The New Jersey Supreme Court recently ruled on the case of State v. Tybear Miles (A-41-24), clarifying the rights of defendants to access evidence related to facial recognition technology (FRT) in criminal investigations. This decision, made on June 24, 2026, affects how courts handle the disclosure of technological evidence in criminal cases, particularly those involving serious charges like murder.
The case centers around Tybear Miles, who was indicted for first-degree murder and weapons offenses following a fatal shooting in Jersey City. The ruling is significant as it addresses the balance between a defendant's right to a fair trial and the state's interest in protecting proprietary technology used in criminal investigations.
In this case, the police used FRT to identify Miles as a suspect based on surveillance footage and a confidential informant's identification. However, the evidence against him was primarily circumstantial, as no witnesses directly identified him as the shooter. This led to a legal dispute over the extent of discovery Miles was entitled to regarding the FRT used in his case.
Background
The dispute began when police investigated a shooting that left Ahmad McPherson dead. Following the incident, police obtained surveillance footage and information from a confidential informant, who provided the names and Instagram usernames of two individuals, one of whom was identified as Miles. The police then used FRT to match an Instagram photo of Miles to the suspect in the footage.
Defense counsel filed a motion to compel the state to disclose evidence related to the FRT, citing a previous case, State v. Arteaga, which established that defendants have a right to access certain technological evidence to ensure a fair trial. The trial judge initially granted the motion, compelling the state to produce a list of specific items related to the FRT used in the investigation.
However, the state appealed this ruling, arguing that the trial judge had overstepped by requiring the disclosure of proprietary information, such as the source code of the FRT software. The Appellate Division denied the state's motion, leading to the Supreme Court's involvement.
The Ruling
The New Jersey Supreme Court, led by Justice Fasciale, issued a combined opinion affirming in part and reversing in part the trial court's decision. The court ruled that while the state must disclose certain information about the FRT tools and how they were used in the investigation, it did not need to provide proprietary information such as the source code.
The court stated, "The touchstone for discoverability is whether the requested material is 'relevant.'" This means that the defense is entitled to information that could help them challenge the state's case.
The court emphasized that the entitlement to discovery varies depending on the specifics of each case. In this instance, the court held that the state must produce discovery identifying the FRT tools used and how they were utilized in prosecuting Miles. However, the court noted that the trial judge erred in compelling the state to produce proprietary FRT-related information, indicating that the determination of discoverability for such information requires a more developed record.
Impact
This ruling has significant implications for future criminal cases involving advanced technologies like FRT. It establishes that defendants have a right to access certain discovery related to the technology used in their cases, which is crucial for ensuring a fair trial. The court's decision reinforces the idea that technological evidence must be scrutinized for reliability and relevance, particularly in cases where it plays a pivotal role in identifying suspects.
Moreover, the ruling may set a precedent for how courts handle requests for proprietary technological information in criminal cases. It suggests that while defendants can access relevant information about the technology used, there are limits to the disclosure of proprietary materials, which could protect the interests of technology developers and law enforcement agencies.
What's Next
The case is now remanded to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court's opinion. The state may still appeal certain aspects of the ruling, and it remains to be seen how this decision will influence ongoing and future cases involving FRT and similar technologies.