{"meta":{"exportedAt":"2026-10-28T07:16:06.509Z","formatVersion":2,"selection":{"q":"exam","system":"","harm":"","context":"","country":"","role":"","relation":"contextual","evidence":"","year":"","response":"lawsuit","severity":"","verification":"","view":"incidents","sort":"added"},"totalIncidents":3,"coverage":{"cases":3,"countries":1,"languages":1,"unknownLocation":0,"locationPending":0,"unknownLanguage":0,"unknownDate":0,"lawsuits":3,"regulatory":0,"minors":0,"coreRelations":0,"contextualRelations":3,"mixedRelations":0,"unknownRelations":0,"relationPending":0,"relationUnknown":0},"countingNote":"Distinct public cases in this selection. People counts apply within individual cases only; cross-case person overlap has not been resolved. No population incidence estimate.","affectedCountNote":"Interpret person counts with affectedCountStatus and the reported effects. Unquantified zeros are placeholders, not a measured zero.","source":"AI incidents","publisher":"NOPE","url":"https://nope.net/incidents","license":"CC BY 4.0"},"incidents":[{"id":"2025-san-diego-health-system-patient-alleges-ai-scribe-recorded-exam-room-visit-without-consent","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'A proposed class-action lawsuit filed in San Diego Superior Court claims Sharp HealthCare secretly recorded doctor-patient conversations using an artificial intelligence tool'; 'The tool records conversations between patients and clinicians and then generates draft medical notes.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'A recent lawsuit filed in San Diego Superior Court alleges that Sharp HealthCare recorded conversations between doctors and their patients without written consent, using the information to document visits with an artificial intelligence program developed by a private company in Pittsburgh.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"'A lawsuit in San Diego claims Sharp Healthcare recorded doctor visits without written consent, while using an A.I. tool called Abridge to take notes.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"A proposed class action filed in San Diego Superior Court alleges that Sharp HealthCare used the AI app Abridge, which records patient-clinician conversations and generates draft medical notes, and recorded doctor-patient conversations without patients' consent.","causal_attribution":"The complaint's allegations, relayed by three outlets (one underlying origin: the complaint); not tested in court in the sources read."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'Sharp began using an AI app called Abridge in April of this year, according to the complaint.'; 'sent the audio to the company’s servers, where employees could review it.'; 'Patients were never informed that their appointments were being recorded or given an opportunity to consent or opt-out, the lawsuit alleges.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'Recordings, the lawsuit states, were transmitted to Abridge'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"According to the complaint, Sharp began using Abridge in April 2025, and the app captured everything said in the exam room and sent the audio to the company's servers, where employees could review it; patients were never informed or given a chance to consent or opt out.","causal_attribution":"Complaint allegations; the start date and server review detail are in the KPBS relay only, the transmission to Abridge in both."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'said he discovered the recording only after reading his medical notes from a July appointment at a Sharp Rees-Stealy clinic. When he contacted Sharp, the lawsuit said the clinic apologized, acknowledged the recording occurred and told him the file could remain on the vendor’s servers for about a month before being deleted.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The plaintiff says he discovered that a July appointment at a Sharp clinic had been recorded only after reading his medical notes; according to the lawsuit the clinic apologised, acknowledged the recording and said the file could remain on the vendor's servers for about a month.","causal_attribution":"The plaintiff's account in the complaint as reported by KPBS; Sharp's acknowledgement is as described in the lawsuit, not a Sharp statement read directly."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'It also claims that Abridge automatically inserted incorrect statements into medical charts, documenting that patients “were advised” the visit was being recorded and that they “consented,” even when the patient said it never happened.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The complaint alleges that Abridge automatically inserted incorrect statements into medical charts documenting that patients were advised the visit was being recorded and consented, even when the patient said it never happened.","causal_attribution":"Complaint allegation relayed by KPBS only; whether the tool or a clinician produced the entries is not established in the sources."},{"id":"c5","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'The lawsuit seeks damages, corrections to medical records, and a court order blocking the use of the AI tool without proper consent. It estimates that more than 100,000 Sharp patients may have been recorded during the rollout.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'seeks class action status and damages that could reach five thousand dollars per violation.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"The lawsuit seeks class status, damages, corrections to medical records and an order blocking use of the tool without consent, and estimates that more than 100,000 Sharp patients may have been recorded.","causal_attribution":"The relief sought and the estimate are the complaint's; the estimate is of people possibly recorded."},{"id":"c6","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'Both Sharp and Counterpoint Legal said they cannot comment on pending litigation.