A federal judge in Kentucky has allowed a lawsuit to proceed against a detective accused of relying on facial recognition technology to identify a suspect, drawing a distinction between using artificial intelligence as an investigative aid and treating its output as proof.

The case stems from an attempted fraudulent check transaction at a bank in Florence, Kentucky. According to the lawsuit, a Black man presented what appeared to be a fraudulent check, but the bank declined to cash it. A security camera captured his face.

Detective Kilmer allegedly used a screenshot from the footage with an AI facial recognition tool, which matched it to a booking photograph of a man named Osorio. Kilmer also compared the screenshot with the booking photo and an image from a Facebook profile before concluding that Osorio was the suspect.

Kilmer signed a criminal complaint saying he had used “investigatory tools” to determine the suspect’s identity, without specifying that he had used facial recognition, according to the source account. An arrest warrant followed, and Osorio, a Nebraska resident, was arrested in Florida and extradited to Kentucky.

Osorio maintained that he did not resemble the man in the bank footage. Prosecutors ultimately dismissed the indictment against him with prejudice after he established that he was working in Nebraska when the check was presented.

He later sued Kilmer, asserting claims that included false arrest and imprisonment, malicious prosecution, and assault and battery. The detective moved to dismiss the case, arguing in part that qualified immunity protected him from liability.

For purposes of the motion, Judge S. Chad Meredith was required to accept Osorio’s allegations as true. Meredith denied the motion, finding that the alleged exclusive reliance on AI, along with alleged misstatements or omissions in the warrant-related paperwork, was sufficient for the case to continue. The police department’s policy said facial recognition was advisory and could not establish probable cause without further investigation.

To illustrate the limits of unquestioning reliance on a tool, Meredith imagined an officer using a Magic 8 Ball to identify a suspect. The absence of a prior case specifically condemning that method, he reasoned, would not make it lawful.

The judge acknowledged that facial recognition is likely more reliable than a toy. But he wrote that no reasonable officer would consider the detective’s alleged exclusive reliance on AI lawful, particularly given the asserted differences between Osorio’s booking photo and the person in the security footage.

The decision does not resolve whether Kilmer is liable. It does, however, allow Osorio’s claims to move forward and underscores the need for independent investigation when an algorithm points police toward a suspect.