A new federal lawsuit in North Dakota traces back to a fake ID and a face-matching program. The woman arrested as a result lived in another state and, according to the filing, had never visited North Dakota before.
Angela Lipps, 50, of Tennessee, is suing the city of Fargo and police detective Lucas Heck for $10 million, according to ABC News. She says an AI facial recognition lead ultimately resulted in her arrest for bank thefts she did not commit. The filing says it seeks to “repair what has been broken.”
The case began with a woman captured on surveillance footage during incidents involving several Fargo-area banks. The suspect reportedly used a fake ID. An investigator with the West Fargo Police Department ran the ID photo through AI software, per the complaint. The program flagged Lipps’ social media photo as a possible lead. Police in other states have faced similar claims after a face match pointed to the wrong person.
A face match became the key lead
The filing says Lipps did not resemble the woman on camera. It points to differences in build, facial features and tattoos. Lipps was arrested in July 2025 while she was babysitting her neighbor’s children, according to the complaint. She was held first in Carter County, Tennessee, while alleged probation violations from unrelated past conduct were sorted out. She was then sent to Cass County, North Dakota, and ordered held on a $100,000 bond she could not pay.
A Tennessee grandmother who was falsely accused of bank theft crimes in North Dakota and detained for six months is suing for $10 million, alleging in a federal lawsuit that police improperly relied on AI facial recognition technology.
— ABC News (@ABC) September 18, 2026
Read more: https://t.co/IzziXeOdiO pic.twitter.com/wG5rbnGBGN
Heck is not accused of using the facial recognition software himself. The complaint alleges he requested the arrest warrant without conducting a thorough investigation or establishing enough probable cause. It accuses him of false arrest, false imprisonment, and malicious prosecution. The lawsuit also alleges the Fargo Police Department failed to properly train or supervise officers on the technology.
“They knew that AI facial recognition technology should not be used as the sole basis to extradite and charge a person,” the complaint alleged.
Lipps and her attorney later gave police bank records that placed her in Tennessee at the time of the thefts, per the complaint. The charges were dropped, and she was released on Christmas Eve. By then, she had reportedly lost her residence, her car and other property. The lawsuit says she “experienced traumatic conditions in the jails” and went without her medications and dentures.
Her attorney, Eric Rice, told WKRN the $10 million figure reflects what she went through.
“Obviously, it is a significant number, but it reflects the specific harm that happened to Angela,” Rice said. “Can you imagine being taken away at gunpoint, held in detention, taken from your family?”
The case gained wider attention after the Grand Forks Herald reported on it in March. Then-Fargo Police Chief Dave Zibolski spoke to reporters later that month. He said the department “identified a couple of errors” in the bank theft investigation. He said Fargo detectives “assumed wrongly” that surveillance photos were part of the West Fargo search, not just the fake ID photo.
“As you can imagine, the photo on the fake ID that I use doesn’t necessarily mean that I am the person that’s in that fake ID,” he said.
Zibolski said Fargo has no facial recognition system of its own and would typically send images of unknown people to the North Dakota State and Local Intelligence Center. He said using the West Fargo facial recognition system would not have been allowed and has since been prohibited.
He also said the department would take “more steps” and apply “more scrutiny” before moving cases forward. Other automated tools, such as license plate readers, have also sent officers after the wrong people.
A city spokesperson responded to a request for comment by saying, “The City does not comment on pending litigation.” The claims remain allegations, and the court has not ruled on them.
