Angela Lipps, a 50-year-old grandmother and mother of three, spent over five months behind bars after Fargo (North Dakota) police linked her to bank frauds committed in a state where, by her own account, she had never been. It was only after her extradition to North Dakota that her lawyer discovered bank records confirming that Lipps had been in Tennessee at the time the crimes were committed. The charges were dropped on 23 December, and she was released on Christmas Eve.

This case calls for a much deeper analysis than simply noting yet another algorithmic failure. It demonstrates a structural pattern inherent in every era of technological transformation in criminal justice: a new identification tool is introduced with enthusiasm and uncritical trust, supplanting tried-and-tested methods of establishing facts, whilst specific individuals become the victims of systemic errors. To see this pattern for oneself, one need only look at a case that took place over 120 years ago in London.

THE CASE OF ADOLF BECK: ANATOMY OF AN IDENTIFICATION ERROR AT THE TURN OF THE TWENTIETH CENTURY

In 1896, the Norwegian national Adolf Beck was convicted by the Central Criminal Court of London (the Old Bailey) for a series of frauds against women — allegedly, posing as a lord, he would approach them on the street, promise expensive gifts, and steal their jewellery. The verdict was based almost exclusively on witness testimony: the victims identified Beck unanimously. Moreover, the police established that similar crimes had been committed in 1877 by a person using the same modus operandi — and this old case was attributed to Beck without sufficient grounds.

After serving five years of his sentence, Beck was released in 1901 — only to find himself back in custody in 1904 on identical charges. And once again: confident, unanimous eyewitness testimony. And once again: an innocent man. The real offender — William Thomas, operating under the alias John Smith — was apprehended only by chance: he committed yet another fraud after Beck’s second arrest and was caught in the act. Beck was released and pardoned. The total duration of his wrongful imprisonment amounted to approximately seven years.

What allowed this miscarriage of justice to occur not once but twice? The answer lies in the institutional attitude towards the new identification paradigm. The late nineteenth century was the era of what was then called ‘scientific policing’: Bertillon’s anthropometry, later fingerprinting, and systematised procedures for questioning witnesses. Eyewitnesses no longer simply ‘recognised’ a suspect — they participated in a procedure that carried the trappings of scientific rigour. The procedural authority of identification became self-sufficient evidence requiring no verification. Beck’s alibis were not seriously investigated precisely because ‘scientific’ identification appeared more reliable than any exculpatory counter-evidence.

The Beck case had significant legal consequences: in 1907, the Court of Criminal Appeal was established in England — directly as an institutional response to the demonstrated inability of the system to self-correct in cases involving identification errors.

STRUCTURAL PARALLELS: TECHNOLOGICAL DETERMINISM AND FAILURES OF PROOF

A comparison of the Beck and Lipps cases reveals a striking structural isomorphism, suggesting a consistent pattern rather than mere coincidence.

First, in both cases the identification technology was introduced into law enforcement practice without proper validation and without established standards for its admissibility. The Fargo police chief admitted at a press conference that the department had acquired its own facial recognition system ‘without the knowledge of senior management’ and without agreed protocols for its use. ‘We would not have allowed this to be used,’ he stated, noting that the system has since been prohibited. In the Beck case, systematic in-person identification was similarly introduced as a tool of ‘progress’ without adequate consideration of its inherent limitations.

Second, in both cases alibis or counter-evidence were available from the outset but were not properly investigated, due to excessive reliance on the identification outcome. Lipps’s lawyers emphasised that ‘the police officer used facial recognition as a substitute for basic investigation’ and that ‘no investigation was carried out to establish whether she was even in North Dakota at the relevant time’. The word ‘substitute’ is key: the technology did not supplement traditional investigative methods — it replaced them.

Third, in both cases the institutional machinery continued to move by inertia even after the first signs of error appeared. The police received information about potentially exculpatory evidence as early as 12 December, yet a substantive response — involving the investigator, the prosecutor, and the judge — did not follow until 23 December, more than five months after the arrest.

Fourth, the legal consequences for the victims proved catastrophic beyond the scope of the criminal proceedings themselves. For Beck, prolonged detention destroyed his reputation and social standing. For Lipps, ‘the trauma, loss of liberty and reputational damage cannot be easily remedied’, her lawyers state, noting that they are considering bringing civil rights claims.

