>

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

Just like with drug test kits. Probably drug dogs too. >

Drug dogs are horrible. They respond to signals and cues by their handlers. Trainers can give a command to alert anywhere or to anything they want and the dog gets positive reinforcement for it.
Drug tests are much more reliable, but still not 100% >

Lol my brother's car got searched by a drug dog. The dog was completely uninterested in the car or the items from it (bag used to carry all the change he got from tips). 
Handler kept saying, "[dog], drugs!" And shoving the bag at the dog. It sniffed, walked off and peed on a lamppost.
Completely inappropriate behavior from the handler, good job for the dog, though. >

Lucky the dog didn't react to a command to alert >

I wouldn't just sue the police department, I'd be calling lawyers around the country to go directly after the company that sold the tech.