{"meta":{"exportedAt":"2026-10-02T17:30:32.472Z","formatVersion":2,"selection":{"q":"immigration-enforcement","system":"","harm":"","context":"","country":"","role":"","relation":"","evidence":"","year":"2026","response":"lawsuit","severity":"","verification":"","view":"incidents","sort":"added"},"totalIncidents":1,"coverage":{"cases":1,"countries":1,"languages":1,"unknownLocation":0,"locationPending":0,"unknownLanguage":0,"unknownDate":0,"lawsuits":1,"regulatory":0,"minors":0,"coreRelations":0,"contextualRelations":1,"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":"2026-brooklyn-center-border-patrol-facial-recognition-citizen-detention","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"Paras 85-86, pages 30-31: 'and a U.S. citizen. ECF'; 'On January 9, 2026, Mr.'; 'was working at a house in Brooklyn Center, Minnesota'; 'Two immigration agents with “border patrol” on their vests drove past the house, made a U-turn'; 'license and REAL ID paperwork, but the agents asserted that the REAL ID papers were'; 'fake and that the driver’s license proved nothing, and they handcuffed him'. Caption: 'FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW'; 'Dated: March 9, 2026'.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"In findings of fact filed on 9 March 2026 in Hussen v. Noem, a proposed class action over immigration stops during Operation Metro Surge, a federal judge in Minnesota found that a U.S. citizen was working at a house in Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, on 9 January 2026 when two immigration agents with 'border patrol' on their vests drove past, made a U-turn and asked where he was born; when he showed his driver's licence and REAL ID paperwork, they said the papers were fake and the licence proved nothing, and handcuffed him.","causal_attribution":"Findings of the court, made on the declarant's sworn account; the government's declarations did not address this stop."},{"id":"c2","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"Footnote 11, page 30: 'One of the agents who stopped him conducted a facial recognition scan and told'; 'was born in Mexico City'; 'At least one agent, then, believed that'; 'to be of Mexican descent'.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The court's findings state that one of the agents who stopped him conducted a facial recognition scan and told him he was born in Mexico City; the judge cited this to infer that at least one agent believed he appeared to be of Mexican descent.","causal_attribution":"The court's restatement of the declaration (Id. para 12); the order does not say what the scan returned beyond what the agent then told him, and does not say whether the birthplace was wrong."},{"id":"c3","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"Para 87, page 31: 'around for about thirty minutes, the agents met up with a different agent, who used a facial recognition scan to determine that'; 'was a U.S. citizen. Id.'; 'After that, the officers released'.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The judge found that the agents drove him around for about thirty minutes and then met a different agent, who used a facial recognition scan to determine that he was a U.S. citizen, after which the officers released him.","causal_attribution":"Findings of the court on the declarant's account."},{"id":"c4","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"Para 88, page 31: 'stopped and detained based solely on his race or ethnicity. Without more, the assertions that'; 'are unsupported, pretextual justifications for prolonging the detention'; page 4: 'are not binding at trial on the merits'; page 80 (conclusions para 29): 'were encountered at construction worksites that'; 'traditionally indicate illegal aliens'; 'His declaration states he works in cleaning and property removal and does not mention construction'.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The judge found that he was stopped and detained based solely on his race or ethnicity, and that the agents' assertions that his papers were fake or proved nothing were unsupported, pretextual justifications for prolonging the detention; in its conclusions it rejected the government's argument that he was encountered at a construction worksite, because his declaration describes cleaning and property removal work and does not mention construction.","causal_attribution":"Judicial finding made on the preliminary-injunction record, which the court notes 'are not binding at trial on the merits'; it attributes the stop and detention to race or ethnicity, not to the facial recognition scan."},{"id":"c5","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Paras 10-15: 'They put me in one of the SUVs.'; 'seemed to take a picture of my face with his phone. I believe he was using facial recognition software. He told me I was not a US citizen and that I was born in Mexico City. He told me I was under arrest. They put handcuffs on me.'; 'Instead, they just took my phone without letting me show the picture.'; 'They drove me around for probably 30 mins until a different agent met up with them. He used facial recognition with another system and it confirmed I was a citizen.'; 'They then let me go.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"In his sworn declaration, the man says that after he was put in an SUV a man in the front seat seemed to photograph his face with a phone, which he believed was facial recognition software, then told him he was not a U.S. citizen, that he was born in Mexico City and that he was under arrest, and he was handcuffed; agents took his phone when he tried to show a picture of his passport, drove him around for probably 30 minutes until a different agent used facial recognition 'with another system' that confirmed he was a citizen, and then let him go.","causal_attribution":"The declarant's sworn first-person account; the identification of the first phone photo as facial recognition is his belief."