# data[].attributes.body
As Artificial Intelligence (AI) is growing in the field of law enforcement, officers need to be aware of some of the deficiencies along with the positives of AI, especially in the field of facial recognition technology (FRT). Facial recognition technology can be a tool to assist law enforcement with investigations, but it should not be the sole piece of evidence used in making a case against an individual as there are flaws with the technology such as FRT not being able to accurately correctly read people's faces who happen to have very dark skin color.

# data[].attributes.body
Although there is no official governing body in the state of Texas regarding AI, the Attorney General is responsible for enforcing a new law, Texas Responsible Artificial Intelligence Governance Act (TRAIGA), that was signed by Governor Abbott and will go into effect January 1, 2026.

The new law will establish Texas Business and Commerce Code 552.053 which states that governing entities, which would include law enforcement, cannot use AI as a social scoring system that would be detrimental to a person or group of people based on their characteristics.

Texas Attorney General. Office of the Attorney General

Tex. Bus. & Com. Code § 552.053 (2026). https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Are you a Texan concerned that your personal information is being unlawfully collected, sold, or mishandled by a business?

# data[].attributes.body
Currently there is no federal agency that is a governing body that regulates facial recognition technology. There are several Federal agencies such as the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) that employ facial recognition tools.

Department of Homeland Security. Home | Homeland Security

Federal Bureau of Investigation. FBI — Federal Bureau of Investigation

Federal Bureau of Prisons. BOP: Federal Bureau of Prisons Web Site

Transportation Security Administration. Home | Transportation Security Administration

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Single adults and family units were removed to Venezuela, Ecuador, India, Peru, and Central America

# data[].attributes.body
When looking at facial recognition technology, people are starting question whether or not law enforcement is violating the 4th amendment regarding the right to privacy and the use of facial recognition technology as a form of a search. The 4th Amendment to the Constitution states, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized" (U.S. Const. amend. IV).

U.S. Const. amend. IV. U.S. Constitution - Fourth Amendment | Resources | Constitution Annotated | Congress.gov | Library of Congress

# data[].attributes.body
Article 1 section 9 of the Texas Constitution speaks on the topic of searches and seizures. It states, "The people shall be secure in their persons, houses, papers and possessions, from all unreasonable seizures or searches, and no warrant to search any place, or to seize any person or thing, shall issue without describing them as near as may be, nor without probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation" (Tex. Const. art. 1, § 9).

Tex. Const. art. 1, § 9. https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/

# data[].attributes.body
The Supreme Court has ruled in Katz v. United States that there is an expectation to privacy in public places under certain circumstances. This case involved law enforcement using a wiretap in a public payphone. There has not been any case law set forth so far regarding a violation of the 4th Amendment and facial recognition technology with regard to privacy or an unlawful search.

Katz v. United States, 1967.

# data[].attributes.body
President Biden addressed the issue regarding facial recognition technology and the issues attached to it by issuing Executive Order 14100. When President Trump came into office, he rescinded the Executive Order.

Sec. 7. Advancing Equity and Civil Rights.

7.1 Strengthening AI and Civil Rights in the Criminal Justice System. (a) To address unlawful discrimination and other harms that may be exacerbated by AI.

Ex. Ord. No. 14110

15 U.S. Code § 9401

# data[].attributes.body
The Texas Transportation Code 521.059 states the department, which is the Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS), shall establish an image verification system based on the following identifiers collected by the department:

The department shall use the image verification system established under this section only to the extent to aid other law enforcement agencies in:

(1) establishing the identity of a victim of a disaster or crime that a local law enforcement agency is unable to establish; or

(2) conducting an investigation of criminal conduct.

