Skip to main content
NOPE
Low reported severity Media Coverage

Dutch driver says police AI phone camera flagged him for holding a phone while he scratched his head, and an officer approved a 380-euro fine

Dutch police use mobile smart cameras that apply artificial intelligence to photos of passing drivers to detect whether they are holding a mobile phone; a police officer then reviews each flagged photo before a fine is issued. A driver says that in October 2023, on the A2 motorway near Weert, such a camera photographed him with his right hand at his head and that he received a fine of 380 euros plus 9 euros in administration costs for holding a mobile device while driving. He says the flash photo, which he requested from the Central Judicial Collection Agency (CJIB), shows his empty hand near his face: he was scratching his head, his lease car allows hands-free calling, and he is left-handed. In a February 2024 blog post he writes that the camera was a MONOcam, that its algorithm judged that he was holding a device and that the reviewing police employee accepted that judgement, so that both the algorithm and a person erred; RTL Nieuws reported that the photo was probably taken by a MONOcam. Omroep Brabant described the fine as a mistake by the AI camera. The driver said the reviewing officer was probably biased by the algorithm's output and that a dark shadow in his hand could mislead a quick look. He lodged an objection with the Public Prosecution Service; it had not been decided when the reports appeared in February 2024, and a CJIB spokesperson, who would not comment on individual cases, suggested to RTL that he was unlikely to have to pay. No later outcome has been reported. He also told Omroep Brabant that he considers the cameras valuable for road safety, provided doubtful cases are not fined.

AI system
MONOcam (reported)
Occurred
Oct 2023
Reported
20 February 2024
Event location
Netherlands
What the AI did
Made a claim about the person · Informed a human decision about the person
Reported harm
Financial Loss
Whose AI use
An institution’s AI use
Setting
Public services · Justice
Evidence
AI involvement reported · Causal attribution alleged · 3 sources
7 claims: 7 reported. 3 open questions
People reported harmed
1 person

AI system as recorded: Dutch police mobile smart traffic camera that uses artificial intelligence to flag drivers apparently holding a mobile phone, with each flag reviewed by a police officer; identified as a MONOcam by the driver's blog and as probably a MONOcam by RTL Nieuws

Reported harm

The driver says he was fined 380 euros plus 9 euros in costs for holding a phone while driving after a police AI camera flagged him and an officer approved the flag, although the photo shows his empty hand at his head; he lodged an objection, whose outcome has not been reported.

Outcome

Unknown

The driver lodged an objection with the Public Prosecution Service (OM), which had not yet been handled when Omroep Brabant and RTL Nieuws reported the case in February 2024. A CJIB spokesperson declined to comment on individual cases but suggested to RTL Nieuws that the chance he would really have to pay was small. No decision on the objection has been found.

What remains unknown

  • Whether the objection succeeded or the fine was paid; no decision has been reported since February 2024.
  • Whether the camera was in fact a MONOcam; the police have not confirmed the device, and RTL says only that it was probably one.
  • The exact date of the photo: the driver's blog says mid-October 2023 and RTL says the end of October.

What the evidence supports

AI involvement: reported. Omroep Brabant and RTL Nieuws describe the police camera as using artificial intelligence to register whether a driver is holding a phone, and the driver writes that its algorithm judged that he was holding a mobile device while the photo shows his empty hand at his head; an officer then accepted that flag and the fine followed, so the system's recognition output is reported as wrong and as informing the officer's decision. The camera model rests on the driver's account and RTL's 'probably'; the police have not commented on the case.

7 claims: 7 reported. What the statuses mean

Reported Dutch police use mobile smart cameras with artificial intelligence that judge from a photo whether a driver is holding a mobile phone, after which a police officer reviews the photo before a fine is issued.

Causal attribution. Description of the system by two outlets and by the driver from a police video; no police statement on this case.

