A Kentucky man who spent more than two weeks in jail after police allegedly relied on an AI facial-recognition match to identify him as a cheque fraud suspect can now pursue a lawsuit against the detective involved.
In an order filed on 9 November 2026, a US federal judge allowed Alain Osorio's constitutional claims to proceed, questioning whether an officer can use an unverified AI identification as the basis for an arrest.
The incident happened at Heritage Bank in Florence, Kentucky. A man attempted to cash a suspected fraudulent cheque using a Texas driver's licence that a bank teller believed was fake.
Police obtained security footage, but the investigation took a troubling turn when Detective Ryan Kilmer used facial-recognition technology to identify the person shown in the images.
According to Osorio's lawsuit, the detective compared the footage with a booking photograph and a Facebook profile image before identifying him as the suspect.
Osorio alleges that Kilmer relied exclusively on the AI result rather than independently confirming the match.
AI Facial Recognition Put a Kentucky Man Behind Bars
Osorio was arrested in Florida on 9 January 2025 and extradited to Kentucky, where he faced two counts of criminal possession of a forged instrument.
He was released on bond on 24 January, after his arraignment the previous day.
The charges did not survive much longer. On 7 May 2025, prosecutors dismissed the indictment with prejudice after Osorio argued that he had been working in Nebraska when the fraudulent cheque was presented at the bank.
Osorio is now pursuing claims including false arrest and malicious prosecution, arguing that the detective failed to properly investigate his identity before seeking an arrest warrant.
The lawsuit stands on the Florence Police Department's own policy, which reportedly treats facial-recognition technology as an investigative lead, not a standalone basis for establishing probable cause.
Further investigation is required before an identification can support an arrest.
Osorio alleges that Kilmer did not follow that policy.
His complaint also claims the detective's warrant application described the identification process as involving investigative tools and said the photographs matched, without adequately explaining that the conclusion came solely from facial-recognition technology.
Judge Questions Police Reliance on AI Evidence
US District Judge S. Chad Meredith rejected Kilmer's attempt to have the lawsuit dismissed at this stage. He also declined to grant the detective qualified immunity, a legal protection that can shield government officials from liability in certain circumstances.
Meredith wrote that constitutional protections do not permit arrests 'based on nothing more than an uncorroborated conclusion by AI that the individual in question has committed a crime'.
The judge also said there was 'good reason' to believe an arrest warrant would not have been issued if Kilmer had presented a full account of how he concluded Osorio was the person who attempted to cash the cheque.
Kilmer has denied wrongdoing, arguing that Osorio failed to show the alleged conduct violated clearly established law.
The ruling does not mean Osorio has won his lawsuit. Meredith allowed the claims to continue based on the allegations presented at this stage, but noted that evidence uncovered during discovery could change the outcome. The detective has not been found liable, and no damages have been awarded.
Kilmer was given 14 days to file an answer or another response to the amended complaint, with a court status conference scheduled for 19 November 2026.