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'Sharp said that while \"patient safety and privacy are our top priorities at all times,\" it is \"unable to comment on pending litigation.\"'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"Sharp said patient safety and privacy are its top priorities and that it could not comment on pending litigation.","causal_attribution":"Sharp's statements to two outlets (one party); no response to the substance of the allegations is reported."},{"id":"c7","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'Abridge suggests that doctors could say, \"I will be using a tool that records our conversation to help me write my clinical note, so I can pay more attention to our conversation and less time on the computer. Is that okay with you?\"'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"'Other local hospitals say they use similar tech, but with patient permission.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"Abridge's support material suggests consent language clinicians could use with patients, and other San Diego providers using similar tools say they require patient consent.","causal_attribution":"Context from the Union-Tribune's review of Abridge's support pages and both outlets' comments from other providers; not a statement about this visit."}],"effects":[{"label":"confidential clinic visit recorded and sent to an AI vendor without the patient’s knowledge (alleged)","claim_id":"c3","direction":"negative"},{"label":"chart entry stating consent the patient says he never gave (alleged)","claim_id":"c4","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.kpbs.org/news/health/2025/12/11/lawsuit-claims-sharp-healthcare-secretly-recorded-exam-room-conversations-without-patient-consent","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"English original; no translation.","independence_group":"kpbs-11-dec-2025"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://medicalxpress.com/news/2026-01-ai-exam-room-lawsuit-alleges.html","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"English original; no translation.","independence_group":"san-diego-union-tribune-6-jan-2026"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/ai-in-the-exam-room-lawsuit-says-not-so-fast/ar-AA1TG8JK","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"English original; no translation.","independence_group":"san-diego-union-tribune-6-jan-2026"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["institutional_use"],"contexts":["health","privacy"],"unknowns":["Whether a court has ruled on the complaint or certified a class.","Sharp's and Abridge's response to the substance of the allegations.","How many patients were recorded without consent; the 100,000 figure is the complaint's estimate of patients who may have been recorded.","Whether the consent statements in charts were produced by the tool or entered by clinicians, beyond the complaint's allegation.","Whether recordings were used for anything beyond note generation."],"geography":{"basis":"The recorded visit was at a Sharp clinic and the suit was filed in San Diego Superior Court (KPBS; Union-Tribune). The plaintiff's country of residence is not stated.","court_countries":["US"],"event_countries":["US"],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"Published as a privacy-capture case (received_personal_information) under the 2026-10-06 boundary: a reported complaint describes a patient's confidential visit actually being recorded into an AI documentation service and sent to its vendor without his knowledge, with the AI-generated chart allegedly stating he consented (made_claim_about). All facts are attributed to the complaint.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-17"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"According to the complaint as reported by KPBS and the San Diego Union-Tribune, Sharp's AI documentation app Abridge recorded the conversation at the plaintiff's July clinic visit and transmitted the audio to Abridge's servers to generate draft notes, without his knowledge or consent; the lawsuit says the clinic acknowledged the recording. The complaint also alleges that Abridge inserted chart statements that he had been advised and had consented. That capture and disclosure of his confidential visit, and the false consent entry, are the reported harm. These are allegations not yet tested in court.","status":"reported"},"person_relations":["received_personal_information","made_claim_about"]},"name":"Class action alleges San Diego health system Sharp's Abridge AI scribe recorded a patient's exam-room visit without consent and charted false consent","summary":"A proposed class action filed in San Diego Superior Court in late 2025 alleges that Sharp HealthCare, which began using the AI documentation app Abridge in April 2025, recorded doctor-patient conversations without telling patients, sent the audio to the vendor's servers and used it to generate draft medical notes. According to the lawsuit as reported by KPBS, the named plaintiff discovered that a July appointment at a Sharp clinic had been recorded only when he read his medical notes; the clinic apologised, acknowledged the recording and told him the file could stay on the vendor's servers for about a month. The complaint also alleges that Abridge inserted statements into charts that patients had been advised of the recording and had consented, when the plaintiff says that never happened. It seeks damages, corrected medical records and an order against using the tool without consent, and estimates that more than 100,000 patients may have been recorded. Sharp told reporters it could not comment on pending litigation. The allegations have not been tested in court in the sources read.","incidentDate":"2025-07-01","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"month","exposurePattern":"single_interaction","reportedDate":"2025-12-11","aiSystem":"Abridge, an AI clinical documentation app that, according to the complaint as reported, records patient-clinician conversations and generates draft medical notes; deployed by Sharp HealthCare from April 2025","aiProduct":"Abridge (reported)","aiCompany":"Abridge","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["loss_of_autonomy","other_material_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"According to a proposed class action, a patient's confidential clinic visit was recorded by an AI documentation tool and sent to its vendor without his knowledge or consent, and his chart falsely recorded that he had consented.