Perhaps the fact that they were unable to build that legitimate case means he is innocent. Or perhaps they just got too lazy with the wrong judge this time.
If they felt this guy was their suspect, there's nothing against using AI to determine that they should focus on that guy and look closer. They could instigate further, even (for example) run across someone who actually told them "yeah he said he shot a dude that day" and establish other facts and legally get a warrant.
Here the AI has primed them to falsely recognize the guy. There's no independence the way there is with parallel construction.
Parallel construction would be: you pulled Joe over for [whatever reason] and searched his car without probable cause (maybe he seemed shifty or he was being a dick) and found coke, so you subsequently went to an informant who told you that he witnessed Joe selling coke out of his car earlier on the day of the search (which would have given you probable cause to search his car if you had talked to the informant before pulling Joe over).
The basis of parallel construction is that a real investigation would have uncovered the evidence anyway. What many people don't get is that law enforcement actually has to do the legwork of a real investigation (but knowing what to look for, and where, etc.) to show that the excluded evidence should be made admissible. It's a remedy for law enforcement to cure procedural violations of due process under the Fourth Amendment.