Law enforcement and intelligence agencies around the world use facial recognition technology and other AI in investigations to track targets’ movements and as evidence in prosecutions. While books and movies often portray this technology as highly advanced and foolproof, reality can be quite different. Recent cases have demonstrated that facial recognition technology is far from foolproof and may lead to even more misidentifications when identifying people of color.

Companies such as Clearview AI have contracts with law enforcement agencies across the United States. Clearview scrapes billions of photos from social media for its database. Photos from LinkedIn, Facebook, Instagram and the public web are uploaded to its database. For an annual fee, law enforcement has access to a face-based search engine. Obviously, a number of factors affect the reliability of the search results. The quality and resolution of the surveillance photo used for the search, the ethnicity of the subject, and the number and age of the comparison photos can all affect the results.

The most troubling, however, is that it appears that in a number of cases law enforcement failed to use other investigative means before seeking arrest warrants for the individuals “identified” by facial recognition software. As Clearview’s CEO made clear to the New York Times recently, when its technology comes up with an “initial result” that should be the starting point in law enforcement’s investigation, not the conclusion. In other words, facial recognition technology should only be used as one investigative tool that may provide a lead in an investigation that must then be coupled with other basic investigative steps.

A recent example of this is the case of Randal Quran Reid who was driving near Atlanta when he was stopped and arrested for alleged thefts in Louisiana. The police in Baton Rouge and Jefferson Parish had apparently used facial recognition from store videos purporting to show Mr. Reid stealing valuable items. Warrants for his arrest were issued and Mr. Reid was held for days pending extradition for crimes he did not commit. The NYT reports that it seems likely that local police simply used the faulty facial recognition identification to obtain the arrest warrants. It is difficult to know for sure because many law enforcement agencies do not reveal that such technology was used, or that it was the sole or primary basis for the warrant.

What should officials in Louisiana have done before issuing an arrest warrant based on facial recognition? First, actually compare the photos to Mr. Reid. According to the article, Mr. Reid is smaller, lighter and less muscular that the actual thief. Next, investigate to see if Mr. Reid was actually in Louisiana around the time of the thefts. How does one determine that? Examine credit card receipts for gas purchases or any other items in the state, travel records and EZ-Pass records, social media, license plate readers and the like. Conversely, look to see if there is evidence that Mr. Reid was in his home state during the thefts. In fact, had law enforcement checked, they would have discovered that Mr. Reid had never been to Louisiana.

Artificial intelligence is advancing at breakneck speed and law enforcement is eager to use all forms of technology to assist in their investigations. The key, however, is AI should only be used to “assist” not conclude. Traditional investigative techniques must be employed to corroborate and verify the alleged results of such database searches, lest more innocent people sit in jail hoping that their attorneys can free them.

Stahl Gasiorowski Criminal Defense Attorneys actively and aggressively protect clients’ rights and challenge the use of such AI based searches in pretrial hearings and trial. To contact Mr. Stahl, call 908.301.9001 for the NJ office and 212.755.3300 for the NYC office, or email Mr. Stahl at rgs@sgdefenselaw.com.

The Covid-19 pandemic has motivated many changes in how government and healthcare providers deliver their services, from online classes for public schools, telemedicine, and even how NJ courts conduct matters – from routine administrative matters to more substantive proceedings. Many of us have adapted to new online processes and procedures to keep us safer during the lengthy pandemic scourge, and find in cases, online sessions can have advantages over gathering in person. Recently the NJ Supreme Court has sought feedback from lawyers on their preference for virtual court operations. The feedback the NJ Supreme Court received from attorneys, their clients, and court users found that they largely support conducting routine court operations online.

The Westfield Leader interviewed Robert G. Stahl, Esq. regarding the advantages of virtual proceedings for routine court proceedings for criminal defense cases. However, he recommends that substantive matters including pre-trial motions, hearings and trials continue to be conducted in person.

Download the full Westfield Leader article to read Robert Stahl’s views on when remote proceedings are appropriate, and when they are not.

Stahl Gasiorowski Criminal Defense is here for all of your criminal legal needs during this time. To contact the firm’s NJ office, call 908.301.9001 and to contact the firm’s NYC office, call 212.755.3300, or email Mr. Stahl at rstahl@stahlesq.com.