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"alleged","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":1,"affectedCountStatus":"partial","affectedCountEvidence":"One person counted: the named plaintiff whose July visit, the lawsuit says, was recorded (KPBS). The complaint alleges other patients were recorded without consent but gives only an estimate that more than 100,000 'may have been recorded', which is not counted.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"US-CA","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"lawsuit_filed","outcomeStatus":"pending","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.kpbs.org/news/health/2025/12/11/lawsuit-claims-sharp-healthcare-secretly-recorded-exam-room-conversations-without-patient-consent","primarySourceLabel":"KPBS, 11 December 2025: lawsuit claims Sharp HealthCare secretly recorded exam room conversations without patient consent","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-17T03:04:33.888418+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-17T03:04:33.888418+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["ai_scribe","ambient_documentation","recording_without_consent","medical_privacy","class_action"]},{"id":"2023-reno-peppermill-casino-facial-recognition-misidentification-arrest-killinger-lawsuit","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Complaint, introduction paras 1-3: 'reported that their A.I. facial recognition software positively identified the man as M.E., a man they'; 'The Peppermill’s A.I. software was wrong. It mistakenly identified Plaintiff Jason'; 'gaming at the casino, of being M.E. They handcuffed him, took him to their security office, and'; 'On September 17, 2023, the Peppermill Casino in Reno telephoned the Reno Police'; 'had barred from the casino months earlier for sleeping on the premises.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Order, Relevant Background (recounting the complaint): 'security. (Id. at 7-8.) Peppermill’s facial recognition software (“FRS”) identified Plaintiff as'; 'Peppermill’s security handcuffed Plaintiff and placed him in a citizen’s arrest.'; 'In the early morning, Plaintiff was stopped by Peppermill'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"'misidentified by the venue’s AI facial recognition technology as a local reprobate, according to court filings.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"},{"locator":"'Mr. Killinger was arrested because the casino’s facial recognition security camera system alerted to Mr. Killinger being a possible match for another individual who had been banned from the premises.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s6"}],"assertion":"According to Jason Killinger's federal complaint, in the early hours of 17 September 2023 the Peppermill Casino in Reno reported to police that its AI facial-recognition software had identified him as a man barred from the casino months earlier; the complaint says the identification was wrong and that casino security handcuffed him and held him in its security office.","causal_attribution":"The plaintiff's allegation, relayed by the court in its background recital and by news coverage of the filings. The casino's system is not named in any inspected source."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Complaint para 5 and para 12: 'recognition software had provided a 100 percent match confirming that KILLINGER was M.E.'; 'fingerprint analysis conclusively established that he was KILLINGER, not M.E. or anyone else.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Order, Relevant Background: 'Plaintiff’s driver’s license and Peppermill’s FRS results confirming a 100% match with the'; 'Defendant did not review any additional documentation before handcuffing'; 'At WCDF, Plaintiff’s identity was positively confirmed.'; 'for biometric intake to confirm his identity.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"'According to court filings, police detained Killinger for identification after receiving the facial recognition alert. Fingerprints later confirmed he was not the person flagged by the system, and he was released.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s5"}],"assertion":"The complaint alleges that the responding Reno police officer was told the software had produced a 100 percent match, did not examine the other identification Killinger had on him and in his car, and arrested him and took him to the Washoe County jail to establish his identity, where a fingerprint check confirmed who he was.","causal_attribution":"The plaintiff's allegation. The court's March 2026 order recites these facts from the complaint and makes no finding on them; the arrest decision was the officer's."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Complaint paras 65-73: 'KILLINGER was in handcuffs approximately four hours'; 'in custody at the jail for an additional nine and one-half hours for a total'; 'contusions (bruising) on both wrists.'; 'This does not include the time he was held by the Peppermill before Jager’s arrival.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'The truck driver was detained for 11 hours, according to a wrongful arrest lawsuit filed in the US District Court for the District of Nevada.'; 'For four of those hours, he was handcuffed, resulting in bruises and shoulder pain, per the suit.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"The complaint states that Killinger was in police and jail custody for about eleven hours, not counting the time casino security held him, was handcuffed for about four hours and was treated at an urgent-care clinic the next day for bruising to both wrists.","causal_attribution":"The plaintiff's allegation."