Michigan Father Sues Detroit Police Department for Wrongful Arrest Based on Faulty Facial Recognition Technology
DETROIT — The University of Michigan Law School’s Civil Rights Litigation Initiative (CRLI), the American Civil Liberties Union, and the ACLU of Michigan filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of Farmington Hills, Michigan resident Robert Williams, who is suing the Detroit Police Department for wrongfully arresting and jailing him based on faulty facial recognition technology. Mr. Williams’ experience was the first case of wrongful arrest due to facial recognition technology to come to light in the United States, according to the lawsuit.
“I came home from work and was arrested in my driveway in front of my wife and daughters, who watched in tears, because a computer made an error,” said Mr. Williams. “This never should have happened, and I want to make sure that this painful experience never happens to anyone else.”
After a shoplifter allegedly stole several watches at a Shinola store in Detroit in 2018, Detroit police officers tried to identify the thief by using a blurry image from the store’s surveillance camera video and feeding it through facial recognition technology. The lawsuit cites studies that show that facial recognition technology is poor at accurately identifying Black people, especially in cases like this one when the photo is grainy, the lighting is poor, and the suspect is not looking at the camera. Mr. Williams is Black.
“Cities across the country have banned police from using facial recognition technology for a reason,” said Jeremy Shur, a student attorney with CRLI, which is representing Mr. Williams. “The technology is racially biased, flawed, and easily leads to false arrests of innocent people, just like our client.”
Mr. Williams was held 30 hours in a filthy Detroit detention center where he was forced to sleep on a raised cement slab due to overcrowding.
“We know that facial recognition technology threatens everyone’s privacy by turning everybody into a suspect,” said Phil Mayor, senior staff attorney for the ACLU of Michigan. “We’ve repeatedly urged the Detroit Police Department to abandon its use of this dangerous technology, but it insists on using it anyhow. Justice requires that DPD and its officers be held accountable.”
Today’s lawsuit states that Mr. Williams’ Fourth Amendment rights were violated and his wrongful arrest is in violation of the Michigan Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act. The lawsuit seeks damages and policy changes to stop the abuse of facial recognition technology.
In addition to Shur and Mayor, Mr. Williams is represented by professor and attorney Michael J. Steinberg, director of Civil Rights Litigation Initiative at the University of Michigan Law School (CRLI), CRLI student attorney Deborah Won, and ACLU attorneys Dan Korobkin and Nathan Freed Wessler.
Read the complaint here:
For background information on Mr. Williams’ wrongful arrest see:
- ACLU video, Wrongfully Arrested Because of Flawed Face Recognition Technology (June 24, 2020):
- New York Times article that broke Mr. Williams’ incident, Wrongfully Accused By an Algorithm (June 24, 2020):
- Washington Post op-ed, I was wrongfully arrested because of facial recognition. Why are police allowed to use it? (June 24, 2020):
- Detroit Free Press article, Detroit says 'shoddy' work led to wrongful arrest tied to facial recognition technology (June 26, 2020):
Privacy & Technology
+2 Issues
Williams v. City of Detroit
Privacy & Technology
+2 Issues
Williams v. City of Detroit
Learn More About the Issues in This Press Release
-
Press ReleaseDec 2024
Privacy & Technology
ACLU Applauds Arizona Supreme Court Historic Decision That Police Need a Warrant to Access DNAACLU Applauds Arizona Supreme Court Historic Decision That Police Need a Warrant to Access DNA
PHOENIX — In a 7-0 decision, the Arizona Supreme Court ruled that a warrant is required to extract and analyze people’s DNA, saying that a person’s limited consent to a search of biological material for a specific purpose—in this case, a blood alcohol test for a DUI arrest—does not overcome that requirement. The ACLU and the ACLU of Arizona filed a friend-of-the-court brief in State v. Mitcham, arguing the government cannot genetically test biological material it already has in its possession—whether that’s blood taken from newborns to test for diseases or swabs collected from sexual assault survivors—to investigate the donors for a crime without first obtaining a warrant. In the decision, the court wrote that “in reaching this conclusion, we emphatically reject the State’s position that it was free to analyze Mitcham’s blood in any way it pleased simply because the State lawfully possessed the blood vials.” “Government analysis of our DNA can expose detailed information about our identity, appearance, family relationships, medical conditions, and more. We don’t consent to sharing all of that information each time we involuntarily shed our DNA or consent to a blood draw. The government’s argument in this case was a privacy nightmare,” said Vera Eidelman, staff attorney with the ACLU’s Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project. “We are greatly heartened by the Arizona Supreme Court’s decision to preserve the privacy of our sensitive genetic information.” In 2015, during a DUI arrest, the defendant in this case consented to the government collecting a sample of his blood solely to test it for blood-alcohol content, and was advised that the sample would be destroyed after 90 days. Instead, law enforcement held on to this sample for three years, at which point it used it for a completely different purpose—to extract and analyze his DNA, without a warrant or consent—while investigating another crime. Had the court accepted the government’s rationale here, all of us who consent to a biological sample collection, at any point in time, for any purpose, to any government entity, could have been subject to a warrantless DNA search after the fact. “Our DNA can reveal so much about us that our genetic privacy must be protected,” said Jared Keenan, legal director of ACLU of Arizona. “The Court’s decision is vital to protecting the strong constitutional rights that keep all Arizonans’ information safe from warrantless searches and unconstitutional intrusion.” -
News & CommentaryDec 2024
Privacy & Technology
Face Recognition Threatens to Replace Tickets, ID at Sports Events – and BeyondFace Recognition Threatens to Replace Tickets, ID at Sports Events – and Beyond
You shouldn't participate in face recognition ticketing schemes. -
MississippiJul 2024
Free Speech
Privacy & Technology
NetChoice v. FitchNetChoice v. Fitch
Whether a law that mandates age verification for all users of social media services violates the First Amendment. -
News & CommentaryDec 2024
Privacy & Technology
AI Generated Police Reports Raise Concerns Around Transparency, BiasAI Generated Police Reports Raise Concerns Around Transparency, Bias
AI-generated police reports threaten to exacerbate existing problems in law enforcement, and to create new ones.