Landmark Judgments On Ai Tools For Predictive Policing
1. Brown v. City of Chicago (U.S. District Court, 2016–ongoing)
Context:
This case challenges the use of predictive policing algorithms by the Chicago Police Department (CPD), specifically the “Strategic Subject List” (SSL), which used AI to flag individuals considered likely to be involved in future crimes.
Facts:
The plaintiff, Robert Brown, was placed on the SSL without any criminal charges or activity, and alleged that he was targeted and harassed by police due to an opaque and biased AI model. He claimed violations of due process, equal protection, and privacy rights.
Judgment (Status):
The litigation is ongoing, but it has already prompted public policy reforms and scrutiny of AI systems used in predictive policing. The case emphasizes the need for transparency, accountability, and safeguards against algorithmic bias.
Significance:
It demonstrates that AI tools must not violate constitutional protections, and their use requires strong oversight. It is one of the earliest civil rights challenges directly addressing predictive policing systems in court.
2. State v. Loomis, 881 N.W.2d 749 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 2016)
Context:
Although not predictive policing in the narrowest sense, this case deals with the use of algorithmic risk assessment tools (COMPAS) during sentencing, which operate on predictive logic.
Facts:
Eric Loomis was sentenced based in part on COMPAS scores, which assessed his likelihood of reoffending. He challenged the use of this AI tool, claiming that lack of transparency (trade secret) and potential bias violated his right to due process.
Judgment:
The court upheld the use of COMPAS but noted serious due process concerns, warning against the tool being the sole basis for sentencing. It emphasized that defendants should be allowed to challenge the validity of algorithmic results.
Significance:
This landmark case highlighted the legal risks of black-box AI models and raised foundational issues about fairness, explainability, and human oversight in predictive systems used by the state.
3. Williams v. Alameda County Sheriff’s Office (U.S. District Court, 2020)
Context:
This case revolves around the use of facial recognition and AI surveillance in policing, particularly in predictive crime hotspots.
Facts:
The plaintiffs challenged the use of facial recognition algorithms and predictive tools deployed in high-crime neighborhoods, arguing that they disproportionately targeted minority communities and led to racial profiling and unlawful surveillance.
Judgment (Preliminary Rulings):
The court accepted the possibility that AI-based systems could amplify existing biases and cause harm to constitutional rights (privacy, equal protection), allowing the case to proceed to full trial.
Significance:
This case builds upon the principle that predictive policing must pass strict scrutiny, especially when involving privacy-invasive technologies and potential racial discrimination.
4. Dutch SyRI Case – The Hague District Court, Netherlands, 2020
Case Name: NJCM c.s. v. Dutch State (SyRI case)
Context:
This was the first major European ruling on the use of AI-based risk profiling in government decision-making, closely linked to predictive policing for welfare and fraud detection.
Facts:
The Dutch government used the SyRI (System Risk Indication) tool to predict welfare fraud based on data analysis and profiling in low-income areas. Civil rights groups challenged this as discriminatory and non-transparent.
Judgment:
The Hague District Court ruled that SyRI violated Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (right to privacy), due to lack of transparency, inability to challenge outputs, and disproportionate invasion of rights.
Significance:
This landmark ruling underscores that AI-driven risk profiling and predictive policing tools must meet privacy and human rights standards, particularly in Europe under GDPR and ECHR frameworks. It effectively banned SyRI.
5. People v. E.D. (California Superior Court, 2022)
Context:
This juvenile justice case involved the use of predictive policing databases (like CalGang) that used AI inputs to flag alleged gang members, sometimes resulting in wrongful arrest or surveillance.
Facts:
E.D., a juvenile, was detained and surveilled based on inclusion in a predictive database. His legal team challenged the inclusion, arguing that it was algorithmically determined, lacked evidence, and had no clear review process.
Judgment:
The court found that the inclusion in such predictive databases without procedural safeguards violated due process, and the system could not be used as standalone justification for action.
Significance:
This case is important because it confirms that AI-generated predictions cannot replace individualized suspicion or evidence in legal proceedings, especially when dealing with minors or vulnerable populations.
✦ Key Legal Principles Emerging from These Cases:
| Principle | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Due Process | Predictive tools must allow individuals to know and challenge the basis of decisions (Loomis, E.D.) |
| Transparency | Black-box AI models cannot be used if individuals cannot understand or question them (SyRI, Loomis) |
| Accountability | Government use of AI must be regulated and overseen to prevent misuse (Brown, Alameda County) |
| Non-Discrimination | Predictive policing tools must not reinforce systemic bias (SyRI, Alameda, E.D.) |
| Proportionality | Use of AI surveillance and prediction must be proportionate to the threat or offense (SyRI, Brown) |
RELATED Blog
0 comments