[tlogan]

This is a weak or misleading story about AI.

First, the detective used the FaceSketchID system, which has been around since around 2014. It is not new or uniquely tied to modern AI.

Second, the system only suggests possible matches. It is still up to the detective to investigate further and decide whether to pursue charges. And then it is up to court to issue the warrant.

The real question is why she was held in jail for four months. That is the part that I do not understand. My understanding is that there is 30-day limit (the requesting state must pick up the defendant within 30 day). Regarding the individual involved, Angela Lipps, she has reportedly been arrested before, so it is possible she was on parole. So maybe they were holding her because of that?

Can someone clarify how that process works?

[suzzer99]

In the US there are no consequences for people in power failing to follow procedures, laws or regulations - except for being told to stop doing whatever illegal thing they're doing, and possibly getting sued way down the line, which gets paid by taxpayers.

[tlogan]

From reading more into the case, it seems the issue may be related to how her lawyer handled the case.

They probably did “identity challenge” arguing that she is not the right person. But from Tennessee’s perspective, she was considered the correct person to be arrested, so there was no “mistaken identity” in their system. In other words, North Dakota Wanted person x and here is person x.

Once a judge in North Dakota reviewed the full evidence (and found that person they issued warrant for arrest is not one they want), the case was dismissed.

[frankharv]

Yes but a judge issued the warrant in the first place.

Cops did not do a proper investigation and the judge green-lighted it.

It is all on the JUDGE or possibly a magistrate who approved a faulty warrant.

The judge failed the poor woman. FIRE him.

Then sue Clearview for big bucks.

[tlogan]

The judge likely issued the warrant based on the detective’s sworn testimony. In most cases, a judge does not have the ability or detailed knowledge to independently verify whether the detective completed all necessary checks.

This situation likely resulted from either sloppy investigative work or an honest mistake: the detective believed her booking photo matched the individual captured on camera.

Her booking photo from a prior arrest can be found here: https://mugshots.com/US-States/Tennessee/Carter-County-TN/An...

Do we have recording of the suspect they used for the match?

[natebc]

There's a screenshot from a security camera with the _actual_ suspect in the article that was posted to HN last week.

https://www.grandforksherald.com/news/north-dakota/ai-error-...

[contrast]

what's with the weird obsession all over the thread that it is the JUDGE who is the only person at fault here?

[ciupicri]

Because the police or the prosecutor or whatever can ask for whatever they want, but it's up to the judge to refuse their stupid claims. Though the others should get some blame too.

[wl]

Especially considering the judge is the only person involved in this who is completely immune from being sued.

[elektronika]

Under qualified immunity cops are all but completely immune to being sued.

[1718627440]

The police was wrong, but the judge is the check that is supposed to prevent the police errors from being actually committed.

Sure, when the junior deletes the production database you are also angry at the junior, but you also ask why the junior got permission to do that.

[lovich]

It’s the same poster, I assumed they were ai at first but the account is from 2017.

Some people are just weird

[suzzer99]

Anyone involved in this who didn't immediately raise a giant stink to get this woman out of jail is partially at fault imo.

[AnthonyMouse]

[deleted]

[gamblor956]

You get charged with something and if you want to have the trial right now, before you have any idea what's going on, then you can insist, which basically nobody does because it's pretty crazy to go in blind

Actually most criminal defense attorneys recommend not waiving your speedy trial rights. Yes, the defense goes in blind. But so does the prosecution, and they're the ones that have to make a case.

The usual result for defendants that don't waive their speedy trial rights is an acquittal if the case goes to trial (between 50-60%), which doesn't sound like a lot but prosecutors are expected to win >90% of their trials. Additionally, in many counties they don't have sufficient courtrooms to handle all the criminal trials within the speedy trial timeframe, so if the trial date comes and a courtroom is not available the case is dismissed with prejudice. Nonviolent misdeameanors are the lowest priority for a courtroom (and by that I mean even family law cases have priority over nonviolent misdos in most counties), so those cases are frequently dismissed a day or two before the trial date. Consequently, most prosecutors will offer better and better plea bargains as the trial date approaches.

