• About
  • Blog
  • Forensic Disciplines
    • Foundations of Forensics
    • Arson
    • Bite Mark
    • Blood & Bodily Fluids
    • Child Abuse Allegations
    • Crime Scene Investigation
    • Death Investigation
    • Detection Dogs
    • Digital Evidence
    • DNA
    • Drug Analysis
    • Drug Recognition Experts
    • Eyewitness ID
    • Fingerprints
    • Firearms
    • Forensic/Sexual Assault Exams
    • Measurement Uncertainty
    • Mental Health
    • Toxicology
    • Trace Evidence
  • Resources
    • Forensic Consultations
    • Books
    • Cases
    • Featured Articles
    • Legislation
    • Motions and Briefs
      • Discovery Motions
      • Funding for Experts
      • Motions for Appropriate Relief
      • Motions to Exclude Expert Testimony
      • Motions for Independent Testing
      • Motions to Preserve Evidence
      • Motions to Suppress
      • Analyst Certification Motions
    • Reports & Publications
    • Trainings
    • Websites
    • Forensic Terminology
    • Online Research Tools
  • Crime Labs
    • General Information
    • NC State Crime Lab Procedures
    • Charlotte Mecklenburg Crime Lab
    • CCBI Lab Procedures
    • NC OCME Toxicology Lab
    • Pitt Co. Sheriff’s Forensic Services
    • Sec. of State Digital Forensic Lab
    • Wilmington Police Dept Crime Lab
    • Private and Out-of-State Labs
  • News Articles
  • Experts
    • Browse All Experts
    • Working with Experts
    • Expert Services Project
    • Add or Update Expert Records
    • Find a Private Investigator
  • Subscribe
  • Menu
  • Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Forensic Resources

North Carolina Office of Indigent Defense Services

Header Right

MENUMENU
  • About
  • Blog
  • Forensic Disciplines
        • Foundations of Forensics
        • Arson
        • Bite Mark
        • Blood & Bodily Fluids
        • Child Abuse Allegations
        • Crime Scene Investigation
        • Death Investigation
        • Detection Dogs
        • Digital Evidence
        • DNA
        • Drug Analysis
        • Drug Recognition Experts
        • Eyewitness ID
        • Fingerprints
        • Firearms
        • Forensic/Sexual Assault Exams
        • Measurement Uncertainty
        • Mental Health
        • Toxicology
        • Trace Evidence
  • Resources
        • Forensic Consultations
        • Books
        • Cases
        • Featured Articles
        • Legislation
        • Reports & Publications
        • Trainings
        • Websites
        • Forensic Terminology
        • Online Research Tools
        • Motions and Briefs
          • Discovery Motions
          • Funding for Experts
          • Motions for Appropriate Relief
          • Motions to Exclude Expert Testimony
          • Motions for Independent Testing
          • Motions to Preserve Evidence
          • Motions to Suppress
          • Analyst Certification Motions
  • Crime Labs
    • General Information
    • NC State Crime Lab Procedures
    • Charlotte Mecklenburg Crime Lab
    • CCBI Lab Procedures
    • NC OCME Toxicology Lab
    • Pitt Co. Sheriff’s Forensic Services
    • Sec. of State Digital Forensic Lab
    • Wilmington Police Dept Crime Lab
    • Private and Out-of-State Labs
  • News Articles
  • Experts
    • Browse All Experts
    • Working with Experts
    • Expert Services Project
    • Add or Update Expert Records
    • Find a Private Investigator
  • Subscribe
You are here: Home / Cases / NJ Appellate Decision: Defense Entitled to Face Recognition Information

NJ Appellate Decision: Defense Entitled to Face Recognition Information

June 29, 2023 //  by Sacejewia White//  Leave a Comment

Case Background

Last September, the NACDL joined forces with the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) to file an amicus brief in support of the defense in New Jersey v. Arteaga. 

The question before the Appellate Division was whether the defense is entitled to information about how a face recognition search identifying the defendant as the suspect in the case was conducted. The trial court rejected the defense’s argument.

Appellate Division’s Ruling

On June 6, citing and adopting many of the arguments set forth in NACDL’s co-authored amicus brief, the Appellate Division reversed the lower court’s ruling, holding that the defendant is entitled to the requested discovery in accordance with Brady v. Maryland. 

The court found that “defendant through his expert, and the secondary sources cited by defense counsel and amici, provide us convincing evidence of FRT’s [face recognition technology’s] novelty, the human agency involved in generating images, and the fact FRT’s veracity has not been tested or found reliable on an evidential basis by any New Jersey court.”

The case is now remanded to the lower court for an order directing the state to fulfill the discovery request. 

You can read the full opinion here.

Significance and Impact

This is the first time an appellate court has found that this information is subject to Brady disclosure — an issue that we expect many courts will have to grapple with given the widespread use of face recognition technology in criminal cases. 

The decision recognizes, at the appellate level, a position that defense attorneys around the country have been arguing for years. 

It contains powerful language on the state’s burden to disclose information about face recognition as an unproven technology to uphold the due process rights of a defendant.

Broadly speaking, this decision will be helpful to defense attorneys filing discovery motions and otherwise seeking to challenge the state’s use of face recognition technology to identify their clients.

NACDL’s Fourth Amendment Center

NACDL’s Fourth Amendment Center is available to assist defense attorneys on cases involving new surveillance tools, technologies, and tactics—such as face recognition—that infringe on the constitutional rights of people in America. 

If you have a case involving face recognition or other types of surveillance tools, you can contact the Fourth Amendment Center at 4AC@nacdl.org.

Category: CasesForensic Discipline: Digital Evidence

Previous Post: « IDS to offer free CLEs on Adverse Childhood Experiences
Next Post: Virtual Workshop Series: Qualifications of an Expert Witness for Legal Professionals »

Reader Interactions

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Site Footer

The Forensic Resource Counsel provides assistance to North Carolina attorneys litigating scientific evidence issues.
Information provided on this website is for educational purposes and does not constitute legal advice.
Copyright © 2025 · Office of Indigent Defense Services · All Rights Reserved · Website by Tomatillo Design

Copyright © 2025 Forensic Resources · All Rights Reserved · Powered by Mai Theme