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Order, Relevant Background (recounting the complaint): 'At the bench trial, a Reno prosecutor dismissed'; 'the charges against Plaintiff but without prejudice to re-charge Plaintiff within the year.'; 'The next day, Plaintiff'; 'was charged with trespassing.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"Complaint para 19: 'Even though the charge was eventually dismissed, he'; 'now has a criminal record.'; 'He had never been accused of a crime, arrested, or taken to jail.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"Killinger was charged with trespassing the day after his release; at the bench trial a Reno prosecutor dismissed the charge without prejudice, and the complaint says the arrest left him, a man with no previous arrests, with a criminal record.","causal_attribution":"The plaintiff's allegation, recited by the court without a finding."},{"id":"c5","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'The plaintiff has already sued the Peppermill Casino in a case that was settled for an undisclosed amount.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"Casino.org reports that Killinger had sued the Peppermill Casino and that the case was settled for an undisclosed amount.","causal_attribution":"Casino.org's report; the settlement terms and any filing against the casino were not inspected."},{"id":"c6","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"Order, Conclusion and Part IV: 'liability claim and denied in part as to Plaintiff’s proposed wrongful arrest claim. Plaintiff'; 'incident and a new claim of municipal liability for policies regarding FRS and handcuffing.'; 'Plaintiff concedes there are no cases in the Ninth Circuit clearly'; 'Since Plaintiff previously conceded that no relevant precedent exists'; 'and fails to respond or rebut his own conclusion with any case law'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"'In a new filing, a district court has granted his request to add the City of Reno as a new defendant in the case, as well as a new municipal liability claim against the city.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"}],"assertion":"In an order of 27 March 2026 the court allowed Killinger to add the City of Reno as a defendant with a municipal liability claim concerning policies on facial recognition software and handcuffing, and refused to let him add a wrongful arrest claim against the officer, holding it futile under qualified immunity because he had earlier conceded that no Ninth Circuit case clearly established that arrests based solely on facial recognition were unlawful and cited no case law in reply.","causal_attribution":"Procedural rulings documented by the order; no finding on the merits."},{"id":"c7","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Caption page: '[Proposed] Amicus Curiae Brief of the'; 'Support of Plaintiff’s Motion for'; 'Filed 09/21/26'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s7"},{"locator":"'On September 21, 2026, the ACLU, ACLU of Nevada and the Innocence Project filed an amicus brief in the District of Nevada in support of Jason Killinger'; 'The brief asks the court to rule that police lacked probable cause to arrest Mr. Killinger based on a facial recognition technology result'; 'The brief also asks the court to rule that the City of Reno is liable for Mr. Killinger’s wrongful arrest.'; 'failing to provide training to Reno Police Department officers amounts to deliberate indifference'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s6"}],"assertion":"On 21 September 2026 the ACLU, the ACLU of Nevada and the Innocence Project filed a proposed amicus brief (ECF No. 96-1) supporting Killinger's motion for partial summary judgment, asking the court to rule that police lacked probable cause to arrest him on a facial recognition result and that the City of Reno is liable for failing to train its officers.","causal_attribution":"The filing date and the proposed status of the brief come from its caption; the description of its requests is the ACLU's own. No ruling on the motion or on leave to file the brief was found."},{"id":"c8","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Motion, page 2 and page 18: 'The RPD detective investigated and concluded the Peppermill’s FRT was'; 'were two separate people'; 'had arrested an innocent man.'; 'committed identity theft.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s8"}],"assertion":"Killinger's motion for partial summary judgment of 12 September 2026 states that after the trespass charge was dismissed the city prosecutor referred the case to a Reno police detective to examine whether he had committed identity theft, and that the detective concluded the casino's facial recognition match was wrong, that he and the barred man were two separate people and that the officer had arrested an innocent man.","causal_attribution":"The plaintiff's motion summarising the detective's deposition (Exhibit 3), which was not itself read; no court has ruled on it."},{"id":"c9","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Motion, pages 10-11: 'Peppermill from about October 2024 to July 2026.'; 'an alert of 100% on someone who was clearly not the person in the database.'; 'that happen sometimes 12 times on a single shift.'; 'he was told to rely on the alerts not on their identification.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s8"},{"locator":"'generating as many as 12 false matches with “100% confidence” during a single shift.'; 'worked as a Peppermill security officer from October 2024 until July 2026'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s9"}],"assertion":"The motion cites a declaration by a former Peppermill security officer, employed there from about October 2024 to July 2026, that the system would alert at 100 percent on people who were clearly not the person in its database, sometimes 12 times in a single shift, and that guards were told to rely on the alerts rather than on a person's identification; Casino.org reported the same declaration on 13 October 2026.","causal_attribution":"A former employee's declaration as summarised in the plaintiff's motion and relayed by Casino.org; the security officer started work about a year after Killinger's arrest and describes later practice, not this arrest."