Every one of those people came to the courthouse on their own. Jury duty, a relative's hearing, a fine to pay, someone else's case entirely. They were not there for themselves.
They walked in past security, into a controlled building, with deputies already on site.
Anyone who has staffed warrant service knows what the alternative looks like. Two deputies, a vehicle, a residence, an unknown number of people inside, and the most dangerous few seconds in the job. Multiple attempts, most of them finding nobody home. Then the one that does.
Seventy-six times in one month, that trip did not have to happen.
A match is not an alert. Identity must be independently confirmed, and operational relevance must exist, before an alert is sent.
Positively identified
Met a relevance criterion
Confirmed, never reported
Felony warrants closed
Across the platform that month, 1,194 people were positively identified. Eighty-four met an authorized relevance criterion and produced an alert.
The other 1,110 were confirmed as exactly who the system said they were, and then nothing happened. No alert, no notification, no record that they had been there.
A courthouse is full of people whose presence is nobody's business. A witness. A juror. Somebody filing for divorce. Somebody sitting with their kid through the worst day of that kid's life.
The system is capable of recognizing all of them. It is built to forget the ones it was not asked about.
None of the 84 was wrong.
That is not because the software is never uncertain. It is because 1,908 times that month an analyst looked at a candidate and said it is not him, and 1,110 more times the answer was yes it is him and he is not anyone we were asked about.
Twenty-two candidates stopped for every alert that reached a deputy. That ratio is the product.
Not a network. Not a county-wide deployment. Two sensors on the public entrances of one building, running for one month.
Tell us the building and the entrances, and we will tell you what is realistic.