  • omroepbrabant.nl(opens in new tab) supports · Dutch
    De slimme camera’s van de politie zijn uitgerust met kunstmatige intelligentie.; De foto van de overtreding moet ook nog door een agent worden gecontroleerd.
  • rtl.nl(opens in new tab) supports · Dutch
    Dat is een mobiele flitscamera van de politie die met kunstmatige intelligentie registreert of iemand aan het bellen is.; Bij flitsfoto's gemaakt met een MONOcam moet een agent altijd nog zelf de foto beoordelen op overtredingen.
  • nippur.nl(opens in new tab) supports · Dutch
    In de video wordt uitgelegd dat een algoritme bepaalt of iemand een mobiel apparaat vasthoudt tijdens het rijden. Vervolgens moet een politiemedewerker beoordelen of er daadwerkelijk een overtreding is begaan.
Reported The driver received a fine of 380 euros plus 9 euros in administration costs for holding a mobile device while driving, for a photo taken on the A2 motorway near Weert in October 2023.

Causal attribution. The driver's account of the fine notice, repeated by both outlets from interviews with him; the notice itself was not inspected.

  • nippur.nl(opens in new tab) supports · Dutch
    Volgens de officiële beschikking had ik halverwege oktober als bestuurder tijdens het rijden een mobiel elektrisch apparaat vastgehouden.
  • omroepbrabant.nl(opens in new tab) supports · Dutch
    kreeg meteen een boete van 380 euro. Plus nog 9 euro administratiekosten.; vroeg hij de foto van de overtreding op de snelweg A2 bij Weert op.
  • rtl.nl(opens in new tab) supports · Dutch
    Maar de politie oordeelde dat hij zat te bellen. Kosten: 380 euro en 9 euro voor de administratie.
Reported The driver says the flash photo shows his empty hand near his face because he was scratching his head, that his car allows hands-free calling and that he is left-handed.

Causal attribution. The driver's own account of the photo; RTL describes the photo it published.

  • nippur.nl(opens in new tab) supports · Dutch
    Op de foto is te zien dat ik mijn hand bij mijn gezicht heb, maar ik heb niks vast in mijn hand.
  • omroepbrabant.nl(opens in new tab) supports · Dutch
    Ik heb een auto met de mogelijkheid om er handsfree te bellen. Ook ben ik linkshandig, maar ik krab daar met mijn rechterhand aan mijn hoofd.
  • rtl.nl(opens in new tab) supports · Dutch
    Op de flitsfoto was te zien dat hij tijdens het rijden over de A2 bij Weert aan zijn hoofd zat.
Reported The driver says the camera was a MONOcam whose algorithm judged that he was holding a mobile device and that the reviewing police employee accepted that judgement; RTL Nieuws reported that the photo was probably taken by a MONOcam, and Omroep Brabant described the fine as the AI camera's mistake.

Causal attribution. The driver's inference from a police video and the photo; RTL hedges the camera model; no police confirmation.

  • nippur.nl(opens in new tab) supports · Dutch
    wordt uitgelegd hoe de Monocam, de camera die mij geflitst heeft, gebruikt wordt.; In mijn geval heeft het algoritme dus gezegd dat ik een mobiel apparaat vasthoud tijdens het rijden én de medewerker van de politie heeft dat geaccepteerd.
  • rtl.nl(opens in new tab) supports · Dutch
    is waarschijnlijk gemaakt door een MONOcam.
  • omroepbrabant.nl(opens in new tab) supports · Dutch
    Deze AI-camera had zich dus vergist.
Reported The driver said the reviewing officer was probably biased because the algorithm said he was phoning, and that on a quick look a dark shadow in his hand could suggest a phone.

Causal attribution. The driver's own interpretation.