Chapter 521 of the Texas Transportation Code deals with driver's licenses and identification cards issued by the state of Texas. Texas uses facial recognition technology to establish the individual applying for a DL or ID is the person that they say they are. Texas does put some restrictions on other agencies using their technology, however. In other words, a law enforcement agency must have a legitimate reason to use DPS's image verification system

Tex. Transp. Code § 521.059. https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
TRANSPORTATION CODE CHAPTER 521. DRIVER’S LICENSES AND CERTIFICATES

# data[].attributes.body
Our police department is in the process of purchasing a facial recognition program. With that, a policy has to be established regarding the uses and restrictions with this technology. Our policy states that our legal framework is in compliance with Texas Government Code 552.108, Texas Business and Commerce Code 503.001, Texas Constitution Article 1 section 9 and the 4th Amendment to the Constitution.

Tex. Bus. & Com. Code § 503.001. https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov

Tex. Const. art. 1, § 9. https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov

Tex. Gov’t Code § 552.108. https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov

U.S. Const. amend. IV. U.S. Constitution - Fourth Amendment | Resources | Constitution Annotated | Congress.gov | Library of Congress

# data[].attributes.body
1. Corroborating evidence- Facial recognition technology (FRT) should not be the sole piece of evidence used to arrest an individual. FRT can be used to assist law enforcement in the gathering of evidence for a case but should never be the only piece of evidence. "FRT is a tool, not a solution. The technology should never be the sole basis for an arrest. Instead, it should serve to generate leads investigators follow up on using traditional police investigative techniques" (Chowdri, P., 2025).

2. Audits- Law enforcement agencies that use FRT should conduct audits of its system using an outside source, preferably another agency that employs FRT. This creates a checks and balance approach to lessen the chance of insinuation that the agency is trying to cover up and deficiencies.

3. Training- Law enforcement agencies that use FRT should have a training program in place before officers are allowed to use the technology. Having only trained personnel who use FRT reduces the chances of inappropriate use of the technology and reduces the chances of bad arrests.

Reference:

Chowdri, P. (2025, May 29). Facial recognition in law enforcement: Promises and pitfalls. Police 1. Facial recognition in law enforcement: Promises and pitfalls

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Looking to navigate the complexities of public safety policy development and management? Lexipol is your go-to source for state-specific, fully developed . Designed by industry experts and legal professionals, Lexipol helps your agency stay up to date with the latest standards, laws and best practices. Contact Lexipol at 844-312-9500 for expert assistance or .
By Prathi Chowdri

Facial recognition technology (FRT) is no longer science fiction. From unlocking our phones to streamlining airport security, FRT has been quietly integrated into daily life. Most of us don't bat an eye when we see FRT-enabled cameras providing an extra layer of security at a sporting event, but when this powerful tech is used in policing, the conversation gets a lot more complicated.

Law enforcement agencies must approach this innovative technology cautiously, considering both benefits and risks. Following are five key considerations.

1. FRT is already in use everywhere

We often think of facial recognition as a new innovation, but it's already firmly entrenched in many areas of public and private life. According to the U.S. Government Accountability Office, over two-thirds of police agencies use FRT in some capacity, though the predominant applications include facility and computer systems access. From unlocking smartphones to scanning faces at border crossings, FRT is part of a growing web of biometric security many of us now take for granted. As of mid-2024, for example, Customs and Border Protection had processed more than 540 million travelers using facial recognition.

In law enforcement, FRT offers huge potential. Agencies can use it to identify suspects from video footage, locate missing persons and even exonerate wrongly accused individuals. But that doesn't mean the technology is infallible.

2. FRT is useful, but must be handled with care

There are plenty of real-world success stories. In one example, police in Scranton, Pennsylvania, used FRT to identify a sexual assault suspect from social media photos. Arizona authorities used the tool to match a convenience store robbery suspect from surveillance footage. And in Florida, FRT helped clear a man falsely accused of vehicular homicide by locating a crucial witness.

But these wins come with a caveat. FRT is a tool, not a solution. The technology should never be the sole basis for an arrest. Instead, it should serve to generate leads investigators follow up on using traditional police investigative techniques.

