AI facial recognition could sink this murder investigation

A murder case in Cleveland, Ohio, could collapse because the city’s police relied on AI-based facial recognition software to obtain a search warrant.

This despite a specific warning from the provider of that artificial intelligence – our old friends Clearview AI – that results from its facial recognition search software should not be “used as admissible evidence in a court of law or any court filing.”

Nor should it be used for the sole basis for an arrest because it may not be accurate, according to the developer.

As reported by The Cleveland Plain Dealer and associated website Cleveland.com, police investigating the killing of Blake Story on February 14, 2024, obtained video surveillance that captured the victim being shot by an unidentified person.

The killer’s face isn’t visible in the February 14 footage, so Clearview couldn’t identify them.

Undeterred, the cops used Clearview’s facial recognition to identify a person in separate video surveillance captured days later on February 20, 2024. The US city’s police themselves figured that person, on the basis of his clothing and the way he walked, may be the shooter in the February 14 footage, and obtained a search warrant against the computer-identified man.

The search warrant, executed at the home of the suspect’s girlfriend, resulted in the police saying they found a gun, one officers believe is the murder weapon. Other evidence, including clothing and statements, were obtained.

But on January 9, 2025, the judge presiding over the case in Cuyahoga County, Ohio, granted the defense’s motion to exclude the evidence for failing to adequately disclose investigation details to the court, such as the use of Clearview AI’s facial recognition.

In his motion to suppress, defense attorney Brian M. Fallon cited a police statement that noted officers asked the Northeast Ohio Regional Fusion Center, an interagency law enforcement intelligence group, to identify someone in the February 20 surveillance video so that his address could be obtained, and the center produced a report doing just that: Identifying the person in the supplied footage albeit not the footage of the actual murder.

Not only that but Fallon’s filing says the identification was achieved using AI with warning labels all over it: “The report from the Fusion center is from Clearview AI, an artificial intelligence facial recognition software company. This company has such faith in its software that it prints the following on every page of its report…” That paragraph being:

The motion goes on to cite a more extensive disclaimer on Clearview AI’s website, which includes: “Clearview makes no guarantees as to the accuracy of its search-identification software.”

In a phone call with The Register, Fallon pointed to the company’s disclaimer and its specific prohibition on using the results of its software as evidence in court of law.

“That kind of says it all,” he said, adding that the wording of the police affidavit fails to make clear that the video from which the suspect was identified was captured six days after the video that captured the murder and doesn’t establish that the defendant identified by Clearview’s software in the latter video appeared in the recording of the killing.

The police affidavit links the defendant identified by Clearview AI in the February 20 video to the unidentified suspect in the February 14 video of the killing by noting the defendant has “the same build, hair style, clothing, and walking characteristics as observed on the suspect on February 14, 2024.”

The Cleveland Police Department didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment. According to The Cleveland Plain Dealer, a country prosecutor argued during the motion hearing that police did not base their case solely on AI.

• American cops are using AI to draft police reports, and the ACLU isn’t happy
• US police have run nearly 1M Clearview AI searches, says founder
• Cops love facial recognition, and withholding info on its use from the courts
• Here we go again with more AI crime prediction for policing

The real issue, Fallon said, is that the prosecutor is obligated to disclose relevant details, such as the use of AI, to the judge.

As for the artificial intelligence technology itself, Fallon said he asked for a Daubert hearing, in reference to the US Supreme Court case that allows the admissibility of testimony to be challenged by an expert. The homicide unit, he said, doesn’t understand the tech and isn’t trained on it. And there are no rules on the use of the AI facial recognition in Ohio yet, he said.

That tells me, he said, that Clearview doesn’t want to come defend its technology in court.

New York-based Clearview did not respond to a request for comment. In June, 2024, the biz struck a deal to resolve a class action privacy complaint over allegations of unauthorized image scraping.

As we noted last October, police use facial recognition technology often isn’t disclosed.

The defense’s successful motion to exclude evidence has been appealed, and the prosecutors have acknowledged their case is at risk if that ruling is not reversed.