This parallel points to a central theoretical problem: why do such errors recur with each technological shift in the identification paradigm? The answer lies in what might be called technological determinism in evidence law — the tendency, once a new tool acquires ‘scientific’ status, to treat it as a priori superior to traditional forms of evidence. This cognitive bias is reinforced by a structural asymmetry: the flaws of traditional methods (eyewitness testimony, documentary records) are well known and openly discussed, whereas the flaws of the new tool remain systematically invisible until the first high-profile scandal.

PROCEDURAL AND NORMATIVE DIMENSIONS

The Lipps case highlights several normative questions long debated in the doctrine of criminal procedure, which have taken on new urgency with the widespread introduction of AI into law enforcement.

The first is the admissibility standard for algorithmic evidence. The result of Clearview AI’s facial recognition served as the basis for issuing an arrest warrant with inter-state extradition — without any verification by an independent competent authority.

The second concerns procedural safeguards when using automated systems. The ‘human-in-the-loop’ principle has gained widespread formal recognition, yet the Lipps case demonstrates its practical erosion: a human is technically present, but their role is reduced to relaying the algorithmic output without critical scrutiny. ‘The detectives mistakenly assumed that they had also been sent photographs from the scene along with the identification conclusion,’ the police chief admitted — describing a process in which even the minimal verification step nominally built into the procedure was bypassed by those captivated by the authority of the algorithm.

The third concerns remedial justice. The police chief declined to apologise, citing an ongoing investigation into a ‘wide network of individuals’. This stance is symptomatic: institutional denial of responsibility is as much a structural component of the pattern as the original error.

CONCLUSIONS: THE PERPETUAL RACE BETWEEN TECHNOLOGY AND THE LAW OF EVIDENCE

The Lipps case is neither an anomaly nor the product of purely individual negligence. It is the predictable outcome of an incomplete institutional understanding of a new identification paradigm. One hundred and thirty years separate the Adolf Beck case from the Angela Lipps case, yet the nature of the error is unchanged. Technological innovation alters only the instrument; the first victims are always those whose alibi proves ‘less convincing’ than the authority of an identification system that has not yet stood the test of time.

For the doctrine of evidence law, the Lipps case reaffirms that proven reliability, reproducibility of results, and independent verification must remain the constant criteria for the admissibility of evidence, regardless of the technological nature of the tool. The foundational principle — that no evidence is self-sufficient and that all evidence must be tested in adversarial proceedings — is not superseded by the advent of artificial intelligence. On the contrary: the more powerful the tool, the stricter the procedural framework governing its use must be.

The genuine novelty of our era lies not in the fact that algorithms make mistakes — all identification systems do — but in the fact that the pace and scale of their deployment are outrunning the development of legal safeguards against their errors.

Pre-war (2013-2021), Ukraine demonstrated consistent crime reduction, reaching a historic low of 321443 registered crimes in 2021, with approximately 50-54% suspect identification rates. The full-scale invasion immediately disrupted this trajectory. By 2025, registered crimes surged to 608191 – an 89% increase from 2021 – while suspect identification plummeted to 27,3%, creating an unprecedented justice gap with over 442000 criminal proceedings lacking identified suspects.

The war fundamentally transformed crime patterns. Criminality became significantly more rural, with rural crime increasing from 20% (2013-2021) to 32,3% (2025) of total crimes. The urban-to-rural crime ratio declined from 4:1 to barely 2:1, reflecting occupation-related crimes, abandoned property theft, and frontline zone criminality.

Crime categories showed varied impacts: property crimes initially decreased but fraud increased dramatically (from 23847 in 2021 to 82609 in 2023). Domestic violence crimes surged (from 4800 in 2021 to 8900 in 2024). War crimes exploded from 253 in 2021 to 62128 in 2022. Intentional homicides with firearms peaked at 909 in 2023 – 25 times the 2021 baseline. Paradoxically, despite weapon proliferation, some firearms crimes showed complex patterns rather than simple increases.

Human trafficking statistics revealed troubling gaps: despite 6,5 million refugees creating unprecedented vulnerability, registered cases remained low (105 in 2024), suggesting severe underreporting and possible law enforcement complicity.