Some departments already have a written policy that reflects this. The NYPD's policy, for example, provides FRT can be used to identify potential persons of interest but requires corroborating evidence before action is taken: "The facial recognition process does not by itself establish a basis for a stop, probable cause to arrest, or to obtain a search warrant." Still, even when these policies are followed, accuracy and bias can complicate the process.

3. Accuracy and bias are real problems

Despite its promise, facial recognition is far from perfect. One major concern is accuracy. Poor-quality probe images, flawed algorithms and inadequate human oversight can all result in false positives. Consider the case of Robert Williams, who was wrongfully arrested in Detroit because of a faulty match from a grainy surveillance image.

Bias is another serious issue. Studies show FRT systems are less accurate at identifying people of color, women, and older adults. A 2018 MIT study found an error rate of nearly 35% for dark-skinned women, compared to less than 1% for lighter-skinned men. These disparities can lead to wrongful arrests and exacerbate existing inequalities in the criminal justice system.

Bias often stems from the training data used to build FRT algorithms. If the system is trained mostly on white male faces, it will struggle to accurately analyze other populations. Although algorithmic performance is improving, law enforcement must remain vigilant to avoid bias-related mistakes.

4. Privacy concerns are not going away

Beyond misidentification and bias, the widespread use of FRT raises serious questions about privacy. The technology enables real-time surveillance on a massive scale. If linked to public cameras, FRT can track a person's movements throughout a city without their knowledge or consent.

According to the ACLU, the FBI's FRT database includes hundreds of millions of photos, many of them pulled from driver's license records. In the wrong hands, and without legal restrictions, this information can be used for invasive surveillance, potentially chilling free speech and discouraging public protest.

The European Union has acknowledged these risks with comprehensive legislation. The almost completely bans real-time facial recognition by law enforcement. In the U.S., some cities like San Francisco and Portland have passed local bans on law enforcement use of FRT, while states such as Washington and Virginia have enacted laws to add guardrails to its use. For much of the rest of the country, though, police agencies are solely responsible for how they implement the technology and what they do with it.

Use FRT only to generate investigative leads and never as the sole basis for arrest.

Limit usage to serious crimes until comprehensive policies are developed.

Ensure transparency with the public and keep the community informed.

Require human review at every stage of the process.

Audit for bias and effectiveness on a regular basis.

5. Agencies must self-govern responsibly

State laws vary on how they address FRT in law enforcement (if at all) and there are no federal laws yet providing guidance on using the technology. Until clear federal guidelines exist, the obligation to use FRT responsibly falls to individual law enforcement agencies. Following are some best practices for law enforcement:

Agencies should also appoint an internal FRT coordinator to oversee policy compliance and track how the technology is being used in the field. Ultimately, responsible use comes down to leadership.

The onus is on law enforcement to ethically self-govern.

Powerful tech, heavy responsibility

Facial recognition technology offers huge potential benefits to public safety, but those benefits come with strings attached. Accuracy is imperfect. Bias is real. Privacy concerns are valid. And the legal framework is still catching up.
About the author
Prathi Chowdri served as a federal trial attorney defending the NYPD against claims of false arrest, excessive force, wrongful conviction and malicious prosecution in the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York from 2005 to 2010. Many of her cases as Senior Counsel involved complex civil litigation with extensive e-discovery and high-profile claims against the city, its police officers, prosecutors, and corrections officers. She also worked as an associate at a private law firm in New York City where she continued federal trial litigation in both 42 USC § 1983 and medical malpractice. Prathi has also served as an Adjunct Professor in Constitutional Law at Florida Atlantic University. From 2015 to 2024 she worked as a member of Lexipol's legal team, ensuring that policy and other content conformed to state and federal standards. She is now chief legal advisor and director of strategy for Polis Solutions, focusing on law, policy and civil rights from a policing and AI perspective.
Law enforcement agencies that want to use this technology need to do so with humility and diligence. That means training officers not just in how to use the tools, but when and why. It means documenting every use and auditing results. And it also means recognizing that FRT is not a silver bullet.

