On October 29, 2025, an NOPD detective emailed a private facial recognition surveillance company a photograph of a crime victim and asked them to find him on camera. Eighty-seven minutes later he got an answer — plus something he never asked for: a month of covert surveillance on a woman who had done nothing but walk down Bourbon Street beside the victim.
I found this in a public records production I obtained from the City. I’ve filed a complaint with the Independent Police Monitor, the Office of Inspector General, and NOPD’s Public Integrity Bureau. The complaint is here.
What the detective asked for
A man was robbed after leaving a Saints game. He reported it. He couldn’t say where or when it happened.
Det. Patrick T. Guidry of the 8th District Investigative Unit emailed Bryan Lagarde at Project NOLA — a private nonprofit that runs thousands of cameras across New Orleans with live facial recognition — and attached a photograph of the man. The filename NOPD gave it says exactly who he is: St**** M**** Pic (64 Victim).png (Name redacted by Project Mayhem).
“please advise if you have any additional footage and/or still images of the robbery victim from 10/26-10/27/2025 (photo attached)… he is unsure of the time or location.”
No location. No time. Two full days of a private camera network, searched for one man’s face.
That man was not a suspect. He was the person who called the police for help. Whatever case anyone wants to make for pointing a face-scanning network at people suspected of crimes, it does not cover this.
What came back
Lagarde found him on both days and reported where he’d been. He also volunteered an opinion nobody asked for — that the victim “appeared to have reasonably good motor control and did not appear overly impaired,” which is a private citizen with no standing weighing whether a robbery victim’s account can be trusted.
Then this:
“I took the liberty of analyzing additional footage of the female this past month, whereby her behaviour appears consistent with 14:82. In case possibly relevant, I‘ve attached what appear to be additional photos of the female from previous nights this month.“
A woman had been walking with the victim around 2:04 a.m. That’s all. She isn’t accused of the robbery. She isn’t accused of anything in this email chain by anyone with the authority to accuse her.
On his own initiative, Lagarde went back through a month of footage, reconstructed her movements across multiple separate nights, decided her behavior was consistent with La. R.S. 14:82 — the Louisiana prostitution statute — assembled a photo package documenting her, and sent it to the New Orleans Police Department.
The production carries those photos. Several full-body surveillance shots of her, different nights, different clothes, and a close crop of her face.
No warrant. No predicate offense. No police authority of any kind. He took the liberty.
What NOPD did about it
“Thanks for your prompt reply. This is very helpful.”
That’s the detective’s entire response. Not “we didn’t ask for this.” Not “how did you get a month of footage on a person who isn’t part of this case.” Not “please stop.”
And this wasn’t a private exchange between two people. Every message in both directions copied Det. Sgt. Sarah A. Cherny and the entire 8th District Person Crimes Unit distribution list. A supervisor and a whole investigative unit received, in writing, a private contractor’s account of surveilling a member of the public for a month. Nobody objected.
The thread carries no NOPD item number. There’s no case file. Nothing ties either the facial recognition search or the month of surveillance to a documented investigation, and no record exists by which anyone could find them after the fact.
Why this one matters
Most of what I file is a detective asking Project NOLA to find a suspect. This is different in two ways, and both should worry you.
First, the target of the facial recognition search was the victim. If reporting a crime in this city means having your face run through a private surveillance network and your night reconstructed, that’s a reason not to report crimes.
Second, the month. A private entity pulled thirty days of one woman’s movements because a man got curious about her, and handed the result to police. That capability — one person’s month, retrieved on a whim — is exactly what a warrant requirement exists to put a judge in front of, and exactly what New Orleans’ facial recognition ordinance was written to constrain. Neither applied, because the entity doing it isn’t a police department. The product reached the police department anyway.
That’s the loophole. Not a gray area. A private company does the surveillance that the law won’t let the city do, and the city says thank you.
The emails are public record. The complaint is here. Read them yourself.
Tired of this Orwellian bullshit? Sign the petition!
