Orlando police wrongfully arrested a Volusia County man after an incorrect facial recognition match led to charges for crimes at Universal Orlando Resort, highlighting what civil liberties advocates say is a dangerous pattern of technology-driven arrests. Beau Burgess was charged with trespassing incidents he did not commit, with body camera video from Orlando Police Department later proving his innocence. The Ninth Judicial Circuit State Attorney’s Office dropped all charges against Burgess.
“I appreciate everything WESH 2 News has done,” Burgess said. Body camera footage from the Universal Orlando Resort incident showed key differences that cleared Burgess. “In the video, he has shorts on,” Burgess said. “He has no tattoos at all on his legs. And my legs are covered in tattoos.”
“Nobody should have to go through a wrongful arrest for something they had nothing to do with because a computer got it wrong,” said Nate Wessler, deputy director of the American Civil Liberties Union Speech, Privacy and Technology Project. Wessler said the Burgess case fits a troubling pattern of incorrect facial recognition matches contaminating police investigations. “This technology has now led to at least a dozen wrongful arrests that we know of, and that’s surely the tip of the iceberg.”
The police report submitted to the judge who signed arrest warrants for Burgess said officers identified him “using law enforcement resources,” without specifically mentioning facial recognition technology. “We have seen over and over police hiding that from judges when it comes to face recognition, to intentionally using vague language, to avoiding any mention of the technology,” Wessler said. Orlando police used a decade-old booking photo for a photo lineup without attempting to verify Burgess’ whereabouts on the dates of the alleged crimes.
Burgess’ timecards from a former employer confirmed he was working for a boat company nearly 70 miles away in Volusia County when the Universal Orlando Resort incidents occurred. Before conducting the photo lineup, Orlando police did not check his alibi or gather additional evidence beyond the facial recognition match. “The ACLU position really is that this technology is just inherently dangerous,” Wessler said.
Two years ago, the ACLU reached a settlement with Detroit over the wrongful arrest of Robert Williams in 2020, establishing new protocols for facial recognition use. Detroit police can no longer conduct photo lineups based solely on facial recognition matches without reliable evidence linking suspects to crimes. “And that’s all the normal stuff that we expect police to do,” Wessler said. “It could be forensic evidence, it could be witness testimony, it could be any number of things, checking alibis.”
“So, what police have to do in Detroit and what they should do in a place like Orlando is be required to undertake truly independent and reliable investigative steps to figure out if the technology is right or wrong,” Wessler said. The technology shows higher error rates for certain demographic groups. “It remains true that facial recognition technology gets it wrong more often with darker-skinned people, people of color, as well as with younger people and with women,” Wessler said.
Several major cities have banned police use of facial recognition technology due to accuracy concerns. Boston, Minneapolis and San Francisco have prohibited law enforcement from using the technology because of potential errors and civil liberties violations. “There are some serious protections that police should be putting in place, and without that, nobody should be using this,” Wessler said.
The City of Orlando defended its use of facial recognition technology while acknowledging limitations. “The City of Orlando is committed to leveraging the latest tools and technology to keep our community safe,” a spokesperson from the Office of the Mayor said. “We are also committed to ensuring that technologies such as facial recognition are not used as the sole basis for an arrest. Through our investments in public safety, we use multiple tools in a transparent manner and in accordance with the law to prevent and solve crime.”