This is even more true for murders, which is why murder suspects don't usually get charged for a year or two after the crime.

[AnthonyMouse]

Apparently I set up a unit test for Cunningham's Law today.

[everforward]

This isn’t how it works, you can invoke your right to a speedy trial at any point you want. You can spend 2 months waiting and then invoke it if you want.

The timer starts from when you invoke it, though.

The 2 issues, which she may be caught in, are that it’s “speedy” from the perspective of a court, and that it really means “free from undue delays”.

There is no general definition of a speedy trial, but I think the shortest period any state defines is a month (with some states considering several months to still be “speedy”).

A trial can still be speedy even past that window if the prosecution can make a case that they genuinely need more time (like waiting for lab tests to come back).

It’s basically only ever not speedy if the prosecution is just not doing anything.

[SpicyLemonZest]

> The real question is why she was held in jail for four months. That is the part that I do not understand. My understanding is that there is 30-day limit (the requesting state must pick up the defendant within 30 day). Regarding the individual involved, Angela Lipps, she has reportedly been arrested before, so it is possible she was on parole. So maybe they were holding her because of that?

As the article gestures towards, challenging the extradition can greatly extend the timeline, from 30 days after the arrest to 90 days after a formal identity hearing. Which isn't fair and isn't intuitive, but is unfortunately a long-standing part of the system. (Even worse, this kind of mistaken identity can't be challenged in an extradition hearing; the question isn't whether she's the person who committed the crime but whether she's the person identified in the warrant.)

[tlogan]

That is my assumption. I assume who ever was representing her made a mistake and challenged the warrant and that caused delay in the extradition.

[georgemcbay]

> It is still up to the detective to investigate further and decide whether to pursue charges. And then it is up to court to issue the warrant.

This is how it should work, but I still think it is important to discuss these failures in the context of AI risks.

One of the largest real-world dangers of AI (as we define that now) is that it is often confidently wrong and this is a terrible situation when it comes to human factors.

A lot of people are wired in such a way that perceived confidence hacks right through their amygdala and they immediately default to trust, no matter how unwarranted.

[strictnein]

I wish I could find the link, but I believe she was in jail on parole violation, unrelated to anything that the "AI" flagged her on.

[Supermancho]

Her picture was used as part of a fake id card, in the commission of a crime. The fuzzy camera footage looked like her (from stills I've seen) and her picture was on the fake ID. Those 2 circumstantial items were, apparently, enough to have a warrant issued.

They picked her up in TN and held her for 4 months, even after:

The ND police knew the ID was fake and the person using it was not her. The ND police knew she had been in TN before, during, and after the crime.

She is still technically a suspect, even after all of this has come out.

[tlogan]

Ok. The mistake was made by North Dakota police (and they blame AI - the AI just gave them a possible match. Whatever.).

What I still do not understand is why she spent nearly six months in a Tennessee jail. That part remains unclear and needs further explanation.

[p_l]

From the first time the story surfaced, for spurious reasons[1] she was booked as fugitive, and that made it so that there was "no need" for normal timeframe of hearing.

[1] The reason being that she was found in Tennessee while being searched for a crime in another state, thus allowing them to treat it as interstate fugitive from a crime scene

[zoklet-enjoyer]

She was not

Source: I live in Fargo and have been following this story closely. Everyone here is pissed

[frankharv]

Thanks for clarifying.

I wonder who is slandering her more... WOW

Maybe the citys insurance carrier hired a FIRM...

They will be taking a hit.

[frankharv]

That is the first I have heard of that. A small unexplained blurb in this article. Already in jail on parole violation..

Maybe she objected to the extradition order without good counsel.

"I aint never been to N.Dakota". She found out the hard way how the law works..

What about the banks being hit. Surely they have good cameras. This was bad mojo. I would think a Wells Fargo/BoA has a unit for this stuff.

Finincial crimes handled like this. The banks will be sued too I suspect.. Deep pockets settle out.