},{"id":"c10","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Motion, page 9: 'track FRT false positives. In those years the casino believed a FRT match of 100% was accurate'; 'Towards the end of 2025 the Peppermill discovered that FRT false positives occur'; '10% of the time.'; page 24: 'Peppermill security director'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s8"}],"assertion":"The motion also cites the Peppermill's security director as testifying that from 2023 to 2025 the casino had no way to track false positives and believed a 100 percent match was accurate, and that toward the end of 2025 it found that false positives occur 10 percent of the time.","causal_attribution":"The plaintiff's summary of a deposition (Exhibit 1) that was not itself read."},{"id":"c11","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Motion, page 8, quoting the officer in an interrogatory answer: 'Killinger, I had no knowledge that FRT could be inaccurate.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s8"},{"locator":"'In a separate declaration, he said he had never previously known the Peppermill’s facial recognition system to make an incorrect identification.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s9"}],"assertion":"The arresting officer has said that before the arrest he had no knowledge that facial recognition could be inaccurate; Casino.org reports that he denies wrongdoing and that in a separate declaration he said he had never known the Peppermill's system to make an incorrect identification.","causal_attribution":"The officer's own statements as quoted by the plaintiff and relayed by Casino.org; his denial of wrongdoing is recorded as counterevidence."}],"effects":[{"label":"handcuffed for about four hours and held in police and jail custody for about eleven hours after a casino's facial recognition system wrongly matched him to a barred man","claim_id":"c3","direction":"negative"},{"label":"prosecuted for trespassing until a prosecutor dismissed the charge without prejudice, leaving an arrest on his record","claim_id":"c4","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nvd.176041/gov.uscourts.nvd.176041.1.0.pdf","kind":"court_filing","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Complaint, Killinger v. Jager, No. 3:25-cv-00388 (D. Nev.), filed 30 July 2025 (ECF No. 1, 31 pages), read in full from the free RECAP copy on 2026-10-04. It sets out the plaintiff's allegations, including quotations he attributes to the officer's body-worn camera; it is not a finding.","independence_group":"killinger-plaintiff-pleadings"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nvd.176041/gov.uscourts.nvd.176041.58.0.pdf","kind":"court_order","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Order of 27 March 2026 (ECF No. 58, 10 pages), read in full from the free RECAP copy on 2026-10-04. Its background section states that it relies on the facts alleged in the original complaint, so its factual recital is not an independent finding; its rulings are documented by the order itself.","independence_group":"killinger-court-order-2026-03-27"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://www.casino.org/news/peppermill-renos-facial-recognition-tech-leads-to-wrongful-arrest/","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Casino.org, 11 November 2025, read live on 2026-10-04. The article attributes its account to the court filings; it is a derivative of the plaintiff's pleadings for the incident facts.","independence_group":"killinger-plaintiff-pleadings"},{"id":"s4","url":"https://www.kolotv.com/2026/04/08/man-sues-city-reno-over-use-facial-recognition/","kind":"local_tv_news","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"KOLO (Reno), 8 April 2026, read live on 2026-10-04 (short item attributed to court documents).","independence_group":"killinger-court-order-2026-03-27"},{"id":"s5","url":"https://mynews4.com/news/local/facial-recognition-lawsuit-raises-questions-about-ai-use-in-policing-nevada-law-enforcement-police-ai-artificial-intelligence-technology-suspects-lawsuit-killinger-v-jager-city-of-reno-peppermill-resort-us-district-court-fourth-amendment","kind":"local_tv_news","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"News 4 (Reno, mynews4.com), 14 May 2026, read live on 2026-10-04; attributes the incident account to court filings.","independence_group":"killinger-plaintiff-pleadings"},{"id":"s7","url":"https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2026/09/096-1-Proposed-Amicus-Brief.pdf","kind":"court_filing","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Proposed amicus curiae brief of the ACLU, ACLU of Nevada and Innocence Project, ECF No. 96-1 (Exhibit 1), filed 21 September 2026, 39 pages, from the ACLU's copy; read for its caption and filing details. Its arguments are the amici's, not findings.","independence_group":"aclu-amicus"},{"id":"s6","url":"https://www.aclu.org/cases/killinger-v-jager","kind":"organisation_statement","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"ACLU case page (last updated 23 September 2026), read live on 2026-10-04. The ACLU is an amicus supporting the plaintiff; its summary of the arrest relays the litigation record.","independence_group":"aclu-amicus"},{"id":"s8","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nvd.176041/gov.uscourts.nvd.176041.95.0.pdf","kind":"court_filing","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment based on municipal liability, Killinger v. Jager, No. 3:25-cv-00388 (D. Nev.), ECF No. 95, filed 12 September 2026 (31 pages), read in full from the free RECAP copy on 2026-10-14. It is the plaintiff's argument and summarises deposition testimony and declarations filed as exhibits; the exhibits themselves were not available and were not read. It is not a