A facial recognition system can produce a name. It cannot decide whether that person committed a crime. That distinction should remain central to every investigation involving this technology, especially when a mistaken identification could threaten someone’s freedom, employment, and family life.
For anyone accused after a computer-assisted identification, the urgent question is not simply whether the software works. It is whether investigators used it responsibly in this particular case, tested its suggestion, and followed evidence that might point elsewhere. Technology should help police ask better questions, not give them permission to stop asking.
What State v. Miles Means for Accountability
The New Jersey Supreme Court’s June 24, 2026 decision in State v. Miles advances an important principle: a technology-assisted identification must remain open to meaningful examination. As Reuters reporting available through Westlaw explains, the Court unanimously required disclosure of basic information identifying the facial recognition tools and materials used in the investigation and explaining how investigators used them.
That is a sound approach. A defendant should not have to accept an identification simply because a computer helped generate it. Understanding the process allows defense counsel to examine the connection between the original image, the suggested candidate, and the accusation that followed.
A meaningful right, not an automatic checklist
The ruling also has limits. According to The Philadelphia Inquirer’s coverage of the decision, the Court rejected a mechanical application of requirements from another facial recognition case. It also reversed the requirement to disclose proprietary information, including source code, at this stage, leaving room for a later request supported by demonstrated need.
The distinction matters. Relevant information should be requested with an explanation of how it bears on the defense. A focused request is more useful than a demand for every document associated with a technology company, regardless of its connection to the identification.
A Candidate Is a Lead, Not a Finding of Guilt
Facial recognition tools compare facial features in images to identify possible similarities. The investigative value of a suggested candidate depends on what happens next. A resemblance does not answer where a person was, what that person did, or whether other evidence supports the accusation.
Joseph M. Horn’s background as both a former police officer and a criminal defense attorney informs this perspective. Investigators need practical tools to develop leads. Defense attorneys need enough information to test those leads. These priorities are not opposites. Both should serve the larger goal of getting the identification right.
The danger of treating a suggestion as confirmation
The central concern is confirmation bias, the tendency to favor information that supports an existing belief. Once a system suggests a person, an investigator may begin evaluating later evidence through that suggestion rather than asking whether the suggestion was correct.
This possibility does not establish misconduct or prove an identification wrong. It does explain why independent review matters. A sincere investigator can still make a mistake, and a sophisticated tool does not remove the need for careful judgment.
A useful defense question is: would the remaining evidence point to this person without the computer-generated lead? The answer may support the investigation, expose gaps, or show that several supposedly separate pieces of evidence all depend on the same initial assumption.
Examine the Images, the Results, and the Human Decisions
Effective scrutiny requires more than asking whether facial recognition was used. Counsel should examine the actual process and connect each request for information to a disputed issue. The following areas are practical subjects for review, not a claim that every item must automatically be produced in every case.
Start with the image submitted
The defense should seek to understand what investigators gave the system. Was it the original image or a modified version? Was the face clearly visible? Did anyone crop, sharpen, brighten, or otherwise change the image before submitting it?
Image adjustments are not necessarily improper. The point is to understand them. An attorney evaluating an identification needs to distinguish what the original recording showed from what later processing made easier, or potentially harder, to assess.
Examine what the system actually returned
A report stating that someone was “identified” may leave important questions unanswered. Did the tool return one candidate or several? Were any scores or rankings supplied? Did the output contain warnings about how it should be interpreted?
If a numerical score appears, counsel should ask what it measures. A score should not be described as the probability that someone committed an offense without a valid basis. Similarity between images and proof of criminal conduct are different questions.
Follow the officers’ decisions afterward
The investigation after the search deserves equal attention. What led officers to select one candidate? Were other possibilities evaluated? What evidence supported the selection independently of the software result?
Relevant questions may concern witness interviews, recordings, location information, or other records. The goal is not to overwhelm the case with technical detail. It is to determine whether the accusation rests on reliable evidence or on repeated acceptance of an untested lead.
Commercial Secrecy Should Not Decide Fairness
Source code is the set of instructions that tells software how to operate. It can contain commercially sensitive information. Requesting it raises different issues from asking which tool police used, which image they submitted, and what investigators did with the result.
The strongest position is neither that source code must always be provided nor that it must always remain secret. The question should be whether particular protected material is necessary to address a meaningful defense issue.
Explain the need before demanding deeper access
A focused argument should identify the suspected problem, explain why available records cannot resolve it, and connect the requested material to that problem. Depending on the issue, an appropriately qualified expert may help counsel assess what technical information would actually be useful.
Protective measures may also be worth considering, such as restricted access or limits on further sharing, subject to the court’s approval. Commercial confidentiality deserves consideration. It should not become a substitute for examining whether an accused person can fairly challenge the evidence.
What an Accused Person Can Do Now
Learning that police used facial recognition can feel overwhelming. There is no need to become a software engineer before speaking with an attorney. The immediate priorities are preserving relevant information, understanding the accusation, and avoiding actions that could complicate the defense.
Keep case paperwork together. Save complaints, notices, and any documents that mention photographs, surveillance, or an identification.
Preserve existing records. Retain messages, receipts, photographs, and other material that may help establish where you were. Do not edit or delete potentially relevant information.
Tell counsel about identification concerns. Explain any known image problems, mistaken identity issues, or information inconsistent with the accusation.
Let counsel handle investigative requests. Do not contact witnesses or attempt to recreate a police identification procedure yourself.
These steps do not guarantee a particular outcome. They help an attorney evaluate what needs attention. For broader guidance after an arrest, complaint, or court notice, this resource on early decisions in a Bergen County criminal defense case provides additional context.
Accountability Makes Technology More Useful
New Jersey should welcome investigative tools that help identify the right person while insisting on careful documentation and meaningful review. Transparency is not hostility toward law enforcement. It is a practical safeguard against turning a promising lead into an unsupported accusation.
The essential defense task is to investigate the investigation. Examine the image, understand the output, and test the decisions that followed. A computer match should begin that work, never end it.
A computer-generated name should not leave you without answers about an accusation. For a free consultation about a New Jersey criminal charge, call the Law Offices of Joseph M. Horn, Esq., LLC at (201) 884-6000, or visit the office at 500D Lake St, Ramsey, NJ 07446. Bring available case documents so the discussion can focus on the identification and the questions your defense needs to address.
Sources
Disclaimer: This is not legal advice. Individual results can vary based on the facts and circumstances of each case.