},{"id":"c6","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"Pages 3, 7 (para 12) and 111: 'Defendants cross-examined Plaintiffs’ witnesses but offered no witness testimony'; 'Defendants submitted declarations disputing four accounts'; 'No. 84 (disputing account of Plaintiff Mubashir Hussen)'; 'provides brief accounts of the stops of Santiago Doe, Julio Doe,'; 'Plaintiffs’ motions will be denied.'; 'Plaintiffs have shown that Defendants likely maintained unconstitutional policies'; 'Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Preliminary Injunction [ECF No. 25] is DENIED.'; 'Plaintiffs’ Motion for Provisional Class Certification and Appointment of'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The court recorded that the government's declarations disputed four declarants' accounts, none of them this one, and that the government offered no witness testimony at the evidentiary hearing; it nonetheless denied the preliminary injunction and provisional class certification, holding that the plaintiffs had not shown a certainly impending future injury, while finding that the government likely maintained unconstitutional policies.","causal_attribution":"The court's own record of the evidence and its ruling."},{"id":"c7","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal by All Plaintiffs'; 'Date Terminated:'; 'Order Dismissing Case'; entries 199 (Jun 11, 2026) and 200 (Jun 18, 2026).","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"}],"assertion":"CourtListener's docket lists a notice of voluntary dismissal by all plaintiffs on 11 June 2026 and an order dismissing the case on 18 June 2026.","causal_attribution":"Docket index entries; the dismissal notice and order were not read."},{"id":"c8","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Para 157(f), page 57: 'was working at a house in Brooklyn Center on January 9, 2026 when two Border Patrol agents'; 'ran a facial recognition scan that told him he had been born in Mexico City'; 'drove him around for about thirty minutes until a second scan confirmed his citizenship'.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"A federal complaint filed on 1 October 2026 over the killing of Renee Good (Ganger v. Ross) restates the episode among the Hussen court's findings, describing the first scan as one 'that told him he had been born in Mexico City' and saying a second scan confirmed his citizenship.","causal_attribution":"The plaintiffs' restatement of the Hussen findings; the complaint's wording that the scan itself 'told him' the birthplace goes further than the order, which says the agent conducted a scan and told him."}],"effects":[{"label":"a U.S. citizen was handcuffed and detained by immigration agents in Border Patrol vests; a federal judge found the stop and detention were based solely on his race or ethnicity","claim_id":"c4","direction":"negative"},{"label":"after a facial recognition scan an agent told him he was born in Mexico City","claim_id":"c2","direction":"negative"},{"label":"he says the agent who seemed to photograph his face also told him he was not a U.S. citizen and was under arrest, and he was held for about thirty minutes until another agent's facial recognition scan confirmed his citizenship","claim_id":"c5","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mnd.230424/gov.uscourts.mnd.230424.191.0_1.pdf","kind":"court_order","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read on 2026-10-02 from the RECAP PDF (111 pages, text layer): Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, Hussen v. Noem, D. Minn. No. 26-cv-324 (ECT/ECW), Doc. 191, filed 9 March 2026, Judge Eric C. Tostrud. Read in full for this episode (paras 85-88 and footnotes 11-12), the evidentiary posture (paras 11-12), the introduction and the order. The findings on this episode rest on the declarant's sworn declaration (s2), so the two are one evidentiary chain.","independence_group":"hussen-v-noem-declarant-account"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mnd.230424/gov.uscourts.mnd.230424.39.0.pdf","kind":"court_filing","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in full on 2026-10-02 (3 pages): the detained man's sworn declaration under 28 U.S.C. 1746, signed 15 January 2026 and filed 16 January 2026 as Doc. 39 in support of the preliminary-injunction motion. It gives the event date as 'January 9, 2025'; the court treats 2025 as a typographical error.","independence_group":"hussen-v-noem-declarant-account"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mnd.236480/gov.uscourts.mnd.236480.1.0.pdf","kind":"court_filing","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read on 2026-10-02 (text layer, 149 pages; para 157(f) on page 57): complaint in Ganger v. Ross, D. Minn. No. 0:26-cv-04231, filed 1 October 2026, which concerns the killing of Renee Good and restates the Hussen court's findings on this episode. It derives from s1 and adds no independent account.","independence_group":"hussen-v-noem-declarant-account"},{"id":"s4","url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/72146903/hussen-v-mullin/","kind":"court_docket","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read on 2026-10-02: CourtListener docket page for Hussen v. Mullin (the caption CourtListener now shows), 0:26-cv-00324, last updated 13 September 2026; used only for the case's later procedural history.","independence_group":"courtlistener-hussen-docket"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["institutional_use"],"contexts":["justice","work"],"unknowns":["Which facial recognition application each agent used; the declarant says the second agent used 'another system'.","What the first scan actually returned, and whether the birthplace the agent stated was wrong; the record establishes his U.S. citizenship but not his birthplace.","Whether the man has brought any claim of his own; he was a declarant, not a party, in Hussen