The study demonstrates that while Ukraine maintained statistical transparency during existential crisis, institutional effectiveness collapsed under wartime pressures, creating dangerous impunity that threatens post-war reconstruction and rule of law.

The Spark: Mayor’s Assassination

The protests were catalyzed by the November 1st assassination of Uruapan Mayor Carlos Manzo, who was shot while attending a Day of the Dead festival. Manzo had been vocal about demanding tough action against drug cartels terrorizing Mexican communities. Demonstrators honored his memory by carrying banners reading “We are all Carlos Manzo” and wearing cowboy hats in tribute.

Escalating Violence

The situation deteriorated when protesters dismantled barriers protecting the National Palace, where Sheinbaum resides. Police responded with tear gas, and authorities arrested 20 people on charges including robbery and assault, according to Mexico City security chief Pablo Vazquez.

Political Tensions

President Sheinbaum has attributed the protests to right-wing political opposition, claiming they were funded by her critics. Days before the march, she suggested the demonstration was being promoted by bots online, questioning the authenticity of the grassroots movement while affirming support for freedom of expression.

Sheinbaum’s Balancing Act

Despite maintaining approval ratings above 70% in her first year, Sheinbaum faces mounting pressure. She has made progress on fentanyl-trafficking enforcement—a priority for U.S. President Donald Trump—but resists calls for an all-out drug war, citing the bloody failures of previous administrations’ approaches.

The protests highlight growing frustration with Mexico’s ongoing security crisis, even as the president attempts to chart a different course than her predecessors in addressing cartel violence.

On October 28, 2025, a large-scale police operation took place in the Complexo do Alemão and Complexo da Penha communities, reportedly aimed at enforcing some 100 judicial warrants against individuals linked to organized criminal groups. According to official information, at least 121 people were killed, including four police officers. Some 81 people were detained.

For decades, the high lethality associated with policing in Brazil has become normalized, particularly in areas like Rio de Janeiro, where it has recently increased significantly. Brazil must break the cycle of extreme brutality and ensure that law enforcement operations comply with international standards regarding the use of force.

Türk called for prompt, independent, and effective investigations into Tuesday’s events and for a comprehensive policing reform.

Independent mechanisms should also be established to support the families and communities affected to help them access justice and reparation.

Türk urged the authorities to adopt a national policing strategy rooted in a human rights-based approach. Any use of potentially lethal force must be aligned with the principles of legality, necessity, proportionality, and non-discrimination. Lethal force may only be used when strictly necessary to protect life or prevent serious injury from an imminent threat.

Addressing systemic racism against people of African descent in Brazil is paramount.

According to the International Independent Expert Mechanism to Advance Racial Justice and Equality in Law Enforcement (EMLER), the killing of people of African descent by law enforcement in Brazil is not only generalized but is also carried out in a systematic way. An estimated 5,000 people of African descent are killed by the police each year. Young men of African descent living in impoverished areas are the main victims.

“It is time to end a system that perpetuates racism, discrimination, and injustice,” said the UN Human Rights Chief.

“Reforms are urgently needed to avoid repetition. Violations cannot go unpunished. Proper accountability processes must lead to truth and justice to avoid further impunity and violence.”

We cordially invite all experts in the fields of criminal law, criminology, sociology, political science, and other areas and disciplines to discuss current issues related to the impact of Russian aggression on the state and society.

Date: 28 November 2025

Time: 11:00 (Kyiv time)

Format: online

Access: via the link

California is among the first states to address the issue. The reporting was cited in the legislative analysis of the bill that ultimately became the law.

Senate Bill 524, signed into law Oct. 10, requires police officers to disclose when they use AI to write police reports. The tools include Draft One, an AI assistant that transcribes and summarizes body-camera footage to produce a draft report, which officers can then revise and edit.

Specifically, the law now requires a written disclosure to appear at the bottom of each page of a police report for which Draft One or other similar tools were used. The legislation also requires an “audit trail” that would preserve the original draft as well as identify the source bodycam footage or audio.

Police departments in East Palo Alto and Fresno were among the first in the state to adopt the technology.

For example, officers must fill in prompts within the generated report, then sign off on the report’s accuracy before it can be submitted. The tool also includes a disclaimer that Draft One was used, though police agencies have thus far been able to customize where in a report it’s placed.