Facial recognition technology has immense potential, but its dangers must not be ignored. If public safety is the goal, then law enforcement agencies must treat this tool with the care and caution it deserves. And that's not just good policing. That's constitutional policing.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Facial recognition in law enforcement: Promises and pitfalls

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Facial recognition in law enforcement is promising, but concerns about accuracy, bias and privacy demand careful implementation

# data[].attributes.body
We in law enforcement are given a tremendous amount of trust from the communities that we serve. In the Law Enforcement Code of Ethics, trust is explicitly mentioned and something that I hold close to my chest. "I recognize the badge of my office as a symbol of public faith, and I accept it as a public trust to be held so long as I am true to the ethics of police service" (37 Tex. Admin. Code § 1.112). The members of my community have placed that trust in myself and the members of my police department that we will not abuse FRT by violating people's rights and that we will use the tool as a means to support other evidence.

Tex. Admin. Code § 1.112. https://www.sos.state.tx.us

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Welcome to the Texas Administrative Code

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Secretary of State does not interpret or enforce the Texas Administrative Code. If you need interpretation of a current rule, please contact the agency that promulgated the rule.

# data[].attributes.body
Having been in law enforcement for over 21 years now, legal and ethical standards are a part of who I am as an officer. That being said, when looking at this specific topic of facial recognition technology, I'll be honest that I did not know too much about it. Having really looked into this topic though, I was shockingly surprised at how little regulation there is for law enforcement purposes. There is more and more regulation for businesses regarding the capturing of people's likeness, but as far as law enforcement goes, there is strangely little as far as rules and regulations go, at least in Texas. There are other states, like Montana, where law enforcement is required to get a warrant to use FRT. Just about everything we do in law enforcement is based on laws and rules and regulations. But digging into this new technology has made me think and seriously consider topics like this as I continue my career in a leadership role. In my opinion, sometimes caution is better and just because there is some new toy or gadget out there, doesn't mean we need to rush out and purchase it.

Facial Recognition for Government Use Act, 2023. archive.legmt.gov/bills/2023/billhtml/SB0397.htm

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Senate bill NO. 397 By Request of the **** A BILL FOR AN ACT ENTITLED: " AN ACT ESTABLISHING THE FACIAL RECOGNITION FOR GOVERNMENT USE ACT; PROVIDING A PURPOSE; PROHIBITING THE USE OF CONTINUOUS FACIAL SURVEILLANCE; PROHIBITING THE USE OF FACIAL RECOGNITION TECHNOLOGY; PROVIDING EXEMPTIONS FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT; PROVIDING EXEMPTIONS UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS; PROVIDING FOR NOTICE REQUIREMENTS; PROVIDING FOR RETENTION AND DESTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS; PROVIDING FOR REPORTING REQUIREMENTS; PROVIDING FOR PENALTIES; PROVIDING DEFINITIONS; PROVIDING FOR A TRANSITION; AND PROVIDING AN IMMEDIATE EFFECTIVE DATE AND A RETROACTIVE APPLICABILITY DATE.

# data[].attributes.body
Training- All officers that will be using FRT need to be fully trained in the uses of FRT. Officers must also be aware of the limitations of FRT. This training should not be a one and done training. Officers need yearly training to make sure that they are kept abreast of new laws and regulations.

Bias- Everybody has biases, but police officers need to be aware of their biases so they can be on the lookout to make sure they are not being swayed by their biases into believing something that is not true.

Support- FRT should be used to support other evidence of a crime and should not be the sole piece of evidence. Agencies should use the technology as another tool and not rely exclusively on what was discovered.

Accountability- Law enforcement agencies that use FRT need to have a system in place that provides accountability that the technology is being used properly and only by trained personnel. Have an outside police agency that uses FRT complete an audit to make sure their agency is staying within policy.

Transparency- Agencies that use FRT should make the public aware that they employ this technology. By doing so, it displays honesty and openness with the communities that they serve.

Publicize- Agencies that use FRT should publicize the effectiveness of the technology when used properly. Agencies should release information when the technology was used to find a missing person or when the technology exonerated an individual.