{"id":6956,"date":"2026-04-23T20:37:32","date_gmt":"2026-04-23T20:37:32","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogs.luc.edu\/compliance\/?p=6956"},"modified":"2026-04-23T20:37:45","modified_gmt":"2026-04-23T20:37:45","slug":"evolving-technology-in-law-enforcement-concerns-and-solutions","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.luc.edu\/compliance\/?p=6956","title":{"rendered":"Evolving Technology in Law Enforcement: Concerns and Solutions"},"content":{"rendered":"

Chris Gasche<\/span><\/i>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Associate Editor<\/span><\/i>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Loyola University of Chicago School of Law<\/span><\/i>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Facial recognition technology\u00a0has\u00a0become widespread in consumer and commercial environments, and\u00a0particularly\u00a0law enforcement. Despite\u00a0numerous\u00a0benefits, these systems raise great concerns about privacy and data protection. The current legal frameworks are not\u00a0strong enough to effectively manage the risks.\u00a0No\u00a0<\/span>federal laws<\/span><\/a>\u00a0currently exist to regulate the use of\u00a0facial recognition technology. Instead,\u00a0enforcement\u00a0is left\u00a0to\u00a0the\u00a0states.\u00a0Without\u00a0aggressive\u00a0state\u00a0initiatives,\u00a0use of facial recognition technology by law enforcement will continue\u00a0unabated.\u00a0This will result in data collection mired in algorithmic bias\u00a0and will result in a complete disregard of civil liberties.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Concerns with the implementation of biometric analysis in law\u00a0enforcement<\/span><\/b>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Police departments and other law enforcement agencies use\u00a0facial recognition technology\u00a0by comparing footage from\u00a0closed-circuit\u00a0television\u00a0(CCTV), body-worn\u00a0cameras, and\u00a0social media databases.\u00a0This allows\u00a0<\/span>agencies to identify individuals quickly<\/span><\/a>\u00a0in order to\u00a0prevent crime.\u00a0This would provide tremendous relief for law enforcement agencies\u00a0because it would allow them to\u00a0locate\u00a0and pursue active criminals faster than they would without the technology. However, concerns\u00a0arise when these technologies are\u00a0used in real-time to provide alerts to law enforcement agencies about potential offenders.\u00a0Cameras equipped with this technology can\u00a0immediately\u00a0relay facial recognition information to local law enforcement.\u00a0These\u00a0systems then\u00a0match your biometric data to data stored in law enforcement\u00a0databases.\u00a0<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Despite some state regulation of real-time facial recognition, law enforcement is finding ways around the restrictions.\u00a0In New Orleans,\u00a0<\/span>a private network<\/span><\/a>\u00a0of AI-powered cameras\u00a0deliver\u00a0real-time alerts to law enforcement.\u00a0Although the\u00a0<\/span>city council restricted<\/span><\/a>\u00a0police\u00a0use of\u00a0this technology, privately owned cameras upload facial recognition data to a nonprofit called Project NOLA. Police can then download\u00a0their\u00a0app and receive alerts indirectly. This technique is\u00a0not uncommon. Law enforcement in cities like Austin and San Francisco\u00a0<\/span>circumvent regulation<\/span><\/a>\u00a0by having non-regulated law enforcement agencies run facial recognition data on their behalf.\u00a0<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

One of the main concerns with\u00a0the use\u00a0of\u00a0facial recognition technology\u00a0in law enforcement is accuracy and bias. Studies from\u00a0the\u00a0<\/span>National Library of Medicine<\/span><\/a>\u00a0and the\u00a0<\/span>ACLU of Minnesota<\/span><\/a>\u00a0show that\u00a0facial recognition technology\u00a0is the least reliable for people of color and women.\u00a0These systems tend to emphasize existing inequalities because of the data that the system receives.\u00a0An\u00a0<\/span>MIT study<\/span><\/a>\u00a0tested\u00a0facial recognition technology\u00a0and found a 34.7% error rate\u00a0when\u00a0identifying\u00a0the gender of\u00a0dark-skinned women,\u00a0<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

In\u00a0<\/span>at least a dozen cases<\/span><\/a>, the criminal charges have been dismissed\u00a0as a\u00a0result\u00a0of\u00a0a false identification\u00a0elicited\u00a0by facial recognition software.\u00a0In many of these cases, the defendants were\u00a0dark-skinned. Further, these false recognitions leading to\u00a0an\u00a0arrest often\u00a0contain\u00a0no information as to how the\u00a0identification was made.\u00a0Despite these concerns, funding for facial recognition in law enforcement is only growing.\u00a0In September of 2025, ICE signed $10\u00a0million dollar\u00a0contracts with organizations such as Clearview AI. The same company that provided the software which led to\u00a0the false\u00a0identifications.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Proposed legislation<\/span><\/b>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Absent federal\u00a0regulation, state laws must fill the gap to regulate these systems.\u00a0As of August 2025,\u00a0<\/span>23 states have passed<\/span><\/a>\u00a0laws intended to restrict the use of facial recognition technology, including Illinois.\u00a0Illinois\u2019s\u00a0<\/span>Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA)<\/span><\/a>\u00a0is unique because the law allows individuals to sue companies that abuse these technologies.\u00a0The law has\u00a0significant requirements\u00a0on\u00a0private entities,\u00a0including requiring the destruction of biometric data when it is no longer needed,\u00a0and requiring these entities to consult\u00a0with the subject of data collection prior to the collection occurring. Even still, the bill\u00a0lacks\u00a0direct effectiveness at regulating law enforcement\u00a0agencies’ use of facial recognition technology.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

