Controversy over Flock license plate reading cameras has rippled across Wisconsin, causing people to fill public hearings as some regions remove the cameras, and others overhaul auditing and oversight. Activists, elected officials and police departments are navigating disagreements over privacy, safety, freedom and the facts about the surveillance network.  

Communities including Dane County, Verona, Monona, Fitchburg, Appleton, Oshkosh and Sturgeon Bay are dropping contracts with the multi-billion company Flock Safety because of heightened awareness and public anxiety over surveillance. 

Officers and deputies from three different agencies and three separate counties stand accused of misusing Flock cameras, which compile images of vehicles and their license plates into a database which can be searched by police. When the Examiner reviewed five months of Flock data last year, it contained many thousands of searches conducted by 221 Wisconsin law enforcement agencies.

All three officers are accused of tracking their romantic partners, with officers Josue Ayala of Milwaukee and Cristian Morales of Menasha facing charges for which they have upcoming court appearances. Ayala is scheduled for sentencing in June and Morales has a jury trial in July. Kenosha County Deputy Frank McGrath was not charged for misconduct over his use of Flock to track another deputy he was dating and a John Doe petition seeking charges in the case has been sealed by a judge, according to court records.

“It’s powerful technology,” Heba Mohammad, an organizer with Milwaukee4Palestine — one of the local groups pushing against Flock cameras — told the Examiner.  

Milwaukee4Palestine has focused on police surveillance as cameras, automatic license plate readers like Flock, and facial recognition technology and drones came to Milwaukee. “As Palestinians, we know what that is a signal of,” said Mohammad, pointing out that similar surveillance tested on Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank has been adopted by U.S. law enforcement agencies. “The road to fascism is paved with well-intentioned surveillance technology.”

Milwaukee4Palestine organized to oppose facial recognition technology and then Flock. “We know this is what is next,” said Mohammad. “We’ve seen how surveillance can be used to oppress people.”

Although MPD stands by its use of Flock, the department has also been forced to revamp its auditing procedures. Over the last couple of months, the department has limited the number of officers who have access to Flock. James Lewis, risk manager for MPD, told the Wisconsin Examiner that access was restricted to an “as needed basis,” and that requests need to go through the chain of command, creating more of a paper trail when Flock is used. 

While some units or bureaus investigating serious crimes had clearer needs for Flock, “in patrol, we wanted to make sure that the officers who had it really had the need to have this software,” said Lewis. MPD is also using audit data to flag “outlier” data that indicate questionable Flock uses, such as an officer searching the same vehicle multiple times over a short period, or not attaching case numbers to searches. MPD shares its Flock network with state partners, but not with federal agencies. 

Nevertheless, community members have expressed a lack of confidence and trust in MPD surveillance, especially after the passage of Act 12, which stripped some of the Fire and Police Commission’s oversight powers in exchange for allowing Milwaukee to adopt a sales tax. 

“We are of the position that the risks far outweigh the benefits of this technology and again, particularly with a police force like the Milwaukee Police Department that has been granted a lot of impunity through Act 12 [and has] basically no accountability,” said Mohammad. “And they are demonstrating time and time again that they don’t care what the community thinks.”

Lewis said that the department is trying to nail down exactly how Flock affects the community. “I think a lot of what we’ve seen through public comment, through the commissioners’ comments, through news media coverage for this is, ‘Hey this is this big data surveillance network and it’s got a lot of these pitfalls in it,” said Lewis. “But I think the other piece of it that we’re really trying to get our hands on is how is this making police work more efficient? Is it driving public safety outcomes? Are we getting what we want out of it and through audit, we’re trying to tell those stories as well.” 

Lewis said MPD is working on answering some of those questions, especially the question of whether there is a return on investment in terms of public safety. “If there is outlier data generated, I want to know not just compliance or not, but also what did the city get out of this? Is it a safer place because of this?” Lewis said that MPD has chosen to overhaul its auditing practices on its own in a tailor-made fashion, rather than waiting on Flock Safety to develop a fix. 

The department highlighted 24 different situations where Flock was used, including felony firearms investigations, parole violations, narcotics trafficking, homicide, material witnesses needed at criminal trials, stolen vehicles, overdose death investigations, sexual assault, shootings and armed robberies. In one of the examples involving theft, MPD specified in an email that “Flock was used to develop patterns of movement in the suspect vehicle” to determine whether it was related to other thefts. 

Balancing tracking, privacy, and public safety

The extent to which Flock can track and surveil people has been a source of tension at public meetings. In December, Milwaukee County Sheriff Denita Ball and Chief Deputy Brain Barkow said that calling Flock a form of tracking is a misrepresentation. They argued that although Flock alerts officers that a vehicle has been sighted, they would still need to go to the area of the alert and search for the vehicle. In other words, Flock doesn’t see everything.

