Yes, it's critical to remember that multiple parties can be at fault. In a case like this, it is true that
a) law enforcement misused a tool and demonstrated extreme negligence
b) the judiciary didn't catch this, which suggests systemic negligence there too when it comes to their oversight responsibilities
c) the company selling/providing this AI tool should have known it was likely to be misused and is responsible for damages caused by such predictable usage
We cannot have a just world until our laws and norms result in loss of jobs and legitimacy as punishment for this sort of normalized failure, from all three parties. Immunity is a failed experiment.
It isn’t much of a salve, but the particulars do matter when trying to assess fault to the proper parties (who are still clearly the Fargo cops in this particular tragedy).
The software identified the person as Angela Lipps. According to the court documents, the Fargo detective working the case then looked at Lipps' social media accounts and Tennessee driver's license photo.
In his charging document, the detective wrote that Lipps appeared to be the suspect based on facial features, body type and hairstyle and color.
The software worked exactly as intended. It's a filtering tool that sifts through data for common patterns to provide leads, not matches. It raises a flag on persons of interest. You can be a "match" anywhere between 0 and 100% and only relative to some specific input (like that picture taken from the top of the woman at the teller). In that sens mismatches are within acceptable parameters and have been known to happen.
A "match" is a pronouncement ultimately made by the humans that uses the tool, after they've checked out the leads. Someone slept at the wheel here.