When AI in Law Enforcement Gets It Wrong: The Ice Pack Mistaken for a Phone
- 4 days ago
- 3 min read
How a Dutch driver’s €439 fine shows the limits of AI in law enforcement – and the human review systems meant to prevent mistakes.
AI in Traffic Enforcement: The Promise and the Pitfalls
Across Europe, AI-powered traffic enforcement is on the rise. From automatic number plate recognition to mobile phone detection systems, law enforcement is increasingly relying on artificial intelligence to catch violations at scale.
One such system is MONOcam, deployed across the Netherlands to identify drivers who hold mobile phones while driving – a violation that carries a significant fine.
The idea is simple: a camera equipped with AI scans passing drivers for telltale hand positions and objects. If a phone is detected, the image is flagged and passed to two human reviewers for confirmation. Only after this “human-in-the-loop” check does the fine get issued.
In theory, this ensures both scale and accuracy. In practice, it doesn’t always work.
The Ice Pack Incident: A Costly Mistake
Last week, a driver in the Netherlands was fined for using her phone behind the wheel.
But she wasn’t using a phone.
She was holding an ice pack to her face after wisdom tooth surgery. The AI system misclassified the ice pack as a phone. Then, two human reviewers – tasked with catching such errors – also confirmed the violation.
The ticket was issued. The fine: €439.
To make matters worse, the actual phone is clearly visible in the image – mounted to the dashboard, far from her hand.
This isn’t just an edge case. It’s a case study in what happens when AI systems are rolled out at scale without enough resilience to ambiguity – and when human oversight is treated as a formality instead of a safeguard.
Human-in-the-Loop Isn’t Always Enough
The MONOcam system is built around a human–AI hybrid model. AI filters the candidates; humans validate the decision.
But this case illustrates a critical point: confirmation bias can affect human reviewers just as much as machines. Once a photo is flagged by the algorithm, it’s not always reviewed with a fresh eye. Especially when hundreds – or thousands – of images are being checked daily.
It’s a reminder that human-in-the-loop review only works when humans are empowered to disagree with the system. When oversight becomes rubber-stamping, the risks multiply.
AI Misidentifications and Public Trust
For the average citizen, disputing a fine like this requires time, access to the evidence, and the willingness to go through a formal objection process. That’s not always feasible – especially when the system appears to be “working as intended.”
If this is how the system handles an ice pack, what else is it getting wrong? And how many people simply pay the fine, unaware they were wrongly flagged?
Trust in law enforcement – especially AI-driven enforcement – depends on more than just detection rates. It depends on the confidence that when the system gets it wrong, someone will catch it and make it right.
This time, it was an ice pack and a driver who spoke up. But the next mistake might not be so easy to spot – or so easy to contest.
Final Thoughts
The push for automated enforcement and AI in public safety is accelerating. But as this case shows, scale without care can erode public confidence just as quickly as any technical failure.
Mistakes like this are not just anecdotal – they’re structural. And they need structural solutions.
Want to stay ahead of stories like this? Subscribe to my newsletter or get in touch if your organisation is deploying AI in public-facing processes.
Comments