Judge Exposed Law Enforcement’s Hidden Face-Scan

Close-up of a police officer's body camera and communication device

A new court ruling in New Jersey exposes how police use secret facial recognition tools, but leaves big loopholes that should worry every American who cares about fair trials and basic constitutional rights.

Story Snapshot

New Jersey’s top court now forces prosecutors to reveal when facial recognition tools helped identify a suspect, even if they never show that evidence in court.
Defendants must get the name of the software, its maker, and public error rate data so they can question bad tech before it ruins a life.^[4]
The court still shields secret source code and other proprietary details unless a defendant proves a “special need,” which is hard without access in the first place.^[1]
As facial recognition spreads nationwide with little federal law or oversight, this ruling is a small step toward transparency that highlights a much bigger problem.^[19]

New Jersey Court Opens the Black Box—But Only Partway

New Jersey’s Supreme Court ruled in State v. Tybear Miles that prosecutors must disclose how police used facial recognition technology to investigate him for first-degree murder and weapons charges.^[4] The justices said the state must identify the facial recognition tools and materials used and provide records showing how police relied on them during the investigation.^[1] This includes basic facts like which software was used, who makes it, and publicly available information about its error rates.^[4] The court stressed that this information is needed to protect a defendant’s right to a fair trial under both the federal Constitution and the New Jersey Constitution.^[4]

The ruling reaches beyond this one murder case and covers any criminal investigation in New Jersey that quietly uses facial recognition, even when prosecutors never plan to show that evidence to a jury.^[1] That matters because many police agencies treat facial recognition hits as “leads,” then build a case around them while hiding the original search from the defense.^[16] Basic disclosure lets defendants question whether the technology was reliable, whether police did a thorough investigation, and whether someone else might be the true suspect.^[2] Civil liberties advocates, including the American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey, called this “a major victory for civil liberties” and one of the first state high court rulings of its kind.^[4]

Limits That Keep Powerful Tech Hidden From the Public

Despite these gains, the court drew a hard line around trade secrets and proprietary code.^[1] It refused to require automatic disclosure of the software’s source code or other confidential inner workings, saying defendants must first show a “particularized need” before getting access.^[2] The justices also rejected a “mechanical application” of a 2023 appellate ruling in State v. Arteaga, which had ordered disclosure of thirteen different categories of facial recognition evidence, including how the system works and its source code.^[5] Instead, judges must review discovery requests case by case, which can lead to uneven results from one courtroom to another.^[1]

This trade-secret shield is exactly what many technology vendors and law enforcement agencies rely on to keep their systems closed to outside review.^[19] Defense groups like the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers have warned that facial recognition tools can have serious racial biases and low accuracy, especially in real-world police settings.^[3] They argue that without deeper access—including source code, training data, and full error-rate studies—defendants cannot truly test whether a match is trustworthy.^[17] Making defendants prove a “special need” for details they cannot yet see sets a high bar that many ordinary people, especially those without expert help, will struggle to meet.^[11]

Facial Recognition, Civil Rights, and the National Landscape

The Miles case fits into a larger national fight over how new identification technologies collide with long-standing constitutional rights.^[1] For years, courts have weighed the Sixth Amendment right to confront evidence against claims that code and algorithms are private property that must be kept secret.^[15] A 2024 report by the United States Commission on Civil Rights noted that there are still no federal laws or regulations that clearly limit facial recognition use by the federal government or require regular oversight to protect civil rights.^[19] The report warned that facial recognition can be used for quiet surveillance and mass data collection, often without a person’s knowledge or consent.^[19]

A New Jersey Supreme Court ruling requires transparency about how facial recognition technology is used during investigations. https://t.co/szafBexqow

— reason (@reason) June 26, 2026

That same report found serious concerns with accuracy, especially for people of color, and highlighted cases where facial recognition was the main or only evidence linking someone to a crime.^[19] Police agencies often call facial recognition “just a lead,” yet in practice treat a hit as a strong pointer toward guilt, which can steer an entire investigation.^[16] When those systems are wrong, innocent people can face arrest, charges, and even prison. The New Jersey ruling at least forces disclosure of basic tools and error rates, helping defense attorneys show juries how fallible this technology can be.^[6]

What This Means for Liberty-Minded Americans

For Americans who care about limited government, due process, and equal treatment under the law, facial recognition is not just a tech issue; it is a power issue. Secret algorithms can quietly scan millions of faces from cameras, social media photos, and driver’s license databases with almost no public input or oversight.^[16] Without strong transparency rules, these tools can turn into a form of dragnet surveillance that is hard to detect or challenge. The Miles decision moves New Jersey a step away from that future by telling the state it cannot hide the role facial recognition played in an investigation.^[1]

At the same time, the ruling’s gaps show why citizens need to watch closely and press lawmakers to protect core rights. Basic facts about a tool’s name and general error rates are helpful, but they are not enough to audit a system that may be wired with bias or flaws.^[3] As more states and federal agencies adopt facial recognition systems without clear guardrails, the burden often falls on individual defendants to fight for information case by case.^[19] That approach favors well-funded prosecutors and technology vendors over ordinary citizens. For now, New Jersey’s ruling offers a blueprint for greater transparency, but the larger battle over government use of facial recognition—and its impact on privacy, fairness, and the presumption of innocence—has only begun.