AST March 2018 Magazine March 2018 Final -3.3.18 | Page 17

Volume 21
March 2018 Edition
• Again, the goal of performing facial recognition analysis is to
generate a strong lead.
• We have no time for fishing expeditions.
• When agencies implement a two-level validation process into
their facial recognition workflow, it supports all forms of subjec-
tive analysis, and the false narrative of selecting false positives
which lead to misidentifications will be much easier to refute.
Even when images acquired in investigations are higher in resolu-
tion, and a person in an image can easily be identified by human
eyes, the analysis is still subjective.
• It still needs other forms of supporting validation to strengthen
the already apparent physical similarities between two faces.
• How can you do this?
• This can be done with adding facial annotations and mea-
surements in the comparative analysis of faces in addition to
conducting background check verifications.
• The annotations and supporting documents can be intro-
duced into court as the basis which generated the facial
recognition lead.
• This proper documentation can greatly assist in the prosecu-
tion of suspects.
• Implementing this methodology shows an agency is not sim-
ply relying on the facial recognition software, but is sourcing
other methods to validate the match.
Agencies Must Independently Establish Probable
Cause for Arrest
Upon review, all facial recognition matches should be
treated no differently than someone calling in a possi-
ble lead from a dedicated tip line.
• The onus still falls on the investigator in an agency to inde-
pendently establish probable cause to effect an arrest.
• It is important to note: A recommended best practice in facial
Screen shot from Vigilant Solutions FaceSearch showing an image-editing tool
that can be used to improve the odds of a match.
15