finding.","independence_group":"killinger-plaintiff-pleadings"},{"id":"s9","url":"https://www.casino.org/news/peppermill-casino-facial-recognition-made-12-false-matches-in-one-shift-ex-guard-claims/","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Casino.org report of 13 October 2026, read in full on 2026-10-14 (HTTP 200). It reports a former security officer's sworn declaration and the officer's separate declaration from the court filings; it does not say it read the declarations themselves. No translation was needed.","independence_group":"killinger-plaintiff-pleadings"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["institutional_use"],"contexts":["justice","privacy","everyday_life"],"unknowns":["Which facial recognition product the casino used and what match threshold it applied.","Whether the court has ruled on Killinger's motion for partial summary judgment on municipal liability (ECF No. 95) that the amicus brief supports, and what the City of Reno said in response.","Whether the court has granted Killinger's April 2026 motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 60) or his motion for leave to file a second amended complaint (ECF No. 63).","The terms and date of the reported settlement with the Peppermill Casino.","Whether the officer's deposition admissions, which the March 2026 order mentions without describing, and the amicus brief's statement that Peppermill's records show Reno police arrested at least 16 people on Peppermill facial recognition matches before September 2023 are borne out; neither was tested here.","Whether the detective's conclusion, the security director's 10 percent false-positive figure and the former security officer's account hold up; the record has them only as the plaintiff's motion summarises the depositions and declarations, and the exhibits were not read.","What the October 2026 docket entries that follow the motion (ECF Nos. 112 to 114) say; none could be read."],"geography":{"basis":"The arrest took place at the Peppermill Casino in Reno, Nevada; the complaint states the plaintiff resides in Washoe County, Nevada, and the suit is in the US District Court for the District of Nevada.","court_countries":["US"],"event_countries":["US"],"affected_person_countries":["US"]},"publication":{"basis":"Published as a contextual case: a casino's facial recognition system made a claim about a patron's identity that, according to his federal complaint, was wrong and led to his arrest, about eleven hours in custody and a dismissed trespass prosecution. The incident facts are the plaintiff's allegations, relayed by news coverage of the filings and recited without findings in a court order; the procedural rulings are documented. The plaintiff is named because he sues in his own name; the officer appears only by surname in the case caption, and the barred man, whom the complaint identifies only by initials, is not named. The 2026-10-14 review added the plaintiff's September 2026 summary-judgment motion and an October 2026 Casino.org report; their accounts of a detective's conclusion and a former security officer's declaration are allegations in the plaintiff's filing, and the officer's contrary statement is recorded.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-14"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The complaint alleges that the Peppermill Casino's 'A.I. facial recognition software' identified Killinger as a barred man and that casino security and the responding officer relied on its reported 100 percent match; it quotes the officer on body-worn camera describing the casino's 'artificial intelligence software'. The court's March 2026 order recites the facial recognition identification from the complaint without a finding. The vendor and system are not named in any inspected source. The handcuffing, arrest and prosecution decisions were made by casino staff, the officer and prosecutors. Killinger's September 2026 summary-judgment motion adds, from deposition testimony it summarises, that a Reno police detective later concluded the match was wrong, and cites a former casino security officer's declaration, covering his employment from about October 2024 to July 2026, that the system often alerted at 100 percent on the wrong people.","status":"reported"},"person_relations":["made_claim_about"]},"name":"Reno casino's facial recognition wrongly matched a patron to a barred man and police jailed him for about eleven hours, his federal lawsuit alleges","summary":"Jason Killinger, a UPS truck driver, alleges in a federal civil-rights complaint filed in July 2025 that on 17 September 2023 the Peppermill Casino in Reno reported to police that its AI facial recognition software had identified him as a man barred from the casino months earlier. According to the complaint, casino security handcuffed him, and the responding Reno police officer, told the system had found a 100 percent match, did not examine his other identification and took him to jail as an unidentified person, where fingerprints confirmed who he was. The complaint says he was handcuffed for about four hours, starting in the casino security office, spent about eleven hours in police and jail custody, and was treated the next day for bruised wrists. According to the complaint, he was then charged with trespassing, and a prosecutor dismissed the charge without prejudice at the bench trial. Casino.org reports that he settled a suit against the casino. In March 2026 the court let him add the City of Reno and a municipal liability claim over facial recognition policies, but refused a new wrongful arrest claim against the officer on qualified immunity grounds. In September 2026 the ACLU, the ACLU of Nevada and the Innocence Project filed a proposed amicus brief supporting him. His September 2026 motion for partial summary judgment says a Reno police detective later concluded that the match was wrong and that he and the barred man were different people, and it cites a declaration by a former casino security officer, who worked there from about October 2024, that the system often alerted at 100 percent on the wrong people; in a declaration reported by Casino.org, the officer said