Nevada facial recognition project draws scrutiny over privacy, police oversight

The Sparks, Nevada Police Department is moving forward with a federal grant-funded facial recognition project officials say will help investigators identify suspects in retail theft cases, but which is drawing scrutiny because of its regional structure, use of police image databases, and a recent Reno wrongful arrest lawsuit involving similar technology.

The Sparks City Council approved acceptance of a $16,172.36 grant from the U.S. Department of Justice (DoJ) Office of Justice Programs Bureau of Justice Assistance and administered by the Nevada Department of Public Safety’s Office of Criminal Justice Assistance, which received a $2.1 million block grant from DoJ.

The project is intended to support facial recognition investigative tools, contractual services, and coordination among the Sparks Police Department, Reno Police Department, and the Washoe County Sheriff’s Office through a regional Real-Time Information Center.

The project period runs from April 1 through Aug. 31, 2026, and city staff materials say the software would allow analysts to compare images and video evidence against databases, generate investigative leads, and improve coordination across jurisdictions.

Sparks is not simply buying a stand-alone tool for one police department. The project is structured around shared investigative use by multiple Northern Nevada agencies, which means questions about access, auditing, retention, training, and permissible use will not be confined to Sparks alone.

The software at issue is from Greenville, South Carolina-based DataWorks Plus and will be used by a small number of crime analysts to compare images or video from crime scenes against local police databases.

DataWorks provides mugshot management, booking, biometric identity, rapid ID, and facial comparison tools for police, corrections, and public safety agencies.

Detroit police used DataWorks facial recognition in cases that produced several widely reported wrongful arrests. In one case, police used a blurry surveillance image from a shoplifting investigation, and the system incorrectly identified an individual as a candidate.

A subsequent lawsuit led to a 2024 settlement that imposed significant new restrictions on Detroit police, including limits on using facial recognition leads to conduct photo lineups or make arrests without independent evidence.

Sparks police documents described retail theft as the primary focus and set a goal of reducing calls related to retail theft by at least 10 percent by August. But the same documents also say the system could support investigations involving violent crime, property crime, and fraud.

That gap between the public-facing rationale and the broader investigative authority is central to the concern. Police officials are framing the technology as a response to shoplifting, an issue Sparks has treated as a growing public safety and economic problem.

Once the infrastructure is deployed, it can be used across categories of crime, across jurisdictions, and potentially across different databases.

Sparks Police Chief Chris Crawforth said facial recognition will be treated as an investigative tool rather than proof of identity. At the April council meeting, Crawforth said it would be “supporting evidence and not standalone proof.”

Sparks officials said only five department employees would have access and that correspondence involving facial recognition would include a disclaimer that image comparison is not a positive identification.

Those guardrails mirror federal guidance. The Bureau of Justice Assistance’s face recognition policy template states that search results are not positive identification, are advisory in nature, and do not establish probable cause without further investigation.

It also says agencies receiving facial recognition results should be warned that candidate images are investigative leads only.

The same principle was raised in a lawsuit against Reno after police arrested Jason Killinger, who was misidentified by a casino’s facial recognition system.

Killinger was stopped at the Peppermill casino in September 2023 after the casino system reportedly matched him to a banned individual. He had multiple IDs showing a different name but was arrested anyway.

A federal judge later allowed the City of Reno to be added to the lawsuit over alleged failure to train officers, and the case has become a local example of what can happen when a biometric lead is treated as identity confirmation.

The lawsuit alleges Reno police lacked an adequate facial recognition policy and training despite officers’ regular reliance on biometric matches supplied by private businesses.

The lawsuit claims Reno had not implemented a facial recognition policy as of April 2. That allegation is particularly relevant because Sparks’ new project is being launched in the same region and involves cooperation with Reno and Washoe County.

Nevada does not currently have a comprehensive statewide law governing police use of facial recognition. During the 2025 legislative session, Sen. Dina Neal sponsored SB199, a broader AI bill that would have required certain policies and safeguards around AI use, including by law enforcement agencies. The bill died with no further action on June 3, 2025.

The absence of a statewide law leaves governance largely to local agencies. The Washoe County Sheriff’s Office policy says non-mugshot databases will not be used and that facial recognition will only serve as an investigative tool.

Sparks police said they would use the Washoe database to review potential suspects and conduct a separate analysis. Reno police, meanwhile, said it planned to team with Sparks eventually but did not currently have access to facial recognition technology.

Police documents cited by The Nevada Independent said clearance rates for Sparks and Reno rose from 38 percent to more than 53 percent while the agencies had access to facial recognition software from 2023 to 2024, then dropped to 45 percent after access ended in 2025.

Privacy advocates questioned whether that change can be attributed to facial recognition alone, noting that many factors influence whether a case is cleared.

Article Topics

biometric identification  |  biometrics  |  criminal ID  |  DataWorks Plus  |  facial recognition  |  false arrest  |  law enforcement  |  Nevada