  • rtl.nl(opens in new tab) supports · Dutch
    Die agent was waarschijnlijk bevooroordeeld, omdat het algoritme zei dat ik aan het bellen was.
  • omroepbrabant.nl(opens in new tab) supports · Dutch
    Als je heel snel naar de foto kijkt, kun je denken: ‘Die zal wel zitten te bellen’. Er is een donkere schaduw in mijn hand te zien.
Reported The driver lodged an objection, which had not yet been handled by the Public Prosecution Service when the reports appeared in February 2024; a CJIB spokesperson declined to comment on individual cases but suggested the chance he would really have to pay was small.

Causal attribution. The driver's statements and RTL's report of the CJIB spokesperson.

  • nippur.nl(opens in new tab) supports · Dutch
    Uiteraard ben ik in bezwaar gegaan, maar daar heb ik nog geen uitslag van.
  • omroepbrabant.nl(opens in new tab) supports · Dutch
    Ik heb bezwaar gemaakt. Ik ben in afwachting daarvan.
  • rtl.nl(opens in new tab) supports · Dutch
    heeft bezwaar tegen de boete aangetekend, maar dat is nog niet in behandeling genomen door het Openbaar Ministerie (OM).; Het CJIB laat weten dat zij over individuele gevallen geen uitspraken kunnen doen,; laat doorschemeren dat de kans klein is dat de man de boete ook echt moet betalen.
Reported The driver told Omroep Brabant that he still considers the smart cameras very valuable, provided that doubtful cases are not fined.

Causal attribution. The driver's own qualification, kept as context.

Sources

3 sources inspected. Sources that repeat one account do not corroborate each other.

How the sources were read, and where the events happened

Read in Dutch on 2026-11-01; passages translated into English by the research agent (an AI). Read from an Internet Archive capture of 2 May 2025 because the site did not respond. Applies to s1.

Read in Dutch on 2026-11-01; passages translated into English by the research agent (an AI). The article interviews the driver. Applies to s2.

Read in Dutch on 2026-11-01; passages translated into English by the research agent (an AI). Read from an Internet Archive capture of 17 April 2025 because the site returned HTTP 403; the article interviews the driver and quotes CJIB and OM spokespeople. Applies to s3.

Event countries: Netherlands. Affected-person countries: Netherlands. Court countries: Unknown.

The photo was taken on the A2 motorway near Weert in the Netherlands, according to the driver and both outlets; RTL Nieuws describes him as a man from a Dutch town, and the fine was issued through the Dutch CJIB.

Reviewed for publication 2026-11-01: Published as a police AI phone-detection camera flagging a driver whose photo, by his account, shows an empty hand at his head, with an officer approving the flag and a 380-euro fine issued. The driver's account, the hedged camera identification and the unresolved objection are attributed.

People described

A driver of a lease car on the A2 motorway near Weert who was fined for holding a mobile device while driving; he says the photo shows his empty hand at his head

People reported harmed in this case

1 person

0 AI participants · 1 other person harmed

One driver, who describes his own fine in his blog post and in interviews with Omroep Brabant and RTL Nieuws.

Counted once within this case. The same person may appear in other cases. This count does not establish AI causation.

Tags

#traffic-camera#phone-detection#traffic-fine#police#netherlands#public-services

Cite this case

Compiled per our published methodology: verification statuses, sourcing standards, and corrections process.

APA

NOPE. (2026). Dutch driver says police AI phone camera flagged him for holding a phone while he scratched his head, and an officer approved a 380-euro fine. AI incidents. https://nope.net/incidents/2023-netherlands-driver-says-police-ai-phone-camera-flagged-him-for-holding-phone-while-scratching-head-380-euro-fine

BibTeX

@misc{2023_netherlands_driver_says_police_ai_phone_camera_flagged_him_for_holding_phone_while_scratching_head_380_euro_fine,
  title = {Dutch driver says police AI phone camera flagged him for holding a phone while he scratched his head, and an officer approved a 380-euro fine},
  author = {NOPE},
  year = {2026},
  howpublished = {AI incidents},
  url = {https://nope.net/incidents/2023-netherlands-driver-says-police-ai-phone-camera-flagged-him-for-holding-phone-while-scratching-head-380-euro-fine}
}

