Ugh, this is the worst part about this mess IMHO. U.S. law enforcement has time and time again shown that they are more than willing to argue in bad faith about statistics. This is going to turn out no different than fishing expeditions based on partial DNA matches where the prosecution predictably finds some 1/100,000 match after they search a database of 250,000 people and use that as some cornerstone of "obvious guilt" and convince the jury that there's only a 1/100,000 chance that he's innocent.
So much of forensic science is a sham, we claim as a country to uphold a system of justice whereby you're innocent unless proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, yet so many prisoners on death row have been exonerated, some posthumously even when there's no real incentive to look for evidence of innocence at that point.
Who wants to bet that prosecutors are going to start using flawed facial recognition results as if they are equivalent to a victim picking out a suspect from a lineup of 10 people? "There was a 99% chance of a match"