The police arrested the wrong man and now do not want to come to court to admit it

The defendant, Qeyeon Tolbert, 23, who denies wrongdoing, filed his own motion to dismiss on January 14, 2025, in light of continuances granted at the request of the prosecution that have prevented the case from being dismissed.

“The defendant’s DNA was not found on the scene or on the victim which is hard to fathom when it was supposed to have been a robbery,” reads that motion.

“There are no witnesses that say the defendant was the person who did it or seen the defendant. There was not any gun shot residue on the defendant or any of the items taken as evidence. There was shoes taken that did not belong to the defendant and can not fit the defendant for the purpose of evidence for an undetermined reason. The phone that the defendant had was not pinged in the area of the crime and even the victim’s family have stated to have never seen the defendant proving they were not known to each other.

“There are no identifying marks on video footage that can be linked to the defendant and there were none of the victim’s belongings found in the defendant’s home. All this goes to the proof that the police arrested the wrong man and now do not want to come to court to admit it.” ®

A murder case in Cleveland, Ohio, could collapse because the city’s police relied on AI-based facial recognition software to obtain a search warrant.

This despite a specific warning from the provider of that artificial intelligence – our old friends Clearview AI – that results from its facial recognition search software should not be “used as admissible evidence in a court of law or any court filing.”

Nor should it be used for the sole basis for an arrest because it may not be accurate, according to the developer.

As reported by The Cleveland Plain Dealer and associated website Cleveland.com, police investigating the killing of Blake Story on February 14, 2024, obtained video surveillance that captured the victim being shot by an unidentified person.

The killer’s face isn’t visible in the February 14 footage, so Clearview couldn’t identify them.

Undeterred, the cops used Clearview’s facial recognition to identify a person in separate video surveillance captured days later on February 20, 2024. The US city’s police themselves figured that person, on the basis of his clothing and the way he walked, may be the shooter in the February 14 footage, and obtained a search warrant against the computer-identified man.

The search warrant, executed at the home of the suspect’s girlfriend, resulted in the police saying they found a gun, one officers believe is the murder weapon. Other evidence, including clothing and statements, were obtained.

But on January 9, 2025, the judge presiding over the case in Cuyahoga County, Ohio, granted the defense’s motion to exclude the evidence for failing to adequately disclose investigation details to the court, such as the use of Clearview AI’s facial recognition.

In his motion to suppress, defense attorney Brian M. Fallon cited a police statement that noted officers asked the Northeast Ohio Regional Fusion Center, an interagency law enforcement intelligence group, to identify someone in the February 20 surveillance video so that his address could be obtained, and the center produced a report doing just that: Identifying the person in the supplied footage albeit not the footage of the actual murder.

Not only that but Fallon’s filing says the identification was achieved using AI with warning labels all over it: “The report from the Fusion center is from Clearview AI, an artificial intelligence facial recognition software company. This company has such faith in its software that it prints the following on every page of its report…” That paragraph being:

The motion goes on to cite a more extensive disclaimer on Clearview AI’s website, which includes: “Clearview makes no guarantees as to the accuracy of its search-identification software.”

In a phone call with The Register, Fallon pointed to the company’s disclaimer and its specific prohibition on using the results of its software as evidence in court of law.

“That kind of says it all,” he said, adding that the wording of the police affidavit fails to make clear that the video from which the suspect was identified was captured six days after the video that captured the murder and doesn’t establish that the defendant identified by Clearview’s software in the latter video appeared in the recording of the killing.

The police affidavit links the defendant identified by Clearview AI in the February 20 video to the unidentified suspect in the February 14 video of the killing by noting the defendant has “the same build, hair style, clothing, and walking characteristics as observed on the suspect on February 14, 2024.”

The Cleveland Police Department didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment. According to The Cleveland Plain Dealer, a country prosecutor argued during the motion hearing that police did not base their case solely on AI.

