What lawyers in the case are hailing as a sweeping legal and civil rights victory will see the city of Detroit paying out $300,000 to a man falsely accused of shoplifting because of a flawed facial recognition system. The settlement will compensate Robert Williams for his troubles. Still, significant reforms will be required in how the Detroit Police Department uses facial recognition technology, such as warnings about its flaws and potential for racial bias.
The incident that ultimately led to Williams’ wrongful arrest dates as far back as 2018, when a grainy security video captured a man stealing from a Shinola watch store in Detroit. Facial recognition technology the Detroit Police Department was using misidentified Williams’ driver’s license photo as a likely match for the thief. Two years later, Williams was arrested outside his home in Farmington Hills, a suburb of Detroit, in front of his wife and two young daughters, an event that was very dramatic and traumatic.
It was an ordinary day for Williams when the police came to his home and arrested him without warning. He recalled the humiliating experience, describing how he was handcuffed in his front yard in full view of his children, who were witnessing the scene in a confused and afraid manner. “We are beyond pleased that there will be more safeguards on using this technology moving forward. We hope to live in a better world because of it, even though what we would like them to do is not use it at all,” Williams reflected on the incident and the change it brought about.
Williams was held for more than 24 hours before he was taken to court to defend himself, and then the charges were dismissed. Throughout this ordeal, he received solid support from the American Civil Liberties Union, who pounded away at the systemic flaws and racial biases endemic in facial recognition technology. According to the ACLU, facial recognition technology routinely misidentifies people of color, which in turn disproportionately leads to a higher rate of false arrests within Black and minority constituencies.
This technology failed sharply, starkly, and unmistakably in Williams’ case. He is one of three black people wrongly arrested by the Detroit police because of mistaken facial recognition matches. ACLU’s involvement drew national attention to these injustices and increased calls for stricter regulations on using such technologies by law enforcement.
In August 2021, in response to public outcry and current lawsuits, Detroit Police Chief James White announced new policies to ensure that no such incident happens again in the future. These policy changes were made while the legal action on Williams’ case was still underway, further underpinning the police department’s willingness to correct the likely issues.
The new policies dictate that facial recognition alone cannot be used to justify an arrest. Now, it becomes incumbent on the police officer to collect other corroborative evidence to point out the “means, ability, and opportunity to commit the crime” by the suspect. The shift is monumental in ensuring that technological gadgets are responsibly deployed, never to replace traditional forms of investigation.
Finally, as part of the settlement, the Detroit Police Department will not be allowed to use photo lineups originating from facial recognition searches solely to effect an arrest. This step helps to reduce the number of wrong arrests due to defective technology and ensures that human judgment and full investigation remain integral to the procedures.
The wrongful arrest shook Williams himself and his family, causing permanent emotional damage. “Abuses by the Detroit Police Department based on facial recognition technology completely upended my life,” so described Williams at the moment of his arrest, which traumatized his wife and daughters. “My wife and young daughters had to stand by helplessly as I was arrested for a crime I never did, and by the time I reached home from jail, I had already missed my youngest losing her first tooth, and my eldest couldn’t bear to look at my picture. Years later, it still brings them to tears when they think about it.”
The Williams case serves as a reminder of how technological errors have human consequences and how safeguards are needed to avoid becoming victims of wrongful accusations. While the settlement provided some financial relief, it is also about justice for Williams and his family, the suffering they have endured, and the change that needs to happen.
The Williams case has implications for how police departments around the United States use face recognition technology. The settlement could turn out to be a very serious warning— in its implications—of the misuse that might be made possible and the serious consequences of using unverified technology for some of the most important decisions in law enforcement.
Phil Mayor, a senior staff attorney at the ACLU of Michigan, hailed today’s settlement as a landmark moment in reforming how policing is done. “Police reliance on shoddy technology only begets shoddy investigations,” said the Mayor. Under this settlement, the Detroit Police Department should transform from being a nationwide leader in wrongful arrests driven by facial recognition technology into a leader in putting in place meaningful, well-thought-out guardrails to constrain and limit their use of the technology.”
The settlement will further mandate the Detroit Police Department to audit all cases from 2017 through 2023 involving facial recognition technology leading to arrest warrants. This review shall be used to find any other instances where wrongful arrests might have occurred due to faulty technology. If such cases are found, notice shall be provided to prosecutors, and corrective actions shall be taken to rectify these mistakes.
A national model for the Williams settlement—which is mandating changes—will likely be the outline for other cities grappling with the same ethical and practical dilemmas as the poetic license to use facial recognition technology in policing. Michael J. Steinberg, director of the Civil Rights Litigation Initiative at the University of Michigan Law School, hoped the settlement would create a ripple effect across the nation. “We certainly hope this historic settlement will stop future wrongful arrests of Black people in Detroit, and it will serve as a model for other police departments that insist upon using facial recognition technology,” attorney Steinberg said.
Steinberg also underscored the settlement’s personal significance for Williams: “We are also glad that Mr. Williams, who has become a face of the movement to stop the misuse of facial recognition, will receive some measure of relief.” His case has illuminated the broader movement for the responsible and equitable use of technology in policing.
A seminal settlement with the city of Detroit was reached after the wrongful arrest of Robert Williams, blamed on flawed facial recognition technology, with both financial compensation and significant policy changes. What has resulted is that the dangers of relying on technology solely for enforcement of the law when tools prove biased and inaccurate have been placed center stage.
The Detroit Police Department’s changes, like not allowing arrests based on facial recognition and auditing prior cases for errors, are essential steps toward much more accountable and just policing. Williams’s ordeal and resulting reform show that traditional constructive investigation is as important as using technological tools to ensure justice and fairness for all people.
As law enforcement agencies nationwide adopt new technologies rapidly, the Williams case is a critical reminder that rigorous safeguards, oversight, and accountability for those technologies are needed. A settlement with Williams will not only mean justice for one individual; it now sets a precedent for system-wide changes that will help avoid future injustices and safeguard civil rights for all.
What has remained the same in this changing landscape of law enforcement technology is the purpose: to build a fair system, use technological advancement with caution, and ensure that human rights are well protected—with justice reigning. Williams’ case was one of solid advocacy, legal accountability, and a relentless quest for justice—by not giving up—in the face of challenges brought forth by technology.
