New Jersey Supreme Court Requires Transparency for Facial Recognition Evidence Prosecutors in New Jersey must disclose how the technology is used in criminal cases, the state’s Supreme Court ruled. Just like humans may err in recognizing faces, facial recognition technology (FRT) is not without its flaws. Multiple defendants have blamed the technology for wrongful arrests as more and more law enforcement agencies rely on the technology to identify suspects. Meanwhile, limits on its use vary from state to state and city to city. A ruling this week regarding a murder case in New Jersey, however, forces law enforcement to disclose how this technology is used in criminal investigations in the state. In State v. Tybear Miles, New Jersey's Supreme Court ruled that prosecutors must disclose how FRT was used to identify defendant Tybear Miles, who had been charged with "first-degree murder and weapons offenses." The case stems from a 2021 fatal shooting in Jersey City. A day after the shooting, officers showed a confidential informant, who did not witness the incident, CCTV footage from a nearby location. The informant identified two males by their street names and Instagram usernames, according to the ruling. After the informant identified one of the males as "Fat Daddy," police ran a photo from "Fat Daddy's" Instagram page through a facial recognition module, which identified Miles as a potential match. The ruling notes that the state provided the defendant with two different FRT searches as part of discovery. One search, according to the ruling, "returned a list of ten possible 'matches' to the probe image of [the] defendant, with [the] defendant ranked as the eighth 'match' on the list of ten." Another search "returned a list of ten possible 'matches,' with five different images of [the] defendant ranked in the first five positions." Miles' sister