Attorneys Send Evidence-Preservation Letters to ND Agencies in Lipps Facial Recognition Case
Angela Lipps' attorney sent evidence-preservation letters to six North Dakota agencies after she spent five months jailed over an AI facial recognition match, with Fargo police already denying records access.
Attorneys for Angela Lipps, a Tennessee grandmother who spent five months in jail following an AI facial recognition match before charges against her were dismissed, sent letters of preservation last week to six North Dakota law enforcement agencies, her attorney Dane DeKrey confirmed Thursday, March 19.
DeKrey told WDAY News the letters went to Fargo police, West Fargo police, the Cass County Sheriff's Office, the Cass County Attorney's Office, the North Dakota Bureau of Criminal Investigation and the North Dakota State and Local Intelligence Center. He said all parties acknowledged receiving the letters, which are normally sent before or during a lawsuit.
The city of Fargo independently confirmed it received a letter to preserve potential evidence tied to Lipps' arrest.
Tennessee police arrested Lipps after an AI facial recognition system identified her as a suspect in a bank fraud investigation in the Fargo metro area. She was later released and charges were dismissed. Reporting on the case noted that Lipps spent five months in jail without being interviewed by police.
Lipps' attorneys are also requesting records tied to her arrest, but those requests have met resistance. Fargo police denied the request, citing the ongoing investigation, DeKrey said. Cass County Attorney Kim Hedvik was out of town as of March 19, and DeKrey said her office would decide how to respond once she returns. As of Thursday afternoon, the remaining agencies had not yet responded to the records requests.
The preservation letters set up a potential legal reckoning across multiple jurisdictions. Such letters are typically a precursor to civil litigation, though DeKrey did not explicitly state whether a lawsuit had been filed or was imminent.
The case has drawn scrutiny over the reliability of AI facial recognition in criminal investigations and the safeguards, or absence of them, governing how law enforcement acts on algorithmic identifications.
Know something we missed? Have a correction or additional information?
Submit a Tip
