While I'm not a criminal attorney, I'm not sure if this is much different than a prosecution based upon an allegation that the defendant being identified by a b

While I'm not a criminal attorney, I'm not sure if this is much different than a prosecution based upon an allegation that the defendant being identified by a bank camera capturing an image of a bank robber. If criminal charges are filed, a preliminary determination of probable cause must be made. In a case where there was no supporting evidence - e.g. literally the only evidence is a camera image of person, I would imagine the image would have to be close to irrefutable in order to meet a probable cause standard. Since we now know that the person depicted on the ring camera was not the defendant - and that the police voluntarily dismissed the charges when confronted with evidence showing they were wrong, makes it pretty clear the police filed charges without evidenced that could have passed the probable cause test. This isn't necessarily the problem of using an image as evidence of a crime. It's a problem with the police filing charges in a manner they know is an abuse of their authority, but not giving a sh*t because it was only $25 and that it would be heard in Municipal Court - a place where the local Judge and Prosecutor have to get along with the Police and therefore the local police know they will never be punished for their abusive behavior.