A\u00a0<\/span>proposed bill<\/span><\/a>\u00a0in Illinois would prohibit law enforcement agencies from\u00a0utilizing\u00a0facial recognition\u00a0software\u00a0with some exceptions.\u00a0It would also prevent the\u00a0aforementioned loophole\u00a0allowing law\u00a0enforcement\u00a0to contract with third parties to indirectly use facial recognition technology.\u00a0Currently, the\u00a0<\/span>ACLU of Illinois supports this bill<\/span><\/a>\u00a0and\u00a0argues\u00a0that it is a good step to protect our civil liberties from unknowing\u00a0intrusion\u00a0by law enforcement.\u00a0<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

At the federal level, legislators announced in 2023 the\u00a0\u201c<\/span>Facial Recognition and Biometric Moratorium Act of 2023.<\/span><\/a>\u201d\u00a0This bill\u00a0failed to\u00a0make its way out of Congress. This\u00a0would\u00a0provide\u00a0direct regulation of federal law enforcement agencies by preventing the use of any biometric surveillance system\u00a0absent\u00a0an act of Congress\u00a0authorizing\u00a0its use. The legislation also\u00a0would\u00a0regulate\u00a0state or local government units if their use falls under similar federal restrictions provided by the bill.\u00a0For example,\u00a0the legislation requires that Congress proscribe\u00a0standards for\u00a0the collection of biometric data\u00a0such\u00a0as facial recognition information.\u00a0Despite\u00a0failing to move\u00a0out of Congress, the bill provides hope\u00a0that comprehensive\u00a0regulation might be forthcoming.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

The use of biometric analysis in immigration enforcement<\/span><\/b>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Another concern is the use of facial recognition technology in immigration enforcement.\u00a0The technology, Mobile Fortify, can even access a person\u2019s criminal history from a scan of their face.\u00a0Currently,\u00a0Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)\u00a0officers\u00a0can\u00a0use\u00a0<\/span>this\u00a0technology<\/span><\/a>\u00a0to discover\u00a0someone\u2019s immigration status and\u00a0subsequently\u00a0make swift arrests.\u00a0Although the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) claims that this technology is safe, there are no guardrails preventing the indiscriminate use of this technology in the hands of officers that have\u00a0<\/span>demonstrated apathy<\/span><\/a>\u00a0in the face of violence.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Concerned by the\u00a0<\/span>mass deployment<\/span><\/a>\u00a0of facial recognition technology by\u00a0ICE,\u00a0<\/span>legislators proposed a bill<\/span><\/a>\u00a0in February aimed at prohibiting the use and possession of all biometric surveillance systems by any immigration officer. The bill also requires that any data\u00a0already\u00a0collected\u00a0be\u00a0deleted\u00a0immediately\u00a0after the\u00a0bill\u2019s\u00a0enactment.\u00a0To enforce this ban, the bill provides a\u00a0private right of action for those affected\u00a0by the use of\u00a0this biometric data.\u00a0So far, the bill has not gotten past the\u00a0Senate\u00a0where it was introduced.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Comparative perspectives<\/span><\/b>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

In the European Union (EU), the\u00a0<\/span>AI Act<\/span><\/a>\u00a0and the\u00a0<\/span>General Data Protection Regulation<\/span><\/a>, impose\u00a0strict\u00a0limits on how and when law enforcement is able to use biometric surveillance. Particularly, under the AI Act, the use of real-time facial recognition in public spaces is heavily restricted and is subject to very narrow exceptions. Additionally, these frameworks require government entities to justify the reasons behind biometric surveillance. The Act also requires prior authorization for these types of uses and imposes\u00a0very strict\u00a0limits on the scope of the biometric collection.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

The contrast behind the extensive regulation imposed by the EU and the lackluster regulation in the United States highlights the distance that needs to be covered by current regulatory\u00a0schemes. There needs to be comprehensive federal regulation so that it makes the\u00a0states’\u00a0jobs easier when they are trying to regulate the use of biometric data.\u00a0There needs to be tighter regulation preventing the use of loopholes to avoid accountability by law enforcement agencies.\u00a0This could mean expanding the scope of existing law to ban agreements\u00a0with third party AI data collection companies.\u00a0Additionally, the\u00a0use of\u00a0AI in immigration proceedings\u00a0should be significantly restricted.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Facial recognition technology\u00a0has\u00a0become widespread in consumer and commercial environments, and\u00a0particularly\u00a0law enforcement. Despite\u00a0numerous\u00a0benefits, these systems raise great concerns about privacy and data protection. The current legal frameworks are not\u00a0strong enough to effectively manage the risks.\u00a0No\u00a0federal laws\u00a0currently exist to regulate the use of\u00a0facial recognition technology. Instead,\u00a0enforcement\u00a0is left\u00a0to\u00a0the\u00a0states.\u00a0Without\u00a0aggressive\u00a0state\u00a0initiatives,\u00a0use of facial recognition technology by law enforcement will continue\u00a0unabated.\u00a0This will result in data collection mired in algorithmic bias\u00a0and will result in a complete disregard of civil liberties.\u00a0<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":185,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[46,50],"tags":[149,785,1228],"class_list":["post-6956","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-regulation","category-technology","tag-ai","tag-facial-recognition","tag-law-enforcement"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.luc.edu\/compliance\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6956","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.luc.edu\/compliance\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.luc.edu\/compliance\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.luc.edu\/compliance\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/185"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.luc.edu\/compliance\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=6956"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.luc.edu\/compliance\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6956\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":6957,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.luc.edu\/compliance\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6956\/revisions\/6957"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.luc.edu\/compliance\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=6956"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.luc.edu\/compliance\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=6956"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.luc.edu\/compliance\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=6956"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}