New Jersey, a small but densely populated State, has 21 counties and 565 municipalities. Right now there are 515 Municipal Courts – 316 have individual, stand-alone courts, 173 municipalities share services, while the remaining 76 municipalities have agreed to form 24 separate joint Municipal Courts. Each have their own judges, prosecutors, public defenders, court administrators and staff. Municipal courts handle approximately 6 million cases a year — motor vehicle summonses, violations of municipal ordinances and minor criminal matters.

For most citizens, it is their only exposure to the courts and judges of this State. As Chief Justice Stuart Rabner said, “Most interactions between the public and the Judiciary take place in the municipal court system. Millions of people who come into contact with the municipal courts each year form their impressions of the justice system based primarily on those interactions.”

NJ Supreme Court Chief Justice Stuart Rabner charged a special committee to examine complaints about New Jersey’s municipal courts. The committee’s report released on July 17, 2018 issued recommendations to improve the overall operations of municipal courts and to make sure that the process is transparent and fair to the public.

One area of great concern is that municipal courts are great sources of revenue for the towns, imposing fines and fees from tickets to support their local budgets. When towns rely on fines and fees, it calls into question the overall fairness of the system. The 28-member committee, comprised of judges, court staff and attorneys who regularly practice in municipal court, made 49 specific recommendations addressing a number of concerns. The committee identified three “significant areas of concern” about municipal court operations:

• Excessive imposition of financial obligations on certain defendants
• Excessive use of bench warrants and license suspensions as collection methods, and
• Excessive use of discretionary contempt assessments

The committee discovered that many courts imposed jail sentences on people that could not pay their fines and costs for parking and traffic tickets, and that others did not properly allow for reasonable payment plans. Currently there are 2.5 million outstanding municipal court bench warrants for failure to appear and failure to pay. These warrants often involve minor offenses and minimal amounts owed. The cost and collateral consequences in the enforcement of these warrants can be devastating to individuals and families. In addition, many driver license suspensions result from the failure of motorists to pay their court-imposed fines and penalties, rather than excessive points for bad driving.

For disorderly persons offenses, petty disorderly persons offenses, and local ordinances (including most parking offenses), all fines go to the municipality. For traffic offenses, one-half of the fine money goes to the municipality, with the other half going to the county. For local ordinance violations, municipalities may set their own fine amounts or ranges within the statutory maximum and collected fines go to the municipality. In 2017, more than $400 million was collected, with more than half of that total being turned over to municipalities.

The committee also recommended the establishment of uniform standards for the selection of municipal judges and recommended independence in the hiring process by establishing qualifications committees for selection.

Why is this important?

While many municipal court judges are hard-working, fair and independent jurists, the committee found that a system of political appointments by mayors and town councils can lead to judges that are mindful of the political party that appointed them and their importance in raising funds for the town.

Other potential abuses can occur when a municipal judge is more concerned about his or her reappointment than a fair and just result. Since municipal judges are appointed to 3-year terms, there is a concern that the public perception could be one that the judge sides with the officer over the citizen.

Such concern calls into question the independence of the judge in making factual determinations at hearings and trials since there are no juries in municipal court. The report noted that there is no uniform appointment or reappointment process or procedure utilized in the State of New Jersey, and, similarly, there is no uniform salary requirement, as most positions are part-time. Municipal judges are paid annual salaries set by ordinance or resolution of the establishing county or municipality.

Given that the average citizen is much more likely to appear in municipal court rather than State Superior Court, it is imperative that the process be open, transparent and fair. The recommendations of this committee, if carried out, will be a significant step forward in improving our municipal courts.

Robert Stahl, and his firm, Stahl Gasiorowski Criminal Defense Lawyers aggressively defend individuals charged with complex federal and state crimes. Founder Robert G. Stahl is recognized as one of the top criminal defense attorneys in the NY/NJ area for his skills, knowledge and success. To contact the firm, call 908.301.9001 for the NJ office and 212.755.3300 for the NYC office, or email Mr. Stahl at rgs@sgdefenselaw.com.