That is only true if you assume they truly care about having the correct suspect rather than having a suspect they can get convicted.

However, there is a long history of wrongful convictions and police and prosecutors using bad data to get them. Check out the Central Park Five for a big name one.

This. To put it simply, they like Precise data, not Accurate data. They want a bunch of data-points saying one thing and couldn't care less if it's objectively the right target, not a bunch of data points saying a bunch of things, one of which is actually right.

Precision data gives them convictions and convictions give them promotions. As they say, any metric that becomes a target... This is why giving the police invasive surveillance tech is a terrible idea, they will only focus on the data that fits their narrative and discard the rest. The defense doesn't even need to know that any other data exists.

> They want a bunch of data-points saying one thing and couldn't care less if it's objectively the right target

If your system produces data points with 8 significant digits of wrong data, we have two problems: the system and whoever approved the purchase.

Any convictions will have to be corroborated by other evidence.

Until that other-evidence is just the product of some other hellish surveillance system. What I'm really saying is broadly we need fewer of these systems as they will only be abused, especially in concert. If you have one system that says the suspect had their phone off at the time of the bombing, and another saying they searched for "how do bombs work" on google a few years ago the jury will eat that shit up even though in actuality it provides almost zero evidence of anything.

When the crime in question is a headline crime they're happy to go through hundreds of "leads" in order to find someone they can pin it on.

Unless they can use it target they people they already "know" committed the crime, maybe?