The police get all of the grief for bullshit like this. Prosecutors, despite their high minded idealism when they move on from that role, are a bigger issue.
Witnesses are easy to address at trial, and if you're lucky enough to have a competent lawyer, it's often possible to neutralize them even if they are telling the truth.
Systems are harder to cross-examine. Once successfully litigated, prosecutors can use precedent to avoid any scrutiny of the methods, operational processes, or other aspects.
I use a jury I served on as an example -- the police found a person who was almost certainly guilty of running over a person in a park late at night. The key piece of information was when it happened due to surrounding events. The key witness was out of play because he was arrested for perjury -- evidence came out immediately before trial indicating that he was driving a car after stumbling out of a bar, and he had testified that he was a passenger to the grand jury. So they had to scramble to use traffic light cameras (which are synced to GPS/cellular time) to establish a window when the defendant was in a particular area. Because of the events, the defense was able to cross-examine someone from the camera vendor, who was ripped up on the stand -- evidence thrown out and case settled for a reckless driving misdemeanor.
That event, where the vendor was questioned (and in this case failed to satisfy the court) is pretty rare. It's often assumed that systems work perfectly, while they often do not. For example, DNA matching is sound science, but forensic labs sometimes have unsound practices and controls.
If police are under pressure to close cases, and prosecutors are incentivized towards collecting scalps, the natural outcome with automated systems is going to be people going to jail because of bullshit tech.