A Tennessee grandmother who spent six months in jail after facial recognition tech falsely linked her to a North Dakota bank fraud investigation now wants compensation for what happened. Angela Lipps is suing the City of Fargo and a Fargo Police Department detective for $10 million over the incident, which led to the loss of her home, car, and dog.
In July 2025, a team of US Marshals arrested 50-year-old Lipps in Tennessee at gunpoint while she was babysitting four young children. She was booked into the county jail in Tennessee as a fugitive from justice wanted in North Dakota.
In an ideal world, she’d win every penny and the money would come out of the assets of each and every person involved in her arrest, including their immediate superiors so that lessons would be learned.
She lost her assets through no fault of her own. Seems only fair that they should lose theirs, if not worse, because they actually did something wrong.
That’s a bit vindictive. They probably didn’t pick the software or didn’t even know how it worked.
The idiots that did, and that trusted the facial recognition without verification, the company that made it (if it made false claims), those look more like the ones responsible.
“Sorry you got shot, our police officers never got firearm training.”
A woman was locked up for 6 months and lost everything, they deserve so much worse. They attempted to use software to do their work for them.
I mean, that’s pretty much most USA police departments. Average training budget only gives them about 25 rounds a year per officer… if that sounds like very little, that’s because it is.
If you see a deleted comment I misread what you said reslly feels like that should be per month.
Then again firearm training doesn’t cure racism and negligence so maybe keep them poorly trained.
deleted by creator
I mean, maybe they should try harder then. It’s part of their job.
Frankly, maybe we would have less bull shit if punishment for fucking was more than “oh geeze, that was a mistake and you said sorry so it’s good.”
Also legalese weasel word bull shit that basically makes providers of services and software etc never liable need to be outlawed.
They didn’t do due diligence. It was easily prevented by double checking everything
Heh, you said “do due”
" ‘I was only following orders’ […] The refuge of scoundrels since the dawn of time. " - Patrick Ness
No, I’ve no idea who Patrick Ness is either, but it’s a quote from one of his works, and it happens to be true.
So the ones she’s suing. She likely can’t go after the software company because it’s very likely they just have like a confidence score and a legal thing that says “when you use this we’re just providing an estimate and possible match and you need to do your diligence.” But the fact the state/city/department has no policy that more corroborating evidence is required for an arrest / jail and that detective just blanket trusted the software without any other evidence means they should be the primary targets of the lawsuit. Additionally this is ripe for political candidates to take on, so I’m surprised she hasn’t gotten some politician using her as an example for more stringent policies in the use of facial recognition by law enforcement.