The Exhibit Prints 99.9.
Its Two License Images Differ.

Exhibit 6 prints four of its five rows at 99.8% or 99.9%, stamped 4:16 to 4:20 a.m. on September 17, 2023, each beside another man’s name. Captioned “Peppermill’s AI Facial Recognition Software Results,” it was filed through counsel by Reno police officer Richard Jager. Its last page shows two license images whose printed entries differ, and does not show which license is genuine or who the detainee was.

Exhibit 6 is captioned “Peppermill’s AI Facial Recognition Software Results.” Reno police officer Richard Jager filed it through counsel. It prints five rows stamped September 17, 2023, each beside the same name, another man’s: 4:16:58 a.m. at 99.8%, 4:18:49 at 99.9%, 4:20:33 at 99.8%, 4:20:45 at 99.9%, and 4:28:51 at 100.0%. By Jager’s sworn account, Peppermill Security told him its facial recognition software had detected the detainee’s face matching a person previously barred from the Peppermill. This edition calls that person the other man and does not name him.

Jason Killinger is the plaintiff. By Jager’s sworn account, the detainee presented a valid driver’s license in the name of Jason Killinger. Jager’s declaration says Peppermill Security had already taken the detainee into custody as a citizen’s arrest when he arrived, at approximately 0546 hours; he says he did not know what time that was or how long the man had been in handcuffs. Jager’s answer to the original complaint admits that a check on Killinger’s driver’s license came back as valid.

On our reading, the check returned a word and the exhibit printed a number. On the docket read through October 15, 2026, the case is pending. In its March 27, 2026 order, the court held Killinger’s proposed arrest claim against Jager futile on qualified immunity, and granted leave to add a proposed municipal liability claim, at the pleading stage.

What the exhibit prints

Jager’s declaration says Peppermill Security showed him five captures: “Two of the photos matched the prior trespasser with 99.8% certainty. Two more photos matched the prior trespasser with 99.9% certainty. The fifth and final photo matched the prior trespasser with 100% certainty.” As filed, the pages of Exhibit 6 that carry the rows show no visible column header or label over the percentages, as read on October 18, 2026. In the filings this edition read in full or searched by term, as of that date, none names the system’s maker or version, none gives a threshold or alert setting, and none gives a definition, written by the Peppermill or the system’s maker, of what the percentage measures.

Jager’s declaration says both “certainty” and “confidence.” Plaintiff’s brief, citing the Peppermill security director’s deposition, says “confidence.” The amici, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada (ACLU of Nevada) and Innocence Project, Inc. (the Innocence Project), who support plaintiff, call such figures “similarity scores.” In their proposed brief, electronic case filing (ECF) entry 96-1, they infer, from scores in other records, “a relatively low threshold” and argue that the percentages do not mean the identification was certain and do not represent a “99.8%” or “100%” probability that Killinger was the other man.

What the license check returned

In paragraph 38, Jager’s answer to the original complaint admits that he sought checks on both men’s licenses and that the other man’s came back “clear,” with no arrest record. Paragraph 39 admits that Killinger’s came back as valid, with no arrest record. Paragraph 40 admits that he said, “I have a feeling these are both the same guy, but he has different IDs,” and, “I have a feeling he is somehow making some fake identification,” and the answer adds that the original complaint “mischaracterizes Jager’s statements and fails to include Jager’s other statement(s) for full and proper context.” The answer also admits he said “the software is saying it’s legit so he either presented a fake identification the first time or he’s presenting it now.”

The amended complaint says Jager called for a records check, learned that Killinger’s license was current, valid and active, and then told the records clerk he had a feeling the man was “somehow making some fake identification.” Exhibit 6’s last page shows two license images. The printed entries differ in each of the amended complaint’s eight categories: license type and class, endorsements, date of birth, height, weight, eye color and address; the two signatures differ visibly in form. The page does not show which license is genuine or who the detainee was. Jager’s answer admits a similarity between Killinger’s face and the other man’s, “but there are differences between the two” driver’s licenses, and that Jager acknowledged the endorsements were different.

What his declaration and answer say Jager weighed

Jager’s sworn declaration, executed September 25, 2025, says: “Prior to September 17, 2023, I had never encountered or even heard of a situation where Peppermill’s facial recognition software turned out to be wrong.” Jager says he believed that “the photograph of the suspect in Peppermill’s AI software may be more reliable than the photograph on the driver’s license, which could be many years out of date.” He says he based the arrest on evidence from Peppermill security, including the software results and a signed criminal complaint, which he believes established probable cause.

The declaration lists four possibilities that came to mind on scene; one is that “Killinger was telling the truth, and Peppermill’s AI software erroneously” identified him as the other man. The declaration says the man was three to four inches shorter than the height on a license it calls valid, with a photo that resembled him, a “significant discrepancy” that created uncertainty whether he was Killinger, since his height closely matched the other man’s, whom he also resembled. On October 14, 2026, the court found good cause to allow a height measurement of Mr. Killinger with and without shoes on. Unable to reconcile the evidence, the declaration says, Jager called his supervisor and decided to arrest the man, have him fingerprinted and run an identity check. His answer admits he said he “didn’t know what to think” and “kinda believed Killinger.” The declaration says he had “absolutely no intention of causing any harm to Mr. Killinger,” and that the man was later confirmed to be Killinger.

What the court has decided, and what the docket shows through October 15, 2026

Judge Miranda M. Du’s order of March 27, 2026 states that, for the purposes of the motion, the court relies on the relevant facts alleged in the initial complaint. On our reading, the order’s account of the stop is a recital, not a finding. The order records that plaintiff conceded there are no Ninth Circuit cases clearly establishing that arrests made solely based on facial recognition software are unlawful, and adds that plaintiff “improperly states” that the clearly-established prong cannot be satisfied where no such cases exist.

The CourtListener docket, read through October 15, 2026, lists plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment on municipal liability as ECF 95, filed September 12, 2026, and a first motion on due process violations as ECF 113, filed October 12, 2026. No order on either motion appears in that docket text; Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER) was not checked. The October 14, 2026 minutes record defense counsel arguing that Mr. Killinger recovered damages from the Peppermill, and the court allowing a one-hour continued deposition of Mr. Killinger “limited to his settlement with the Peppermill,” finding the issue relevant for discovery to potential offset and possibly witness bias.

What an issued credential is up against

On our reading, the filings put two kinds of evidence in play, a credential and an inference, and they are not interchangeable.

Where the record stops

This edition states no cause for the arrest and no finding about the software, Jager or the City of Reno. The absences above hold for the sources this edition read, as of October 18, 2026.

Disclosure: This edition is published with lower confidence than our standard. No order on plaintiff’s motions ECF 95 and ECF 113 appears on the docket read through October 15, 2026. No declaration or deposition transcript of Mr. Killinger was obtained as of October 18, 2026, and the City of Reno’s response to the amended complaint (ECF 62) was not obtained.

Declassified is researched and drafted with AI tools, and an OpenAI model gave this edition’s evidence ledger and draft an outside read. Agentics builds AI agents for its clients. We map the record, not any person or company, to Digital Derangement Syndrome™ (DDS™). On our reading, its pattern, an inference about a person weighed against what an issuer holds about him, is consistent with Authority Misclassification; whether the system erred here is a question for the court, not this edition. That mapping is editorial, not any source’s finding.