Ohio v. Tolbert
Brief Details
- Case No.: CA-26-116018
- Brief Filed: April 27, 2026
- Jurisdiction: Ohio
Key Topics in the Brief
Briefs
The detective in this case applied for a search warrant in reliance on a purported “identification” of Defendant from a face recognition technology (“FRT”) search. The detective had been warned that the FRT search result was only an investigative lead. But far from disclosing the role of FRT and its lack of reliability for providing an identification, the detective scrubbed his affidavit of any mention of the technology. Instead, he misleadingly vouched only that police “received an identification” of Defendant from the “Fusion center.” Had the judge known that the basis for the purported identification was an unreliable FRT search that supplied “multiple photos of multiple people,” Tr. at 69, it would have been clear that the warrant lacked probable cause. Amici write to aid the Court in rendering a decision based on an accurate understanding of face recognition technology and why the investigating officer’s lack of candor in the warrant application requires suppression. This brief makes two main points. First, FRT results are fundamentally unreliable because of well-known technical limitations, racially disparate false-match rates, and human operator errors. And second, the detective’s concealment of the use of FRT and representation that there had been an “identification” were materially false and misleading and thus should require suppression because the remaining facts in the affidavit cannot establish probable cause.
Author(s)
Stephanie Kessler, Kessler Defense LLC, Cincinnati, OH; Amy R. Gilbert and Freda J. Levenson, American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio Foundation, Cleveland, OH
