Cop Trainer Encouraging Cops To Run Facial Recognition Searches On People During Traffic Stops
from the never-mind-the-local-laws,-I-guess dept
Cops are out there giving each other bad advice. An instructor for Street Cop Training -- a New Jersey based provider of officer training programs -- is telling officers it's ok to run facial recognition searches during routine traffic stops, when not encouraging them to go further with their potential rights violations.
In a podcast recently uncovered by Caroline Haskins for Insider, Maryland detective Nick Jerman tells listeners there's nothing wrong with running a facial image against publicly available databases during a traffic stop.
In a July 2021 episode of the Street Cop Podcast with Dennis Benigno, the company's founder, Jerman encouraged using facial recognition software to determine the identity of the person pulled over. The Street Cop Podcast is advertised as "The training that cops deserve" and, along with Street Cop Training's other programs, is marketed to active-duty police.
"Let's say you're on a traffic stop and we have someone in the car that we suspect may be wanted," Benigno asked during the episode. "What do we do in that situation?"
"Well there's a couple of paid programs you can use where you can take their picture, and it'll put it in," Jerman said, referring to facial recognition tools, before recommending "another one called PimEyes you can use." PimEyes is a free, public-facing facial-recognition search engine.
The legality of running searches like this is still up in the air. If there's nothing beyond suspicion a vehicle occupant might be a wanted suspect, officers would likely have to develop something a little more reasonable before engaging in searches -- like utilizing a facial recognition program -- unrelated to the traffic stop. And in some states and cities, it is very definitely illegal, thanks to recent facial recognition tech bans. Just because the cops may not own the tech utilized during these searches doesn't necessarily make actions like these legal.
But that's not the only potential illegality Detective Jerman (who, as Haskins points out, is currently being investigated by his department over some very questionable social media posts) encourages. He notes that in many states officers cannot demand people they stop ID themselves, especially when they're just passengers in a vehicle. He recommends this bit of subterfuge to obtain this information without consent.
"How about, you're in a situation where you can't compel ID and before you even ask you're like there's something not right with this guy and he's gonna lie," Benigno said.
Jerman suggested getting the person's phone number, either by asking the person, or by accusing the person of stealing a phone in the car and asking if they can call the phone in order to exonerate them.
"[Say] 'I see that phone in the car, we've had a lot of thefts of phones,' say 'Is that really your phone?' and then you can call it to see if that's the real phone number," Jerman said. "If you can get the phone number from your target, the world is your oyster."
Once a cop has a phone number, they can use third-party services to discover the phone owner's name and may be able to find any social media accounts associated with that phone number. The request may sound innocuous -- seeking to see if a phone is stolen -- but the end result may be someone unwittingly sharing a great deal about themselves with an officer.
Detective Jerman also provides classes on how to create fake social media accounts using freely accessible tools. He does this despite knowing it's a terms of service violation and appears to believe that since there's no law against it, officers should avail themselves of this subterfuge option. He has also made social media posts mocking Facebook and others for telling cops they're breaking the platform's rules when they do this.
But far more worrisome is something he admitted on another Street Cop Training podcast:
He recounted that at a wedding a few years ago, his friend wanted to approach a woman in a red dress because he "thought she was pretty hot." Jerman said that on the spot, he did a geofence Instagram search for recent posts near the wedding venue. He found a picture with the woman in the red dress, named Marilisa, posted by her friend, Amanda.
"Then you can start gaining intel on Amanda, then you can go back to Marilisa and start talking to her as if you know her friend Amanda," Jerman said.
Even his host, Street Cop Training founder Dennis Bengino, seemed to consider Jerman's actions to be a little creepy. But that appears to be Detective Jerman's MO: the exploitation of any service or platform to obtain information on anyone he runs into, whether it's at a wedding or during a pretextual traffic stop.
Despite Jerman's insistence that none of this breaks any laws, the actual legality of these actions is still up in the air. The lack of courtroom precedent saying otherwise is not synonymous with "lawful." Cases involving tactics like these are bound to result in challenges of arrests or evidence, and it's not immediately clear running unjustified searches clears the (very low) bar for reasonableness during investigative stops.
