NJ Supreme Court Sets Facial-Recognition Discovery Floor
New Jersey Supreme Court Sets Facial-Recognition Discovery Floor in State v. Miles
The New Jersey Supreme Court ruled unanimously on June 24, 2026 that criminal defendants have a right under New Jersey court rules and due-process principles to receive basic information about any facial-recognition technology used to identify them: the software's name, its error rates, and the specific photographs the system analyzed. The decision in State v. Tybear Miles, Docket No. A-41-24 (090275), also holds that defendants are not automatically entitled to the software's proprietary source code.
Information last verified on June 26, 2026. This is a developing story; we update it as the record changes.
Status: Decided unanimously by the New Jersey Supreme Court on June 24, 2026, in an opinion authored by Justice Douglas Fasciale; the Court partly reversed the Appellate Division and remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.
Jurisdiction scope: This article addresses the New Jersey Supreme Court ruling in State v. Tybear Miles and its effect on criminal discovery in New Jersey courts. It does not address facial-recognition law in other states. For New Jersey biometric privacy law generally, see New Jersey biometric privacy.
What Happened
On June 24, 2026, the New Jersey Supreme Court decided State v. Tybear Miles, Docket No. A-41-24 (090275), a unanimous opinion written by Justice Douglas Fasciale. The decision establishes what information prosecutors must turn over to a criminal defendant who was identified through facial-recognition technology (FRT), and it partly reversed a ruling by the Appellate Division below.
The case began with a 2021 homicide investigation in Jersey City. Ahmad McPherson was shot and killed, and Jersey City police turned in part to FRT after a confidential informant reviewed surveillance footage and identified two individuals by their nicknames, also providing Instagram usernames linked to those individuals. Investigators ran two separate FRT searches using a photograph drawn from one Instagram profile. Each search returned 10 candidate matches. In one search Miles was listed as the eighth most likely match; in a second search he appeared among the first five. Miles was subsequently charged with first-degree murder and weapons offenses.
Miles demanded discovery of the FRT materials. Prosecutors declined. The Appellate Division sided mostly with Miles, but the State appealed, contesting whether the source code and the full scope of discoverable material were properly ordered. The Supreme Court granted certification to resolve the question.
Justice Fasciale, writing for a unanimous court, ordered prosecutors to disclose what the opinion characterizes as two tiers of material. The first tier is basic identifying information about the technology itself: the name of the FRT software, the name of its manufacturer, and the system's performance metrics including its known error rates. The second tier is the specific materials generated during the investigation: the original "probe photograph" that investigators submitted to the system, any edited or cropped copies of that photograph, and the set of candidate photographs the system returned as potential matches.
The Court reversed the Appellate Division on the source code question. Fasciale found that Miles had not made the showing of particularized need that would justify compelling disclosure of the proprietary algorithm. The opinion does not close that door permanently; it notes that the defense may renew the request if, as the case progresses, it can point to a specific and concrete reason why the algorithm itself is necessary to challenge the identification.
Describing the standard it was setting, the Court rejected a rigid checklist for FRT discovery while explaining that the basic categories it identified would, in most cases, constitute the minimum necessary to safeguard a defendant's right to a fair trial.
What the Law Actually Says
New Jersey criminal discovery is governed primarily by Rule 3:13-3 of the New Jersey Rules of Court, which requires the State to provide broad pre-trial disclosure of materials it intends to use against a defendant and of any exculpatory evidence. That rule incorporates Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), and its progeny, which impose a constitutional obligation on prosecutors to disclose evidence that is material to guilt or punishment.
FRT evidence sits uncomfortably in that framework because the "evidence" is not simply a photograph or a witness statement. It is an automated system's probabilistic assessment that two faces are the same. The system's error rates, the quality of the probe image, and the list of people the algorithm considered close enough to flag are all inputs that a defense lawyer needs to evaluate whether the identification is reliable. Without knowing the software's name and manufacturer, a defense expert cannot research the system's published accuracy benchmarks. Without knowing the error rates for the specific conditions of the search, counsel cannot argue that the match probability was inflated. Without seeing the candidate list, counsel cannot show that the system flagged multiple people who look alike, undermining the weight of the identification.
