging the technology's accuracy. Randal Reid was wrongfully arrested in Georgia based on a Clearview AI facial recognition match to a Louisiana theft suspect and settled with Jefferson Parish Sheriff's Office for $200,000 after spending six days in jail.
What happened
Randal 'Quran' Reid was arrested outside Atlanta, Georgia on the day after Thanksgiving in 2022 after Jefferson Parish Sheriff's Office Detective Andrew Bartholomew used Clearview AI facial recognition software to identify Reid as a suspect in a purse theft from a Metairie, Louisiana consignment shop. The arrest affidavit submitted by Bartholomew did not disclose that the identification had been generated through facial recognition, instead citing 'a credible source.' Reid was held in jail for six days before both warrants against him were rescinded after his attorney pointed out physical differences between Reid and the suspect in surveillance video, and phone records showed Reid had been in Georgia at the time of the alleged crime.
A Washington Post investigation found that hundreds of Americans have been arrested after being connected to crimes by facial recognition software, but police departments routinely failed to inform defendants about the use of the technology. Police departments in 15 states documented their use of facial recognition in more than 1,000 criminal investigations over the past four years, with officers often obscuring their reliance on the software in public-facing reports by stating they identified suspects 'through investigative means' or citing human sources. The Coral Springs Police Department in South Florida instructed officers not to reveal the use of facial recognition in written reports, with internal messages stating 'Please do not document this investigative lead.'
Reported impact
Randal Reid was wrongly jailed for six days due to the facial recognition misidentification and subsequently awarded a $200,000 settlement by Jefferson Parish Sheriff's Office. The case has drawn national scrutiny over the dangers of relying on biometric surveillance in law enforcement operations without sufficient oversight, training, or verification procedures.
The Washington Post investigation documented cases in which suspects were not informed of facial recognition use, denying them the opportunity to contest the results of a technology prone to error, particularly when identifying people of color.
Index analysis
The facial recognition match provided by Clearview AI to Detective Bartholomew was the sole basis for identifying Reid as a suspect, yet no supporting evidence was developed to corroborate the identification and investigators failed to conduct basic verification steps such as checking Reid's location at the time of the crime. A Baton Rouge detective then borrowed Bartholomew's identification of Reid to secure another warrant for a similar theft without independent verification.
Police departments documented their use of facial recognition in more than 1,000 criminal investigations over the past four years but routinely obscured the source of their identifications in arrest reports, describing automated matches as identifications made through 'investigative databases' or 'investigative means' rather than disclosing the use of facial recognition software.
Governance controls
Jefferson Parish Sheriff's Office had awarded Clearview AI a $25,000 contract in 2019 but did not implement procedures requiring officers to disclose facial recognition use in arrest affidavits or to conduct verification steps before seeking warrants based on such identifications.
The Coral Springs Police Department instructed officers not to document the use of facial recognition in written reports, stating that investigative techniques are exempt from Florida's public disclosure laws, with the department saying it would disclose the source only if asked in a criminal proceeding.
Classification
Sources and evidence
This record was researched and written by the Index, based on the following original reporting.