>

I suspect that police didn't check because there's no direct consequences to them.  Even if a judge ruled denied qualified immunity, they're highly unlikely to be fired or face any other disciplinary action. 
Also, no one told them they have to.
Summary: Police blindly assumed the name the software gave them was the guy, but if they'd actually looked at a photo and compared to the footage they would've been able to tell it wasn't him because of a visible mole and huge difference in body size, but they didn't so they arrested him and it took a week to correct it.
We could twist and try to blame facial recognition software, but the problem was the police. >

It's both.
The tech made the error, the police are taught to blindly trust their tech...like Michael Scott driving into a lake. >


like Michael Scott driving into a lake.

Except in this case, Michael has a gun on his hip, and a very well funded union he belongs to. >

And immunity to the law. >

Civil immunity, not criminal. >

Unless there's massive protests it's usually both. There was a cop in Philidelphia that beat a protestor and falsely charged him with assaulting a police officer. When the DA saw video evidence that it was a lie they dismissed the charges and the cop got off without any penalty. DAs work with cops all the time and don't want to make enemies. >

So those “bans” which were so popular a few years ago are starting to expire with the expected results. >

WOW ARE THE COMMENTS HERE ALL OVER THE BOARD OR WHAT?
Frankly it boggles the mind that the police didn't check further then the facial recognition software. Even on traffic cams an officer normally has to check the video before a ticket is issued.