In US defamation law, the only answers you should ever give to "is this defamation?" are "hell no" and "...maybe..." And offhand, this is a case where "hell no" seems to be the correct answer.

You're missing several things here, so let's break it down.

The first, and most important thing, is that a defamatory statement must be a false statement of fact in a nonprivileged context. While "false" is easy to understand (especially given that any nitpicking gets filed under the intent bucket), "statement of fact" is a confusing thing that's basically half the lecture on defamation by itself. But one of the things that expressly isn't such a "statement of fact" is a conclusion based on disclosed facts (even if the logical reasoning used to support the conclusion is fallacious). It's also worth noting that statements in some contexts can never be defamatory--for example, legal pleadings can never be defamatory (but press conferences about legal pleadings can be!).

As we apply that to this situation, I strongly doubt that any statement is actually defamatory. We don't know what the company messaged to the police department, but based on the quotation from the affidavit for the arrest warrant, the message probably was along the lines of "facial ID on this surveillance footage matched this person" (which is a true statement of fact), and any statement that moves to a conclusion that said person committed the crime would fall into the "conclusion based on disclosed fact" non-actionable statement. Furthermore, it's possible (I'd have to look up jurisprudence here) that the statement to the police officer is a context in which nothing can be defamatory.

The second thing to point out here is the requisite intent. As the person in question is not a public figure, the standard here is actually merely negligence--the person making the defamatory statement essentially has to be in a position where they could have discovered that the statement was false with reasonable efforts that they failed to undertake.

While it's not relevant to this case, your notion of reckless disregard is incorrect. In defamation contexts, "reckless disregard" means "entertained serious doubts of the truth of the statement." I can't really envision a plausible scenario where you could show that Clearview AI meets "reckless disregard"; even an email thread where developers talk about the false positive rate being tuned too damn high likely wouldn't qualify since it's not specifically about any individual statement they send out.

The final point to make is that the burden of proof of all of this in US defamation cases is on the plaintiff. Even in the initial complaint, the plaintiff has to allege facts with some degree of specificity (and plausibility) to show that the defendant had the requisite level of intent (be it negligence or actual malice). But before all that, the actual defamatory statement needs to be alleged... and notice that we don't even know what Clearview AI told the police department. This case is very far from a slam dunk, so far that I would be very worried about facing an Anti-SLAPP motion (which would mean having to pay the defendant's attorneys as well as my own should I lose) on filing it were I the plaintiff.