Artificial Intelligence in Law Enforcement- Facial Recognition by Randy Allstot

rallstot — 2025-07-15 22:33:55 UTC

rallstot — 2025-07-15 22:36:26 UTC

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.

rallstot — 2025-07-15 22:48:32 UTC

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

rallstot — 2025-07-15 22:57:56 UTC

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

United States Constitution

rallstot — 2025-07-16 00:25:23 UTC

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

Texas Constitution

rallstot — 2025-07-16 00:26:00 UTC

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/

Katz v. United States

rallstot — 2025-07-16 00:28:00 UTC

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.

15 C.F.R. § 9401

rallstot — 2025-07-16 14:22:28 UTC

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

Texas Transportation Code

rallstot — 2025-07-16 15:29:42 UTC

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

Policy

rallstot — 2025-07-16 19:50:54 UTC

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

Strategies

rallstot — 2025-07-16 22:06:47 UTC

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).
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.
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

Trust

rallstot — 2025-07-16 22:27:50 UTC

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

rallstot — 2025-07-17 21:59:37 UTC

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

rallstot — 2025-07-18 00:25:35 UTC

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.