The Expert Record logo — a ruled transcript pageThe Expert RecordThe standard for expert witnesses using AI

AI in the Courtroom · AI-generated and altered evidence

Florida v. Schinault (ChatGPT image false report)

A St. Petersburg, Florida woman gave police a ChatGPT-generated image of a man she said broke in and assaulted her. A detective recognized it from a viral trend; she pleaded no contest to misdemeanor false reporting and received probation and a fine.

Reported; document not locatedNo contest plea to false reporting; probation and fine December 1, 2025

What happened

On October 7, 2025, Brooke Schinault reported to St. Petersburg police that a man had broken into her home and sexually assaulted her. She supplied an image of the man she said was responsible. The report drew a response from multiple officers, rescue personnel, a detective and a forensic technician, according to The Smoking Gun.

A detective reviewing the case recognized the image as part of a viral online trend in which users generate pictures of a supposed stranger in their home. Investigators found the image in a deleted folder on Ms. Schinault's device, created days before the reported crime. Police stated, as reported by AOL, that "It was later found the photo was AI generated via ChatGPT." A police spokesperson, Ashley Limardo, told Bay News 9 that such an image "can be very dangerous. Especially if this person had matched someone's description in our town."

What the court did

Ms. Schinault was charged with 2 counts of false report of a crime, and bond was set at $1,000, according to Bay News 9. On December 1, 2025, she pleaded no contest to misdemeanor false reporting. The Smoking Gun and AOL reported that she was placed on probation and ordered to pay a fine.

Where it stands

The case is closed. This record did not locate the court file, and the account rests on news reporting. One report gives October 2024 as the date of the false report. Bay News 9 and the AI Incident Database give October 7, 2025, which this entry follows.

The obligation it engaged

The person involved was a complainant, not a professional, so the Standard applies to those who received the image. A generated picture was offered to investigators as a depiction of a real suspect. Had it been circulated as a wanted image, it could have pointed attention at any real person who resembled it. Independent authority asks that a depiction be confirmed against its source before it is relied on. Here the image's origin was traced by recognizing the trend and by the device's own file history.

For digital examiners the matter is a reminder that provenance can often be settled by ordinary means. File location, creation date and deletion history on the source device answered the question. No AI detector was needed, which is the governing test applied to a single photograph.

Sources

What could not be confirmed

The court, judge, probation length and fine amount were not confirmed. Sources disagree on the year of the report (2024 in one account, 2025 in others).

About this entry

The primary document had not been located when this entry was checked, so it rests on the reporting listed above. The entry for Florida v. Schinault records conduct and what the tribunal did. It does not characterize a holding and it is not legal advice. Last checked September 11, 2026. More matters like this one are collected under deepfake and AI-enhanced evidence. If something here is out of date, write to [email protected].

Arrow pointing upTop