However, Jerman's big mouth and enthusiasm for exploitation should make it clear what's at stake when cops start asking questions, no matter how innocuous the questions may initially appear. And documents like the one obtained by Insider -- one that lists dozens of publicly accessible search tools and facial recognition AI -- should serve as a warning to anyone stopped by police officers. Imagine the creepiest things a stalker might do to obtain information about you. Now, imagine all of that in the hands of someone with an incredible amount of power, easy access to weapons, and an insular shield on non-accountability surrounding them.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: facial recognition, nick jerman, police, traffic stops
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
The harm to police is incalculable by such behavior. If it becomes the norm to believe being pulled over is for the purposed of being thrown in jail and auto seized. Hardly conducive to the public being cooperative.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
but you only get arrested if you have an active warrant, so, piss off, criminal.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Manufacturing Suspicion
Sounds like a job for parallel reconstruction -- run the facial recognition first, then claim that they remember the subject from a wanted bulletin. Simply engaging in facial recognition at all seems like a way to end-run around the usual search procedure.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
you can think that all you want.
Anyone got a list of speed traps?
Isnt there one wher the cops made over $600,000 in 1 year?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
If its so simple.
Goto DOT/DMV and run all the pictures thru.
Dont even have to stop anyone.
Run Wash DC threw it first. And all the politicians. See if you get any hits.
Watch as the gov. Then decides you cant do that.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
"but you only get arrested if you have an active warrant, so, piss off, criminal."
I mean I do look like a criminal. Maybe I look like a few of them.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
AL THE MORE REASON AT A TRAFFIC STOP
License
Registration
Proof of Insurance
Invoke 5th Amendment
Then shut the hell up
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Or if face recognition identifies you as a criminal by misidentifying you.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Sunil Tripathi, is that you?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Qualified Immunity
and the first cop past the district court gate and into the appeals stretch gets off scot-free.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Do you want the examples of how facial recognition gets things wrong, especially when dealing with darker skin? Or the examples where people get arrested yet the only charge that's eventually filed is "resisting arrest"?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
We have no evidence that anything might be hinkey, beyond a gut feel.. so find ways to violate citizens rights quietly.
Imagine if they stopped doing stupid shit like this that ends up draining the budget to pay the settlements.
There might finally be enough money to run all the rape kits they've been ignoring. I mean its likely they might catch a brother officer that way so I can understand the resistance.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dennis Benigno. Huh, that guy again. The other fellow is a real charmer as well.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Manufacturing Suspicion
Bravely bold Sir Koby
Rode forth from the Internet.
He was not afraid to die,
Oh brave Sir Koby.
He was not at all afraid.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
QI for all!
First('didn't know'), second('hadn't heard'), third('didn't realize that it also applied on tuesdays'), fourth('had no way of knowing that it also applies during different hours and wasn't just a day restriction'), fifth...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The cops do know this same technology will be used against them, right?
Film them as well, and give it time. Then let them see how they feel on the working end of it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
4th amendment
looks like the 4th amendment needs an update!
i keep trying to find ways government can use facial recognition tech without violating the 4th amendment and i ALWAYS seem to come up with nothing!
the only VALID reason i can conclude for it's use is if you can demand ID then using facial recognition would be the only time it can be used!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
It makes sense
In order to do facial recognition on someone pulled over, they need to momentarily remove their mask.
At that point, they may now be in violation of some local mask mandate, which they can now be cited for.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: It makes sense
Not necessarily, as anyone pulled over should have a photo ID with them. As long as the pictures don't suck, of course.
There may still be a state where the driver's license doesn't have a photo, but if there is I am unaware of it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: It makes sense
I'm not sure if it's still the case, but I was allowed to legally rent a car and drive in the US on my UK driving licence in the days before they had photos on them (I'm talking mid 90s). I'd imagine that most have been forced to upgrade since, but it could be technically possible for people to drive with a foreign licence that doesn't have a photo on it, though how many of those remain is questionable and I'm sure it would confuse small town cops to no end.
But, to Danny's point - whether or not the licence has a photo, surely the cop would want to check if it actually belongs to the person driving? Which would involve removing the mask...
[ link to this | view in thread ]