Porcha Rudruff facial recognition wrongful arrest
Detroit woman Porcha Rudruff was identified using facial recognition and arrested for a robbery and carjacking she did not commit, leading her to sue the city and the police detective handling her case . The suit claims Detroit police officer LaShauntia Oliver, who had been assigned to the case, used an eight-year-old picture of Woodruff in a line-up of potential suspects, despite having access to her current driver's license , and had failed to check the warrant to confirm whether the woman who committed the crime was pregnant. Oliver also showed the carjacking victim a photo lineup that included the reference image of Woodruff that the software matched with a photo from a surveillance camera at the scene of the crime. The Detroit police later said they would strengthen its photo lineup and facial recognition technology policies by having two captains review requests for warrants when facial recognition algorithms are used in an investigation, and that a sequential double-blind line-up must be employed. Rudruff's arrest is the third known wrongful arrest using facial recognition committed by the Detroit Police Department. In July 2019, Michael Oliver was arrested for allegedly snatching a mobile phone, and Robert Williams arrested in January 2020 for reputedly stealing five high-end watches. System 🤖 DataWorks Plus 🔗 Op erator: Detroit Police Department Developer: DataWorks Plus Country: USA Sector: Govt - police Purpose: Strengthen law enforcement Technology: Facial recognition ; Computer vision; Machine learning Issue: Accountability; Accuracy/reliability; Transparency Legal, regulatory 👩🏼⚖️ Woodruff v. Detroit, City of (5:23-cv-11886)
- Date it happened
- 2023-02-01
- Organisation involved
- Detroit Police Department
- Product, system or model
- DataWorks Plus FR
This incident was imported from AIAAIC and is used under CC BY-SA 4.0. Our additions to it — the structured fields, the translation, the checks against other reports — are published under the same licence.
This is a record of what was reported, not a finding that anyone broke the law. If it names your organisation and you believe it is wrong, the corrections process is free and open to everyone.