New Jersey has taken an active interest in FRT reliability. The state's Attorney General halted law-enforcement use of Clearview AI in 2020 while the Division of Criminal Justice evaluated facial-recognition systems and developed guidance for police. Those systems carry documented disparities in accuracy rates across different demographic groups, a concern raised in the amicus briefs filed by the ACLU of New Jersey, the Innocence Project, and the Electronic Frontier Foundation in the Miles litigation.
For broader context on New Jersey data-collection law, see New Jersey data privacy laws and the state's rules on recording police.
Analysis: Why This Matters
The following is analysis from the Recording Law Editorial Team.
The Miles decision is notable for what it does and what it deliberately declines to do. What it does is set a discovery floor: basic software identification, error-rate metrics, the probe photo, and the candidate list. Those items are now presumptively required in any New Jersey criminal case where FRT played a role in identifying the defendant. That is a concrete, enforceable rule that trial courts can apply without extensive motion practice in routine cases.
What it declines to do is equally significant. The Court did not write a checklist. Fasciale expressly warned against a "rigid checklist" approach, citing the earlier Appellate Division reliance on State v. Arteaga as too mechanical. Instead the opinion anchors the discovery obligation in the defendant's right to a fair trial, which means the floor can rise. If the defense makes a particularized showing that the source code is necessary to mount a meaningful challenge (for example, because no published accuracy data exists for the specific version of the software used, or because the error rate the vendor published was measured under different conditions) a trial court now has guidance that the proprietary barrier is not absolute.
The source-code question is the most watched aspect of this ruling in the technology industry. FRT vendors have argued in other proceedings that releasing source code would expose trade secrets and allow circumvention of the systems. The Court accepted that argument as far as it went while stopping short of giving it categorical weight. That balance is similar to the approach federal courts have taken with DNA-testing software in some jurisdictions, where the algorithm is protected but sufficient validation data must be disclosed to allow an adversarial challenge.
For defendants and defense lawyers, the practical effect is that a motion for FRT discovery in New Jersey now has a clear statutory and constitutional anchor in R. 3:13-3 and Brady. The burden shifts: prosecutors who resist handing over the software name, manufacturer, error rates, probe photo, and candidate list will need to overcome a presumption that the Miles floor applies.
For law enforcement, the ruling does not bar the use of FRT. It requires documentation and disclosure. Departments that use FRT will need to preserve the probe photograph, document which version of the software was used and by which vendor, retain the candidate list, and be prepared to produce those materials in any prosecution where FRT contributed to the identification. Agencies that do not currently have records-retention policies for FRT outputs may need to develop them.
The decision lands at a moment when other states are grappling with related questions. Connecticut enacted signage requirements for commercial FRT use earlier in 2026. Illinois has long regulated biometric data collection under BIPA. No other state supreme court has yet issued a comparably specific ruling on the criminal-discovery rights of defendants identified through FRT. New Jersey's framework will likely be cited in litigation elsewhere, though courts in other states are not bound by it.
How This Affects You
If you are a defendant in a New Jersey criminal case and facial-recognition technology was used to identify you, the Miles decision provides a legal basis to demand, through your lawyer, the specific categories of FRT materials the Supreme Court identified. Whether additional materials (including source code) are available will depend on the facts of your specific case and a showing of particularized need.
If you are a New Jersey law-enforcement agency, the decision signals that FRT-generated materials are presumptively discoverable. Retaining the probe photograph, the vendor and software version, the error-rate documentation, and the candidate list as part of the investigative record is consistent with the holding. This article describes the ruling in general terms; agencies should consult counsel about specific records-management obligations.
Nothing in this section is legal advice or a prediction about how any specific case will be resolved.
This is general legal information, not legal advice. It covers New Jersey and reflects sources verified on June 26, 2026. Laws change and this story is developing; consult a lawyer licensed in your jurisdiction about your specific situation.