v. Noem.","Any psychological, work or financial consequences beyond the detention itself; the declaration does not describe them."],"geography":{"basis":"The stop happened at a house in Brooklyn Center, Minnesota; the court found the man is a U.S. citizen who lives in Minnesota; the findings were made by the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota (s1).","court_countries":["US"],"event_countries":["US"],"affected_person_countries":["US"]},"publication":{"basis":"Published as a contextual case from a federal court's findings of fact, made after an evidentiary hearing on a sworn declaration that the government's declarations did not dispute: a U.S. citizen was handcuffed and driven around by immigration agents with 'border patrol' on their vests, an agent told him after a facial recognition scan that he was born in Mexico City, and a second facial recognition scan established his citizenship before release. In findings on the preliminary-injunction record, the court found the stop and detention were based solely on race or ethnicity. The man is a private person and is not named here.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-02"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The court's findings state that an agent conducted a facial recognition scan and then told the man he was born in Mexico City, and that a different agent later used a facial recognition scan to determine that he was a U.S. citizen, after which he was released. Both findings rest on his sworn declaration. For the first scan he says the agent 'seemed' to photograph his face and that he believed facial recognition software was used, and he says the agents had already arrested him and put him in an SUV before that photo. No source read names either application or says what the first scan returned; the record shows only that the agent made the Mexico City statement after it. The recorded AI output is the second scan's: the court says it was used to determine his citizenship and the declaration says 'it confirmed I was a citizen', after which the officers released him. The court attributes the stop and detention to race or ethnicity, so no scan is established as the reason he was detained.","status":"reported"},"person_relations":["made_claim_about"]},"name":"Brooklyn Center, Minnesota: immigration agents in Border Patrol vests handcuffed a U.S. citizen who was working at a house in January 2026 and an agent told him after a facial recognition scan that he was born in Mexico City; a federal judge found he was detained solely because of his race or ethnicity, and a second scan confirmed his citizenship before release","summary":"In findings of fact filed on 9 March 2026 in Hussen v. Noem, a proposed class action over immigration stops during Operation Metro Surge, Judge Eric C. Tostrud of the U.S. District Court in Minnesota found that a U.S. citizen working at a house in Brooklyn Center on 9 January 2026 was stopped and detained based solely on his race or ethnicity. Two agents with 'border patrol' on their vests asked where he was born, said his REAL ID papers were fake and his driver's licence proved nothing, and handcuffed him. According to the findings, one agent conducted a facial recognition scan and told him he was born in Mexico City; in his sworn declaration the man says the agent also told him he was not a U.S. citizen and was under arrest. After about thirty minutes of driving, a different agent used a facial recognition scan that determined he was a citizen, and he was released. The government's declarations did not dispute his account. The judge denied a preliminary injunction for lack of a certainly impending future injury, and the plaintiffs later dismissed the suit. No source read names the facial recognition application. A complaint filed on 1 October 2026 over the killing of Renee Good restates the episode.","incidentDate":"2026-01-09","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"day","exposurePattern":"single_interaction","reportedDate":"2026-01-16","aiSystem":"Facial recognition scans run by immigration agents during the stop: per the court's findings, one agent conducted a facial recognition scan and then told the man he was born in Mexico City, and a different agent later used a facial recognition scan that determined he was a U.S. citizen (the declarant says the second agent used 'another system'). No source read names either application.","aiProduct":"Unidentified facial recognition system","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["loss_of_liberty"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"A federal judge found the man, a U.S. citizen, was handcuffed and detained for about thirty minutes by immigration agents in Border Patrol vests, based solely on his race or ethnicity; he says an agent told him after a face scan that he was not a citizen and was under arrest.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"unclear","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":1,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One person: the detained U.S. citizen (court findings paras 85-88; declaration). No one else is reported harmed in this stop.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"US-MN","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"lawsuit_dismissed","outcomeStatus":"resolved","primarySourceUrl":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mnd.230424/gov.uscourts.mnd.230424.191.0_1.pdf","primarySourceLabel":"Hussen v. Noem, D. Minn. No. 26-cv-324, findings of fact and conclusions of law, 9 March 2026","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-02T03:17:51.628942+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-02T03:17:51.628942+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["facial-recognition","immigration-enforcement","operation-metro-surge","minnesota","border-patrol","wrongful-detention","racial-profiling","justice","made-claim-about"]}]}