he had never known the system to misidentify anyone. The case is ongoing.","incidentDate":"2023-09-17","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"day","exposurePattern":"single_interaction","reportedDate":"2025-11-11","aiSystem":"Facial recognition software used by the Peppermill Casino's security system in Reno, which the complaint calls 'A.I. facial recognition software'; vendor not named in the inspected sources","aiProduct":"Unidentified facial recognition system","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["loss_of_liberty","legal_harm","physical_injury","reputational_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"According to his complaint, Killinger was handcuffed for about four hours, arrested and held in police and jail custody for about eleven hours after the casino's facial recognition system wrongly matched him to a barred man; he was bruised by the handcuffs, prosecuted for trespassing until the charge was dismissed without prejudice, and left with an arrest record.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"alleged","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":1,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One person, the plaintiff, who was arrested and held according to his complaint. Reported allegations about other people arrested on casino facial recognition matches in Reno are not counted.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"US-NV","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"lawsuit_ongoing","outcomeStatus":"ongoing","primarySourceUrl":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nvd.176041/gov.uscourts.nvd.176041.1.0.pdf","primarySourceLabel":"Killinger v. Jager, No. 3:25-cv-00388 (D. Nev.), complaint, 30 July 2025","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-04T03:19:04.699044+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-14T03:03:41.476658+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["facial-recognition","wrongful-arrest","casino","reno","nevada","justice","made-claim-about","lawsuit"]},{"id":"2026-dillon-faces-wrongful-arrest-florida","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"corroborated","evidence":[{"locator":"'took pictures of the screen with his cell phone… low resolution… partially shadowed and off-axis'; '93 percent confidence'.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Warrant based on the FR hit + 'a statement from a restaurant employee who picked his photo out of a lineup'; 'police called Dillon in 2023, he denied involvement citing skin-cancer scars'.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"The warrant rested on a 93%-confidence FACES result obtained from low-resolution cell-phone photos of the restaurant's surveillance screen (partially shadowed, off-axis) plus a restaurant employee's photo-lineup identification; police had called Dillon in 2023 and he denied involvement, citing skin-cancer scars.","causal_attribution":"The evidentiary basis is the complaint's account, carried by two chains; whether '93%' was system-generated or an investigator's characterization is unverified (the suit says the system 'spit out' his photo as a 'possible match')."},{"id":"c2","status":"corroborated","evidence":[{"locator":"'arrested Aug 2024 in Fort Myers'; 'more than two months later, prosecutors dropped the charges'; 'it took an entire year… to take down his mug shot and expunge the arrest'.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Arrest bodycam 'outside his San Carlos Park home' via Gulf Coast affiliate; the Dillon interview ('I don't wish this on my worst enemy').","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"'charges… dropped… in October 2024'; 1 night jail, bonded out pledging his truck's title.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"Dillon was arrested at his San Carlos Park home in August 2024, spent one night in jail and bonded out pledging his truck's title; prosecutors dropped the charges in October 2024 after work-alibi evidence; the arrest took about a year to expunge, with his mugshot lingering online.","causal_attribution":"The custody and expungement timeline is consistent across three chains."},{"id":"c3","status":"corroborated","evidence":[{"locator":"'suit in M.D. Fla. vs. city of Jacksonville Beach + officers/officials incl. Sheriff T.K. Waters'.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Suit 'includes the Pinellas County Sheriff's Office, which oversees the use of the AI facial recognition technology across Florida'.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"ACLU attorney Nathan Wessler interview; defendants: Jacksonville Beach PD + Jacksonville and Pinellas County sheriffs' offices.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"The ACLU filed a federal lawsuit in the week of 8 June 2026 in the Middle District of Florida against the city of Jacksonville Beach, Jacksonville Sheriff T.K. Waters and the Pinellas County Sheriff's Office, seeking damages and policy safeguards.","causal_attribution":"The suit's existence and parties are carried by three chains; the exact filing date within the week of 8 June is not pinned in the inspected sources."},{"id":"c4","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"PCSO response passages ('patently false'; 'never \"matches\"'; 'rests solely with any officer').","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The Pinellas County Sheriff's Office responded that a training-failure claim 'is patently false', that 'facial recognition results are never \"matches\"', and that liability 'rests solely with any officer who did so'.","causal_attribution":"The agency's position is quoted directly and preserved as contrary evidence."},{"id":"c5","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'one of at least 14 people arrested since 2019'.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'one of 15 known people'.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"The ACLU counts Dillon as at least the 14th known person wrongfully arrested since 2019 from police reliance on facial recognition (Reason, 11 June); a later WUSF attorney interview puts the count at 15 known.","causal_attribution":"The advocacy count is attributed to the ACLU; the two figures are recorded as stated on their dates."