Why Facial Recognition Technology Demands A Warrant Facial recognition technology (FRT) seems to be everywhere these days—it is in malls, airports, and our ever-present smartphones. First commercialized in the mid-1990s, FRT today is used widely in the police investigation process due to its efficiency. Despite how commonly the technology is used as an investigative tool, the legal protections to govern its use and avoid government overreach have not been updated accordingly due to a lack of federal FRT legislation. The Eighth District Court of Appeals case State v. Tolbert (2025) reveals this lack of judicial oversight over FRT. While the case is still active and ongoing, the facts established in the case and the rulings to date point to the need for clearer FRT regulations. In State v. Tolbert, the Cleveland Police Department used a facial recognition match from a fusion center to identify Qeyeon Tolbert as a suspect for a homicide case. From this identification match, Homicide Detective Michael Legg secured a search warrant of an apartment linked to Tolbert, resulting in Tolbert’s arrest. Although the Eighth District Court of Appeals found that the use of FRT to obtain a warrant did not violate Tolbert’s Fourth Amendment right to a truthful affidavit warrant, the court’s ruling overlooks an important concern that the defendant raises: the unregulated use of FRT to identify a suspect. Given that FRT is an efficient surveillance tool becoming more commonly used in criminal investigation, lack of government regulation can encourage unreasonable searches in violation of the Fourth Amendment. To protect citizens from unregulated mass surveillance, while also acknowledging the benefits of FRT, the use of FRT to verify or identify an individual should be treated as a search under the Fourth Amendment. State v. Tolbert focuses on defendant Qeyeon Tolbert, a twenty-three-year-old African American man