Williams v. City of Detroit
What's at Stake
This case seeks to hold Detroit police accountable for the wrongful arrest of our client due to officers’ reliance on a false match from face recognition technology.
Summary
In January 2020, Detroit police , in front of his two young daughters and wife and in plain view of his neighbors, and subjected him to thirty hours of detention in an overcrowded, dirty cell. Mr. Williams’ was the first of a false face-recognition “match” leading to a person’s wrongful arrest.
After a shoplifter allegedly stole several watches at a Shinola store in Detroit in 2018, officers with the Detroit Police Department tried to identify the thief by capturing a blurry, low-quality still image from the store’s surveillance video and sending it to the Michigan State Police to run a face recognition technology search. The face recognition search returned a a possible match to an expired driver’s license photo of Mr. Williams. But the match was dead wrong: Mr. Williams was plainly not the man in the security footage and was nowhere near the store at the time of the alleged theft. Nevertheless, police used Mr. Williams’ photo to construct a photo lineup array, which they presented to an off-site Shinola loss-prevention contractor—someone who was not there on the day of the theft and whose only knowledge of the incident stemmed from watching the same poor-quality surveillance footage that was used to generate the incorrect face recognition result.
A detective with the Detroit Police Department then applied for an arrest warrant, but omitted significant information from the warrant application that would have put the magistrate on notice that neither the face recognition technology result nor the subsequent photo lineup procedure were reliable.
In April 2021, the ACLU, Ƶof Michigan, and University of Michigan Law School’s Civil Rights Litigation Initiative filed a civil-rights lawsuit on Mr. Williams’ behalf against the individual detective responsible for his arrest, the City of Detroit, and Detroit’s Chief of Police. The lawsuit alleged that the detective, through his omissions in the warrant application, misled the magistrate judge, resulting in issuance of an arrest warrant without the required probable cause. It also alleged what discovery in Mr. Williams’ case and several more recent facial-recognition false arrests in Detroit have since made obvious: That the city lacked any policy for law enforcement use of face recognition technology at the time the technology was used in this case, and that Detroit failed to train its police officers on the dangers of misusing face recognition technology in their investigations.
On June 28, 2024, the parties in this case formalized a groundbreaking , concluding the lawsuit and achieving the nation’s strongest police department policies constraining law enforcement’s use of face recognition technology. Under the agreement, police will be required to back up face recognition results with independent and reliable evidence linking a suspect to a crime before making any arrest. They also be trained on face recognition technology and its dangers, especially for people of color, whom these tools are known to misidentify at higher rates. And an audit will be conducted of all cases since 2017 in which the Detroit Police Department used face recognition technology to obtain an arrest warrant.
A copy of the settlement agreement, along with selected pleadings and discovery documents from the case, are below.
Legal Documents
-
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan -
06/16/2023
Amended Complaint -
07/06/2023
Answer to Plaintiff's Amended Complaint -
06/28/2024
Settlement Agreement
Date Filed: 06/16/2023
Affiliate: Michigan
Date Filed: 07/06/2023
Affiliate: Michigan
Date Filed: 06/28/2024
Affiliate: Michigan
-
Documents Produced in Discovery — Depositions of Individual Witnesses -
- Depositions of Detective Donald Bussa
- Deposition of Lieutenant Rodney Cox
- Deposition of Chief James Craig
- Deposition of Krystal Howard
- Deposition of Jennifer Coulson
Williams v. City of DetroitLegal DocumentsDepositions of Detective Donald BussaAffiliate: Michigan
-
Documents Produced in Discovery — Depositions on Behalf of Defendant Entities -
- Deposition of John Fennessey for the City of Detroit
- Deposition of Franklin Hayes for the City of Detroit
- Deposition of Christopher Graveline for the City of Detroit
- Deposition of Jeffrey Hahn for the City of Detroit
- Deposition of Nathan Howell for the City of Detroit
- Deposition Stephen Lamoreaux for the City of Detroit
Williams v. City of DetroitLegal DocumentsDeposition of John Fennessey for the City of DetroitAffiliate: Michigan
Williams v. City of DetroitLegal DocumentsDeposition of Franklin Hayes for the City of DetroitAffiliate: Michigan
Williams v. City of DetroitLegal DocumentsDeposition of Christopher Graveline for the City of DetroitAffiliate: Michigan
Williams v. City of DetroitLegal DocumentsDeposition of Jeffrey Hahn for the City of DetroitAffiliate: Michigan
Williams v. City of DetroitLegal DocumentsDeposition of Nathan Howell for the City of DetroitAffiliate: Michigan
Williams v. City of DetroitLegal DocumentsDeposition Stephen Lamoreaux for the City of DetroitAffiliate: Michigan
-
Documents Produced in Discovery — Expert Reports -
- Expert Report of Dr. Michael C. King Regarding Automated Face Recognition Technology
- Expert Report of Dr. Margaret Bull Kovera Regarding Eyewitness Identification Ƶ
- Expert Report of Perry Tarrant Regarding Police Practices
Williams v. City of DetroitLegal DocumentsExpert Report of Dr. Michael C. King Regarding Automated Face Recognition TechnologyAffiliate: Michigan
Williams v. City of DetroitLegal DocumentsExpert Report of Dr. Margaret Bull Kovera Regarding Eyewitness Identification ƵAffiliate: Michigan
Williams v. City of DetroitLegal DocumentsExpert Report of Perry Tarrant Regarding Police PracticesAffiliate: Michigan
-
Documents Produced in Discovery — Productions by the Detroit Police Department -
- Initial Disclosures
- Investigative Lead Report
- PowerPoint Presentation: Policy Review - Facial Recognition Technology
- Face Recognition Vendor Solicitations (2017)
- Face Recognition Technology Annual Report (2021)
- Memorandum Regarding Williams False Arrest to Assistant Chief of Support Operations James White
Williams v. City of DetroitLegal DocumentsPowerPoint Presentation: Policy Review - Facial Recognition TechnologyAffiliate: Michigan
Williams v. City of DetroitLegal DocumentsFace Recognition Vendor Solicitations (2017)Affiliate: Michigan
Williams v. City of DetroitLegal DocumentsFace Recognition Technology Annual Report (2021)Affiliate: Michigan
Williams v. City of DetroitLegal DocumentsMemorandum Regarding Williams False Arrest to Assistant Chief of Support Operations James WhiteAffiliate: Michigan
-
Documents Produced in Discovery — Productions by the Michigan State Police -
- Digital Image Analysis Request
- Overview Presentation : Statewide Network of Agency Photos
- Investigative Lead Report - Supplemental Information
Williams v. City of DetroitLegal DocumentsOverview Presentation : Statewide Network of Agency PhotosAffiliate: Michigan
Williams v. City of DetroitLegal DocumentsInvestigative Lead Report - Supplemental InformationAffiliate: Michigan
-
Documents Produced in Discovery — Productions by Plaintiff -
- Declaration of Detroit Magistrate Judge Bari Blake Wood
Williams v. City of DetroitLegal DocumentsDeclaration of Detroit Magistrate Judge Bari Blake WoodAffiliate: Michigan
Press Releases
Civil Rights Advocates Achieve the Nation’s Strongest Police Department Policy on Facial Recognition Technology
After Third Wrongful Arrest, ƵSlams Detroit Police Department for Continuing to Use Faulty Facial Recognition Technology
Michigan Father Sues Detroit Police Department for Wrongful Arrest Based on Faulty Facial Recognition Technology
ƵStatement on Second Wrongful Arrest due to Face Recognition Technology
Man Wrongfully Arrested Because Face Recognition Can’t Tell Black People Apart