• American cops are using AI to draft police reports, and the ACLU isn’t happy
• US police have run nearly 1M Clearview AI searches, says founder
• Cops love facial recognition, and withholding info on its use from the courts
• Here we go again with more AI crime prediction for policing

The real issue, Fallon said, is that the prosecutor is obligated to disclose relevant details, such as the use of AI, to the judge.

As for the artificial intelligence technology itself, Fallon said he asked for a Daubert hearing, in reference to the US Supreme Court case that allows the admissibility of testimony to be challenged by an expert. The homicide unit, he said, doesn’t understand the tech and isn’t trained on it. And there are no rules on the use of the AI facial recognition in Ohio yet, he said.

That tells me, he said, that Clearview doesn’t want to come defend its technology in court.

New York-based Clearview did not respond to a request for comment. In June, 2024, the biz struck a deal to resolve a class action privacy complaint over allegations of unauthorized image scraping.

As we noted last October, police use facial recognition technology often isn’t disclosed.

The defense’s successful motion to exclude evidence has been appealed, and the prosecutors have acknowledged their case is at risk if that ruling is not reversed.

The police arrested the wrong man and now do not want to come to court to admit it

The defendant, Qeyeon Tolbert, 23, who denies wrongdoing, filed his own motion to dismiss on January 14, 2025, in light of continuances granted at the request of the prosecution that have prevented the case from being dismissed.

“The defendant’s DNA was not found on the scene or on the victim which is hard to fathom when it was supposed to have been a robbery,” reads that motion.

“There are no witnesses that say the defendant was the person who did it or seen the defendant. There was not any gun shot residue on the defendant or any of the items taken as evidence. There was shoes taken that did not belong to the defendant and can not fit the defendant for the purpose of evidence for an undetermined reason. The phone that the defendant had was not pinged in the area of the crime and even the victim’s family have stated to have never seen the defendant proving they were not known to each other.

“There are no identifying marks on video footage that can be linked to the defendant and there were none of the victim’s belongings found in the defendant’s home. All this goes to the proof that the police arrested the wrong man and now do not want to come to court to admit it.” ®

A murder case in Cleveland, Ohio, could collapse because the city’s police relied on AI-based facial recognition software to obtain a search warrant.

This despite a specific warning from the provider of that artificial intelligence – our old friends Clearview AI – that results from its facial recognition search software should not be “used as admissible evidence in a court of law or any court filing.”

Nor should it be used for the sole basis for an arrest because it may not be accurate, according to the developer.

As reported by The Cleveland Plain Dealer and associated website Cleveland.com, police investigating the killing of Blake Story on February 14, 2024, obtained video surveillance that captured the victim being shot by an unidentified person.

The killer’s face isn’t visible in the February 14 footage, so Clearview couldn’t identify them.

Undeterred, the cops used Clearview’s facial recognition to identify a person in separate video surveillance captured days later on February 20, 2024. The US city’s police themselves figured that person, on the basis of his clothing and the way he walked, may be the shooter in the February 14 footage, and obtained a search warrant against the computer-identified man.

The search warrant, executed at the home of the suspect’s girlfriend, resulted in the police saying they found a gun, one officers believe is the murder weapon. Other evidence, including clothing and statements, were obtained.

But on January 9, 2025, the judge presiding over the case in Cuyahoga County, Ohio, granted the defense’s motion to exclude the evidence for failing to adequately disclose investigation details to the court, such as the use of Clearview AI’s facial recognition.

In his motion to suppress, defense attorney Brian M. Fallon cited a police statement that noted officers asked the Northeast Ohio Regional Fusion Center, an interagency law enforcement intelligence group, to identify someone in the February 20 surveillance video so that his address could be obtained, and the center produced a report doing just that: Identifying the person in the supplied footage albeit not the footage of the actual murder.

Not only that but Fallon’s filing says the identification was achieved using AI with warning labels all over it: “The report from the Fusion center is from Clearview AI, an artificial intelligence facial recognition software company. This company has such faith in its software that it prints the following on every page of its report…” That paragraph being:

The motion goes on to cite a more extensive disclaimer on Clearview AI’s website, which includes: “Clearview makes no guarantees as to the accuracy of its search-identification software.”