}],"effects":[{"label":"wrongful felony arrest on a 93% facial-recognition hit, with a year-long expungement fight","claim_id":"c2","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://reason.com/2026/06/11/aclu-sues-after-facial-recognition-falsely-identifies-florida-man-as-a-child-abductor/","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English on 2026-09-15 (11 Jun 2026, Joe Lancaster).","independence_group":"reason"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://abcnews.com/GMA/News/man-sues-law-enforcement-alleging-ai-facial-recognition/story?id=133810835","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English on 2026-09-15 (12 Jun 2026, Hipos & Yu).","independence_group":"abc-news"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://www.wusf.org/courts-law/2026-06-18/ai-facial-recognition-tool-led-to-florida-man-wrongful-arrest-lawsuit","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English on 2026-09-15 (18 Jun 2026, Lyden/Peddie).","independence_group":"wusf"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["institutional_use"],"contexts":["justice"],"unknowns":["The exact filing date within the week of 8 June 2026 and the docket number are not pinned in the inspected sources.","Whether the '93%' figure was system-generated or an investigator's characterization is unverified.","The lineup procedure's details (who administered it and how) are only partly reported.","The expungement's completion date is given only as 'about a year' after the arrest.","The actual perpetrator of the 2023 luring attempt is not reported as identified."],"geography":{"basis":"Event: the warrant (Jacksonville Beach) and the arrest (San Carlos Park / Fort Myers), Florida. Affected person: Dillon, Florida. Court: the felony charge (dropped) and the federal suit in the Middle District of Florida.","court_countries":["US"],"event_countries":["US"],"affected_person_countries":["US"]},"publication":{"basis":"Published under the 2026-09-15 charter as an institutional automated-decision case (made_decision_about / made_claim_about): a facial-recognition hit treated as warrant-grade identification, documented by three independent chains including the ACLU's own attorney and the vendor agency's response. Dillon spoke publicly; the PCSO denial is preserved as contrary evidence.","reviewed_on":"2026-09-15"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The warrant rested on the FACES 93%-confidence result plus a lineup identification, per the complaint as carried by Reason and WUSF; the vendor (Pinellas County Sheriff's Office FACES) is confirmed by WUSF, and the PCSO's own response acknowledges its technology's role while rejecting liability.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["made_decision_about","made_claim_about"]},"name":"Florida: 93% facial-recognition hit led to Robert Dillon's arrest as an attempted child abductor; charges dropped, ACLU suit filed","summary":"In August 2024, Robert Dillon, a 52-year-old self-employed commercial crabber from the Fort Myers area, was arrested at his San Carlos Park home on a third-degree felony warrant for the attempted luring of a child at a Jacksonville Beach McDonald's in November 2023 — a crime he had no part in. The warrant rested on a 93%-confidence result from FACES, the Face Analysis Comparison and Examination System maintained by the Pinellas County Sheriff's Office, run against low-resolution cell-phone photos of a surveillance screen, plus a restaurant employee's photo-lineup identification. Dillon spent a night in jail and bonded out against his truck's title; prosecutors dropped the charges in October 2024 after work-alibi evidence, but it took about a year to expunge the arrest and remove his mugshot. In June 2026 the ACLU filed a federal lawsuit (M.D. Fla.) against Jacksonville Beach, the Jacksonville sheriff and the Pinellas County Sheriff's Office, calling Dillon one of at least 14 known wrongful arrests from police reliance on facial recognition since 2019.","incidentDate":"2024-08-01","incidentEndDate":"2024-10-01","incidentKind":"bounded_series","incidentDatePrecision":"range","exposurePattern":"single_interaction","reportedDate":"2026-06-11","aiSystem":"FACES (Face Analysis Comparison and Examination System), Pinellas County Sheriff's Office","aiProduct":"FACES facial recognition","aiCompany":"Pinellas County Sheriff's Office (FACES centralized database)","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["legal_harm","reputational_harm","psychological_distress"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"Arrested at home on a child-abduction-class felony from a 93% facial-recognition hit on grainy screen photos; a night in jail, two months to clear the charge, and about a year to expunge the record and remove the mugshot.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"supported","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":1,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One documented harmed person: Dillon, the misidentified arrestee (three independent chains). The child in the underlying luring attempt is a victim of the actual perpetrator, not of the misidentification, and is not counted.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"US","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"lawsuit_filed","outcomeStatus":"ongoing","primarySourceUrl":"https://reason.com/2026/06/11/aclu-sues-after-facial-recognition-falsely-identifies-florida-man-as-a-child-abductor/","primarySourceLabel":"Reason (11 Jun 2026, Joe Lancaster) — complaint-based account: the screen photos, the 93% hit, the arrest, the expungement, the suit","firstPublishedAt":"2026-09-15T10:27:54.71948+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-09-30T01:17:35.503237+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["made-decision-about","made-claim-about","facial-recognition","wrongful-arrest","justice","florida","aclu"]}]}