'Fourth Amendment doesn't allow it': AI facial recognition mistake lands Nebraska man in jail for 2 weeks; judge allows lawsuit against Kentucky cop

A US federal judge has allowed a lawsuit against a Kentucky police detective to proceed after a man alleged that he was wrongly arrested and jailed for more than two weeks because the officer relied solely on artificial intelligence (AI) facial-recognition technology to identify him as a check-fraud suspect.

US District Judge S. Chad Meredith of the Eastern District of Kentucky denied Detective Ryan Kilmer's request to dismiss the lawsuit on November 9, 2026. The judge ruled that the Fourth Amendment does not permit an arrest based solely on an uncorroborated conclusion generated by AI.

The judge also rejected Kilmer's claim to qualified immunity, which can protect government officials from personal liability in certain circumstances.


The lawsuit was filed by Alain Vizcay Osorio, who has accused Kilmer of false arrest and malicious prosecution. Prosecutors dismissed the criminal charges against Osorio in May 2025 after he provided evidence that he was working in Nebraska when the alleged fraudulent check was presented at a Kentucky bank.

What happened?

As per the court documents, the case dates back to August 30, 2024, when a man identifying himself as Ernesto Ramirez attempted to cash a suspected fraudulent check at Heritage Bank in Florence, Kentucky. The man presented a Texas driver's licence, but a bank teller suspected that the document was fake and refused to cash the check. The individual then left the bank without receiving any money. Security cameras captured the incident, including an unobstructed view of the man's face.

A few weeks later, Detective Ryan Kilmer of the Florence Police Department began investigating the suspected fraud. After discovering that the Texas driver's licence was fake, he turned to the bank's security footage to identify the suspect.

According to the court documents, Kilmer took a screenshot of the man's face and used AI facial-recognition technology to compare it with a booking photograph and a Facebook profile image.

The detective allegedly relied solely on the AI-generated identification and concluded that the images matched.

The Facebook profile belonged to an individual identified as Yony Smith Npoles Charon. For reasons that were not explained in the complaint, Kilmer concluded that the person was actually Alain Vizcay Osorio, whose photograph appeared in the booking records.

Kilmer subsequently signed a criminal complaint stating that he had used investigative tools to identify Osorio as the person captured in the bank's security footage.

The complaint was used to obtain an arrest warrant. Officers arrested Osorio in Florida on January 9, 2025.

Osorio, who lived in Nebraska, was extradited to Boone County, Kentucky, where he faced charges of criminal possession of a forged instrument in the first and second degrees.

He was arraigned on January 23 and released on bond the following day. In March 2025, he was indicted on both charges.

However, on May 7, 2025, prosecutors dismissed the indictment with prejudice after Osorio established that he was working in Nebraska when the attempted check fraud took place.

Why did Osorio sue the detective?

Osorio alleged that Kilmer failed to adequately investigate or verify his identity before seeking an arrest warrant. According to the lawsuit, the photographs of Osorio and the person captured in the bank's security footage showed significant differences, including their head shapes, haircuts, facial features and complexions.

The court also noted that the only apparent similarities between Osorio and the person in the footage were that both were Black men with facial hair.

Osorio further alleged that Kilmer misrepresented the identification process in the criminal complaint by claiming to have used investigative tools and compared photographs, while actually relying exclusively on AI facial-recognition technology.

The Florence Police Department's own policy stated that facial-recognition technology was advisory and could not establish probable cause without further investigation.

Osorio has brought claims under federal and Kentucky law, including false arrest, false imprisonment, malicious prosecution, assault and battery.

Detective Kilmer has denied wrongdoing and argued that Osorio had failed to establish that the alleged conduct violated clearly established law.

What did the judge say?

In his November 9 ruling, Judge Meredith said the Fourth Amendment protects individuals from unreasonable arrests and seizures by the government. The judge said a police officer cannot delegate the responsibility of assessing probable cause entirely to artificial intelligence.

He also pointed to the alleged failure to disclose the exclusive reliance on AI in the application for the arrest warrant.

The judge said there was good reason to believe that the warrant might not have been issued if the detective had fully explained how he identified Osorio.

To illustrate his reasoning, Meredith used a hypothetical example involving a police detective who relies on a Magic 8 Ball to identify a suspect.

He explained that an officer could not use the output of such a device as the sole basis for obtaining an arrest warrant and then claim immunity because there was no previous court ruling specifically addressing the use of a Magic 8 Ball.

The judge compared unquestioned reliance on AI facial-recognition technology to relying on the Magic 8 Ball, explaining that officers must carry out additional investigative work to establish probable cause.

"While AI facial recognition technology has rapidly developed over recent years and is likely more reliable than a Magic 8 Ball, placing unquestioned reliance on such technology is still not much different in principle from placing unquestioned reliance on a Magic 8 Ball. No reasonable officer would think that Detective Kilmer’s allegedly exclusive reliance on AI is lawful—especially given how Osorio’s booking photo looks nothing like the suspect from the security camera footage," the judge said.

However, Meredith clarified that the case remains at an early stage. Evidence uncovered during discovery could change the outcome, and the detective could still raise further legal arguments.

The court allowed Osorio to file a second amended complaint and denied Kilmer's motion for judgment on the pleadings.

The detective was directed to file an answer or another response within 14 days. The court also scheduled a status conference for November 19, 2026.