In a phone call with The Register, Fallon pointed to the company’s disclaimer and its specific prohibition on using the results of its software as evidence in court of law.

“That kind of says it all,” he said, adding that the wording of the police affidavit fails to make clear that the video from which the suspect was identified was captured six days after the video that captured the murder and doesn’t establish that the defendant identified by Clearview’s software in the latter video appeared in the recording of the killing.

The police affidavit links the defendant identified by Clearview AI in the February 20 video to the unidentified suspect in the February 14 video of the killing by noting the defendant has “the same build, hair style, clothing, and walking characteristics as observed on the suspect on February 14, 2024.”

The Cleveland Police Department didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment. According to The Cleveland Plain Dealer, a country prosecutor argued during the motion hearing that police did not base their case solely on AI.

• American cops are using AI to draft police reports, and the ACLU isn’t happy
• US police have run nearly 1M Clearview AI searches, says founder
• Cops love facial recognition, and withholding info on its use from the courts
• Here we go again with more AI crime prediction for policing

The real issue, Fallon said, is that the prosecutor is obligated to disclose relevant details, such as the use of AI, to the judge.

As for the artificial intelligence technology itself, Fallon said he asked for a Daubert hearing, in reference to the US Supreme Court case that allows the admissibility of testimony to be challenged by an expert. The homicide unit, he said, doesn’t understand the tech and isn’t trained on it. And there are no rules on the use of the AI facial recognition in Ohio yet, he said.

That tells me, he said, that Clearview doesn’t want to come defend its technology in court.

New York-based Clearview did not respond to a request for comment. In June, 2024, the biz struck a deal to resolve a class action privacy complaint over allegations of unauthorized image scraping.

As we noted last October, police use facial recognition technology often isn’t disclosed.

The defense’s successful motion to exclude evidence has been appealed, and the prosecutors have acknowledged their case is at risk if that ruling is not reversed.

The police arrested the wrong man and now do not want to come to court to admit it

The defendant, Qeyeon Tolbert, 23, who denies wrongdoing, filed his own motion to dismiss on January 14, 2025, in light of continuances granted at the request of the prosecution that have prevented the case from being dismissed.

“The defendant’s DNA was not found on the scene or on the victim which is hard to fathom when it was supposed to have been a robbery,” reads that motion.

“There are no witnesses that say the defendant was the person who did it or seen the defendant. There was not any gun shot residue on the defendant or any of the items taken as evidence. There was shoes taken that did not belong to the defendant and can not fit the defendant for the purpose of evidence for an undetermined reason. The phone that the defendant had was not pinged in the area of the crime and even the victim’s family have stated to have never seen the defendant proving they were not known to each other.

“There are no identifying marks on video footage that can be linked to the defendant and there were none of the victim’s belongings found in the defendant’s home. All this goes to the proof that the police arrested the wrong man and now do not want to come to court to admit it.” ®

A murder case in Cleveland, Ohio, could collapse because the city’s police relied on AI-based facial recognition software to obtain a search warrant.

This despite a specific warning from the provider of that artificial intelligence – our old friends Clearview AI – that results from its facial recognition search software should not be “used as admissible evidence in a court of law or any court filing.”

Nor should it be used for the sole basis for an arrest because it may not be accurate, according to the developer.

As reported by The Cleveland Plain Dealer and associated website Cleveland.com, police investigating the killing of Blake Story on February 14, 2024, obtained video surveillance that captured the victim being shot by an unidentified person.

The killer’s face isn’t visible in the February 14 footage, so Clearview couldn’t identify them.

Undeterred, the cops used Clearview’s facial recognition to identify a person in separate video surveillance captured days later on February 20, 2024. The US city’s police themselves figured that person, on the basis of his clothing and the way he walked, may be the shooter in the February 14 footage, and obtained a search warrant against the computer-identified man.