Police departments have said the technology saves officers significant time, and even that some AI-generated reports are better than the ones written entirely by officers. Nevertheless, the bill arose out of concerns that bias or errors generated by AI software could make their way into final incident reports, which play a key role in charging, detaining and sentencing suspects.

Kate Chatfield, executive director of the California Public Defenders Association, which sponsored the bill, said she’s grateful the measure became law.

“Due process requires transparency,” Chatfield wrote in a public statement. “Everyone in the legal system — judges, juries, attorneys and the accused — deserve to know who wrote the police report.”

“With SB 524, California is sending a clear message: Innovation in policing must be tethered to accountability,” state Sen. Jesse Arreguín, who wrote the bill, said in the statement. “No more opaque reports, no more guessing whether AI shaped the narrative.”

Kevin Little, a defense attorney in Fresno, said the law is a step in the right direction, but not a true remedy.

“My own experience with AI in an unrelated context leads me to conclude that AI platforms have a significant amount of user bias and tend to support the agendas of the user,” he said.

Larry Bowlan, a spokesperson for the Fresno Police Department, said the agency had already implemented some of the safeguards now required by the law and does not expect the new rules to be especially burdensome.

“Our AI-powered narrative assistant … already generates a disclosure and requires our users to sign acknowledgements. Draft One also already produces the requisite audit trail,” he wrote in an email. “We are actively working with our vendor on the best solution for preserving and storing the first draft provided by the assistant, as well as a minor tweak to ensure the disclosure is present on each printed page, rather than just the first page as it is now.”

A spokesperson for the East Palo Alto Department said his agency has no official response to the law at this time.

Opponents of the bill included the California Police Chiefs Association and the Police Officers Research Association of California, a police union advocacy and lobbying group. The Chiefs Association did not respond to a request for comment. In a statement, PORAC President Brian R. Marvel said the signed version of the law is an improvement over earlier drafts.

“In its original form, SB 524 would have put significant administrative burden on already short-staffed police forces and created broad liability by requiring agencies to retain every AI-generated draft, interim, and final version of a report, each labeled with AI disclosure language,” he wrote. “PORAC advocated to amend this bill … We were pleased to see several of these amendments taken, with the final version of the bill significantly narrowed.”

Axon representative Victoria Keough said the company is committed to complying with all state and federal laws, including SB 524.

“When developing AI for public safety, transparency and accountability are essential,” Keough wrote in a statement. “Responsible innovation remains at the core of how Axon designs and delivers new technology.”

The new requirements go into effect on Jan. 1, 2026.

By Kerry Klein, KVPR

Kerry Klein is a reporter and editor with KVPR in Fresno. Additional reporting was provided by KQED’s Sukey Lewis. The story was produced with support from The California Newsroom, a collaboration of public media outlets throughout the state. 

Despite its widespread acceptance this paper asserts that there are conceptual limitations that emerge when applying the theory to the policing of crowd events.

This paper contends that this problem with PJT is a result of specific assumptions that are highlighted by two studies using a novel experimental approach. Study 1 systematically manipulated the social categories used to describe crowd participants subjected to police coercion.

The experiment demonstrates how these social categories dramatically affected participants’ perceptions of the same police action and that it was participants’ relational identification with the police, rather than a superordinate category, that mediated the association between judgements of procedural fairness and intentions to cooperate.

In Study 2, using a quasi-experimental design, we then replicated and extended these findings by demonstrating how perceptions of procedural fairness are also influenced by levels of in-group identification.

The paper concludes by exploring the implications of the data for reconceptualising the social psychological processes mediating these judgements and impacts of police legitimacy.

Source

“We will erase that disgraceful chapter of history and make sure that the police fully stand as a democratic force that protects the Constitution and the people through neutrality and democratic oversight”.

Police should strive to become a “smart” force capable of responding to emerging threats, such as voice phishing and deepfake cybercrimes, pointing out the need for stronger interagency collaboration and the use of artificial intelligence in efforts to prevent those crimes in advance.

It was also called for “preemptive” measures to better protect ordinary citizens amid a rise in dating-related crimes and stalking, as well as taking aggressive measures to crack down on narcotics crimes and ensure related treatment and rehabilitation systems are firmly established.