Killinger v. Jager / Reno facial recognition arrest suit
Killinger v. Jager (D. Nev. No. 3:25-cv-00388) — Wrongful-arrest suit against Reno and a Reno officer over a casino facial recognition match; Innocence Project and ACLU seek to file amicus brief (2026)
Reno, NV · Killinger v. Jager, No. 3:25-cv-00388 (D. Nev., filed July 30, 2025)
- Status
- Blocked / in litigation
- Applies to
- City of Reno / Reno Police Department (defendants)
- Enforced by
- U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada
Truck driver Jason Killinger is suing the City of Reno and a Reno police officer in federal court after he was arrested in 2023 when the Peppermill casino's facial recognition system wrongly matched him to someone banned from the casino, even though he showed a Real ID driver's license. The suit alleges Reno police failed to train officers on facial recognition's limits. In September 2026 the Innocence Project and the ACLU filed a proposed friend-of-the-court brief supporting Killinger's motion for judgment, and a filing by his attorneys alleges Peppermill-driven trespass arrests involve nearly 1,000 people a year.
Who is protected: People subject to facial-recognition-based arrests in Reno (claimed)
Legal detail
Killinger v. Jager, No. 3:25-cv-00388 (D. Nev.), filed 2025-07-30, nature of suit 440 Civil Rights: Other; assigned to U.S. District Judge Miranda M. Du, referred to Magistrate Judge Craig S. Denney (CourtListener docket). Defendants: Officer R. Jager and the City of Reno; ACLU, ACLU of Nevada and Innocence Project appear as parties/amici on the docket. Claim theory includes municipal liability for failure to train on facial recognition technology limitations (Innocence Project/ACLU proposed brief: deliberate indifference). Sept. 9, 2026 plaintiff filing: RPD 'expressly delegated arrest powers to Peppermill private employees', nearly 1,000 persons per year per Peppermill records. Sept. 21: proposed amicus brief (about twice the length of the supported motion; leave required); Judge Du approved amici participation, acceptance of brief pending. Sept. 22: city sought more time. Former Chief Kathryn Nance testified FRT use 'wasn't essential training for officers'. Discovery disputes ruling set for Oct. 14 (Magistrate Judge Craig Denney). NOT ESTABLISHED: date the City of Reno was added; ruling on the amicus brief.
Key facts
| Jurisdiction | Reno, NV |
|---|---|
| Level | City / local |
| Citation | Killinger v. Jager, No. 3:25-cv-00388 (D. Nev., filed July 30, 2025) |
| Private right of action | Yes, individuals can sue |
| Penalties | Damages sought (amount not stated) |
| Topics | facial recognition · biometric data · police and surveillance AI |
| Court record | Killinger v. Jager, No. 3:25-cv-00388 (D. Nev.) — CourtListener docket |
More AI rules in Reno, NV
- Reno Data Center Moratorium · In effect
- Reno GenAI Policy · In effect
Related facial recognition rules elsewhere
- Virginia § 15.2-1723.2 (facial recognition by local law enforcement, eff. July 1, 2026) · In effect
- Bristol VA PD facial recognition program (first VA local agency) · In effect
- Dallas PD Clearview AI facial recognition policy · In effect
- Ban biometric recognition in public accommodations (Ban The Scan) · Proposed / pending
- Limit facial recognition in residential buildings (Ban The Scan) · Proposed / pending
- Texas v. Google · In effect
See something wrong or out of date? Submit a correction. Every entry must carry a verifiable source.