Sources
- NJ Courts, State v. Tybear Miles Opinion (A-41-24): https://www.njcourts.gov/system/files/court-opinions/2025/a_41_24.pdf
- NJ Courts, Case Docket A-41-24: https://www.njcourts.gov/cases/a-41-24
- New Jersey Monitor, Top court orders disclosures in NJ cops' use of facial recognition technology: https://newjerseymonitor.com/2026/06/24/court-ruling-nj-cops-facial-recognition-technology/
- Bloomberg Law, Right to Facial Recognition Discovery Narrowed by NJ High Court: https://news.bloomberglaw.com/business-and-practice/right-to-facial-recognition-discovery-narrowed-by-nj-high-court
- GovTech, Top New Jersey Court Orders Facial Recognition Disclosure: https://www.govtech.com/public-safety/top-new-jersey-court-orders-facial-recognition-disclosure
- Biometric Update, NJ Supreme Court upholds police FRT disclosure requirement: https://www.biometricupdate.com/202606/nj-supreme-court-upholds-police-frt-disclosure-requirement
- ACLU of New Jersey, State v. Miles case page: https://www.aclu-nj.org/cases/state-v-miles/
- EPIC, State v. Miles amicus materials: https://epic.org/documents/state-v-miles/
Related articles
- New Jersey biometric privacy
- New Jersey data privacy laws
- Recording police in New Jersey
- New Jersey surveillance cameras
Last updated: 2026-06-26. This is a developing story; details verified as of 2026-06-26.
Frequently Asked Questions
What did the New Jersey Supreme Court decide in State v. Miles?
On June 24, 2026, in State v. Tybear Miles, Docket No. A-41-24 (090275), the Court held unanimously that New Jersey defendants are entitled to basic facial-recognition discovery including the software name and manufacturer, error-rate metrics, the probe photograph, any edited versions of that photograph, and the candidate match list. The Court is the state's highest court, and the ruling applies statewide.
Is a defendant automatically entitled to the facial-recognition source code?
No. The Court partly reversed the Appellate Division on this point. Justice Fasciale found that Miles had not demonstrated the particularized need required to compel disclosure of the proprietary source code. The defense may seek source code later in the proceedings upon a concrete showing of necessity.
What rule of court governs facial-recognition discovery in New Jersey?
New Jersey Criminal Rule 3:13-3 governs pre-trial discovery in criminal cases and requires prosecutors to disclose materials they intend to use and any exculpatory evidence. The Miles Court grounded the FRT discovery obligation in that rule and in due-process principles rooted in Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963).
What are the basic items the prosecution must disclose under Miles?
The Court identified two tiers. First, information about the technology: the name of the FRT software, the manufacturer, and the system's performance metrics including error rates. Second, the investigative materials: the original probe photograph police submitted to the system, any edited or cropped copies of that photograph, and the list of candidate photographs the system returned as matches.
Can a defendant still seek the source code if they can show a specific need?
Yes. The Miles opinion explicitly leaves open the possibility that a defendant may seek proprietary information including source code later in the case by making a showing of particularized need. The Court's holding is that source code is not automatically required, not that it can never be required.
What were the facts of the underlying case?
Miles was charged with first-degree murder and weapons offenses in connection with the 2021 shooting death of Ahmad McPherson in Jersey City, New Jersey. Police used FRT to search an Instagram photograph and received 10 candidate matches in each of two separate searches before charging Miles.
Does the Miles ruling apply outside New Jersey?
No. The ruling interprets New Jersey Criminal Rule 3:13-3 and the due-process rights of defendants under the New Jersey and United States Constitutions, and it binds New Jersey courts. Defendants in other states must look to their own state discovery rules and case law, though advocates may cite Miles in proceedings elsewhere.
Does the ruling affect how police can use facial recognition in New Jersey?
The ruling addresses discovery obligations, not the legality of using FRT. Law enforcement in New Jersey may still use FRT consistent with existing guidelines. The practical effect is that agencies must be prepared to preserve and disclose the specific materials the Court identified in any prosecution where FRT contributed to identification.
Sources and References
- State v. Tybear Miles, New Jersey Supreme Court, Docket No. A-41-24 (090275), decided June 24, 2026(njcourts.gov).gov
- NJ Courts case docket page for A-41-24, State v. Tybear Miles(njcourts.gov).gov
- New Jersey Monitor: Top court orders disclosures in NJ cops' use of facial recognition technology, June 24, 2026(newjerseymonitor.com)
- Bloomberg Law: Right to Facial Recognition Discovery Narrowed by NJ High Court, June 2026(bloomberglaw.com)
- GovTech: Top New Jersey Court Orders Facial Recognition Disclosure, June 2026(govtech.com)
- Biometric Update: NJ Supreme Court upholds police FRT disclosure requirement, June 2026(biometricupdate.com)
- ACLU of New Jersey: State v. Miles case page(aclu-nj.org)
- Electronic Privacy Information Center: State v. Miles amicus materials(epic.org)