Police often dig through whatever video footage they can find, looking for evidence that might link a suspect to a crime. They can look through all sorts of material that is publicly available and may be able to get warrants for material that is not.

Of course, it isn’t easy for law enforcement officers to scroll through hundreds or thousands of hours of video in an effort to, hopefully, catch a glimpse of one suspect, but digital facial recognition technology can make this job easier. Some facial recognition services promise to allow users to scan through billions of images, identifying faces by biometric data (such as the distance between the eyes and the nose) even in cases where human observers could not recognize them.

False arrests and bad evidence

Many law enforcement agencies use these services to run video of unknown suspects against a huge database of known individuals.

This practice has frightening implications for the rest of us. For one thing, sometimes the technology gets faces wrong. That can lead to defendants being convicted with faulty evidence. In some cases, it has led to innocent people being arrested.

Last year, police arrested a pregnant woman in front of her children after facial recognition software misidentified her as the person who committed a carjacking. In fact, she had a solid alibi, and prosecutors eventually dropped the case, but not before her life was turned upside down.

There’s a racial component to this issue. Studies have shown that facial recognition software is much more likely to find a false match when looking at the faces of Black people, as opposed to looking at the faces of others. The American Civil Liberties Union says it knows of more than a half-dozen cases in which people were arrested due to bad matches in facial recognition. In every case, the subject of the wrongful arrest was Black.

More training?

The federal government has taken small steps to address the possible abuse of facial recognition technology. Of seven federal law enforcement agencies currently using the technology, only two require their agents to take special training that might help protect the public’s civil liberties. Some federal watchdogs have recommended all agencies increase their training.

It’s too early to tell if more training will stop the abuse of the technology, the false arrests and bad evidence. In the mean time, those who are facing criminal charges should be aware of the possibility the prosecution will use this type of evidence against them, and learn about how to defend against it in court.

Mitigation

The primary concern for a Springfield, Illinois, driver in this position is mitigation. Do not make the situation worse. This begins the moment the lights come on to the interaction with the police officer, and then all interactions with law enforcement thereafter.

Pulling over

If one is being pulled over, the police officer has already noted some reasonable suspicion that the driver is impaired or has broken some traffic law. Do not assume that the police officer believes the driver is inebriated. This could be a broken taillight, speed or any other minor traffic violation. How the driver interacts with the officer, beginning when the lights come on, can dictate if one gets to sleep in their own bed or on a jail cot. Quickly find a well-lit parking lot or other area off the road, but if one is not around, pull as far over as is safe. Then, turn on the cabin light, roll down the windows, turn off the car and keep hands visible. For example, the driver should keep their hands on the wheel, and no one should be straining to watch the officer approach the vehicle. For police, traffic interactions can be one of the most dangerous parts of their job.

The interaction

Really, how much one chooses to speak with the Springfield, Illinois, police is based on one’s own personal judgment. Though, keep in mind that the only mandated interaction is the driver’s identification (name and driver’s license), and the vehicle registration and insurance. No one in the vehicle, including the driver, has to answer any other question. In most situations, this is likely the best advice to simply be silent after these mandated interactions. Remember, every interaction with a police officer is an investigation, and the police officer is looking for potential legal infractions.

Self-inflicted wounds

The key to mitigation is also not creating more problems, even if one expects a DUI. Do not lie to the police or give false identification. Both can be the basis for a crime. Do not admit anything, and remember that anything said during the interaction can be used in court. If asked to take a field sobriety test, since Illinois is an implied consent state, refusal has consequences, but one can usually, ask for a blood test instead of a breathalyzer.