Related cases

Low ChatGPT

Dutch sub-district judge used ChatGPT to estimate solar-panel lifespan and power prices in a neighbour dispute, then rejected the homeowner's damages claim

A homeowner in the Netherlands sued his neighbour, whose permitted roof extension shaded his solar panels, claiming more than 21,000 euros for lost yield and investment. In a judgment of 7 June 2024 (ECLI:NL:RBGEL:2024:3636), the sub-district judge of the Rechtbank Gelderland, sitting in Nijmegen, held that the neighbour had to bear half of the damage and then calculated the damage, estimating the average lifespan of solar panels from 2009 and the current average electricity price partly with the help of ChatGPT, as the judgment states. Using a lifespan of 27.5 years, about 15 remaining years and a price of 0.30 euros per kWh, the judge put the yield loss at about 2,250 euros and the maximum damage at 3,323.40 euros; half of that was less than the 3,300 euros the neighbour had offered, so the claim was rejected and the homeowner, who had refused the offer, received nothing and was ordered to pay costs. On the neighbour's counterclaim, the judge assumed, again partly with ChatGPT, that insulation material the homeowner had thrown into water was no longer usable, and ordered him to pay damages of 2,619.02 euros in total. The judgment does not say what was asked or answered, and whether it was appealed is not reported.

Medium Unidentified AI tool

Israeli court strikes a defendant's expert report it found rested on AI-hallucinated case law and orders her to pay the banks' costs

On 8 October 2026 the Magistrates' Court in Nof HaGalil-Nazareth, Israel, struck from the file a banking expert's opinion that a defendant in a civil negligence suit had filed, finding that the heart of the opinion and its annexes rested on clear 'AI hallucinations': a Supreme Court ruling the court could not locate, a book it could not find and statutory sections quoted with text the statute does not contain. The court also refused the defendant's request to amend her third-party notice against two banks, partly because the amendment relied on the struck opinion, and ordered her to pay costs of 2,500 shekels to each bank. No AI tool is named, and the decision records no response from the expert.

Low Unidentified AI tool

Rennes administrative court fines a claimant 500 euros for an abusive tax appeal it found manifestly written with an AI tool and too imprecise to assess

According to Gossement Avocats, which quotes the order, and the court's vice-president on France Inter, an order of 19 August 2026 (n°2508168) of the tribunal administratif de Rennes rejected a claimant’s application contesting a VAT reassessment and fined the claimant 500 euros for an abusive application. As quoted by Gossement Avocats, the order says the application had manifestly been written with an artificial intelligence tool and that its grounds lacked the most elementary details needed to assess them. The court also found it inadmissible because no prior complaint to the tax service was shown, and noted that it repeated a request with substantially the same object rejected in October 2025. The court’s vice-president cited the case on France Inter; commentators stress that AI use alone was not the basis for the fine.

Medium Unidentified AI tool

Ninth Circuit fines and suspends two immigration lawyers over briefs with AI-hallucinated citations and denials of AI use; immigration board follows

On 3 June 2026 the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit fined immigration attorneys Mike Singh Sethi and William Rounds $2,500 each and suspended both from practice before the court for six months. Briefs filed in an asylum petition for review cited two cases that do not exist and attributed quotations to opinions that do not contain them. In a motion to correct, the attorneys called the errors typographical, and at oral argument Rounds twice said AI was not used. In their response to the court's order to show cause, they conceded that the errors were probably the product of unauthorised AI use by the firm's unlicensed brief writers and a failure to check citations. The court said the suspension was owed to their repeated failure of candour. The Board of Immigration Appeals then suspended Sethi from practice before the Board, the immigration courts and the Department of Homeland Security for six months, effective 13 June 2026, and designated that decision as a precedent on 1 October 2026.

If you or someone you know is struggling, free and confidential support is available. Find a helpline near you at Signpost.

Back to all incidents