The search warrant, executed at the home of the suspect’s girlfriend, resulted in the police saying they found a gun, one officers believe is the murder weapon. Other evidence, including clothing and statements, were obtained.

But on January 9, 2025, the judge presiding over the case in Cuyahoga County, Ohio, granted the defense’s motion to exclude the evidence for failing to adequately disclose investigation details to the court, such as the use of Clearview AI’s facial recognition.

In his motion to suppress, defense attorney Brian M. Fallon cited a police statement that noted officers asked the Northeast Ohio Regional Fusion Center, an interagency law enforcement intelligence group, to identify someone in the February 20 surveillance video so that his address could be obtained, and the center produced a report doing just that: Identifying the person in the supplied footage albeit not the footage of the actual murder.

Not only that but Fallon’s filing says the identification was achieved using AI with warning labels all over it: “The report from the Fusion center is from Clearview AI, an artificial intelligence facial recognition software company. This company has such faith in its software that it prints the following on every page of its report…” That paragraph being:

The motion goes on to cite a more extensive disclaimer on Clearview AI’s website, which includes: “Clearview makes no guarantees as to the accuracy of its search-identification software.”

In a phone call with The Register, Fallon pointed to the company’s disclaimer and its specific prohibition on using the results of its software as evidence in court of law.

“That kind of says it all,” he said, adding that the wording of the police affidavit fails to make clear that the video from which the suspect was identified was captured six days after the video that captured the murder and doesn’t establish that the defendant identified by Clearview’s software in the latter video appeared in the recording of the killing.

The police affidavit links the defendant identified by Clearview AI in the February 20 video to the unidentified suspect in the February 14 video of the killing by noting the defendant has “the same build, hair style, clothing, and walking characteristics as observed on the suspect on February 14, 2024.”

The Cleveland Police Department didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment. According to The Cleveland Plain Dealer, a country prosecutor argued during the motion hearing that police did not base their case solely on AI.

• American cops are using AI to draft police reports, and the ACLU isn’t happy
• US police have run nearly 1M Clearview AI searches, says founder
• Cops love facial recognition, and withholding info on its use from the courts
• Here we go again with more AI crime prediction for policing

The real issue, Fallon said, is that the prosecutor is obligated to disclose relevant details, such as the use of AI, to the judge.

As for the artificial intelligence technology itself, Fallon said he asked for a Daubert hearing, in reference to the US Supreme Court case that allows the admissibility of testimony to be challenged by an expert. The homicide unit, he said, doesn’t understand the tech and isn’t trained on it. And there are no rules on the use of the AI facial recognition in Ohio yet, he said.

That tells me, he said, that Clearview doesn’t want to come defend its technology in court.

New York-based Clearview did not respond to a request for comment. In June, 2024, the biz struck a deal to resolve a class action privacy complaint over allegations of unauthorized image scraping.

As we noted last October, police use facial recognition technology often isn’t disclosed.

The defense’s successful motion to exclude evidence has been appealed, and the prosecutors have acknowledged their case is at risk if that ruling is not reversed.

The police arrested the wrong man and now do not want to come to court to admit it

The defendant, Qeyeon Tolbert, 23, who denies wrongdoing, filed his own motion to dismiss on January 14, 2025, in light of continuances granted at the request of the prosecution that have prevented the case from being dismissed.

“The defendant’s DNA was not found on the scene or on the victim which is hard to fathom when it was supposed to have been a robbery,” reads that motion.

“There are no witnesses that say the defendant was the person who did it or seen the defendant. There was not any gun shot residue on the defendant or any of the items taken as evidence. There was shoes taken that did not belong to the defendant and can not fit the defendant for the purpose of evidence for an undetermined reason. The phone that the defendant had was not pinged in the area of the crime and even the victim’s family have stated to have never seen the defendant proving they were not known to each other.

“There are no identifying marks on video footage that can be linked to the defendant and there were none of the victim’s belongings found in the defendant’s home. All this goes to the proof that the police arrested the wrong man and now do not want to come to court to admit it.” ®