But the technology appears to have greater surveillance capabilities than some departments and even Flock itself have described.

The Waukesha County Sheriff’s Department has also said that Flock is “not used for general surveillance, traffic enforcement, or monitoring individuals not connected to an investigation.” However, the agency’s Flock data shows that officers entered “surveillance” and “traffic offense” as reasons for searching the camera network. 

Oshkosh officials voted to continue a Flock contract only to reverse course the next day, saying that they’d been misled by Flock representatives over the camera’s ability to produce heat maps visualizing where a vehicle has been. At a meeting in April, Oshkosh Police Chief Dean Smith told local elected officials that because of that “misrepresentation” he could “I can no longer recommend Flock.”

“I think it depends on how it’s used,” Green Bay Police Chief Chris Davis told the Examiner. “I think if it’s misused, you can misuse this technology in a way that would allow you to track someone.” Yet, Davis feels that Flock can be an asset when used for legitimate criminal investigations. “I think people sometimes misunderstand how the technology works.” 

Davis concedes of Flock use that in some ways, “yeah, that’s kind of tracking someone. But I have a legitimate criminal predicate for doing so.” At the same time, he condemns the use of Flock for personal reasons, like spying on ex-wives or partners. “The government doesn’t get to do that,” said Davis. “That’s unlawful overreach into someone’s life because there’s no legitimate public safety reason for getting access to that data.”

Davis was hired at Green Bay in late 2021, when the city was experiencing a rise in gun violence. After deciding not to adopt gunshot detection tech, the city pivoted to automatic license plate readers. 

“At the time Flock was one of very few, if not the only company that had stationary license plate reader technology,” said Davis. “With gun crimes, the faster you can develop a suspect and make an arrest, the better, because there’s a retaliatory cycle that happens.” The department has been able to locate homicide suspects who fled to other states, hit-and-run suspects, and stolen vehicles using Flock. 

Davis said that “license plate reader technology has been a game changer for all of us. On the other hand, you still have to take people’s privacy concerns seriously.” He stressed that “anytime you’re collecting that much data about people as they just go about their daily business, you have to be really careful with how that’s used.” 

How Flock can be layered with other surveillance technologies also worry community members. In May, officers in Wauwatosa used Flock surveillance and a drone to track a robbery suspect.

The debate reminds Davis of the words of a mentor, that being a police chief is “the great balancing act of municipal government.” He added that, “I think it would be a mistake for us to not take people’s privacy concerns seriously in this conversation.”

As cases of misuse have popped up, the Green Bay Police Department has also tightened its use of Flock. They used their own audit to look for suspicious searches, and didn’t detect any instances of misuse. “We didn’t find any of that in our audit that we did, but it doesn’t hurt to ratchet it down as much as we can,” said Davis. “Because again, I understand, like you’re talking about people’s sensitive information. We have to be responsible with how we use that, and there have to be safeguards in place.” 

The department has also restricted which outside agencies can access its Flock network. While there was an initial belief that “the bigger the network, the more valuable the tool,” Davis said that Green Bay PD has “re-thought that over the last few weeks.” Now only agencies in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, eastern Wisconsin from Green Bay to Milwaukee, and the Chicagoland area (including Racine, Kenosha, and Cook counties along with some Chicago suburbs and a small portion of Indiana around the city of Gary) can search within Green Bay’s network. 

“We figure that makes more sense to have more of a rationale for why we share data,” said Davis. “Because I don’t have control over how those other agencies manage their employees. It’s not that I don’t trust them, but if they want that information then they can call us and they can explain what they’re working on, and we’ll see if we can help them.”

Green Bay PD is also utilizing a drop down menu with pre-designated options for using Flock, rather than allowing officers to type whatever they want. When the Examiner conducted its first analysis of Flock last year, there were several departments which used vague search terms, even just putting a dot or “.” as the reason for searching Flock. When the Examiner brought it to the Waukesha Police Department’s attention, the department said an officer was re-trained and counseled. 

Captain Dan Baumann of the Waukesha PD said in an email statement that since then, the department has “strengthened its oversight of Flock Safety by increasing formal audits from twice per year to monthly.” There are also random audits in addition to the mandatory audit, as well as an AI-powered Flock audit assistance tool to flag suspicious searches. The department’s standard operating procedure has also been adjusted. No further instances of vague labeling have arisen, and no discipline has been issued in connection to use of Flock. 

Baumann said Flock has assisted investigations such as in a vehicle break-in where leads were limited, and using Flock allowed investigators to identify a suspect’s vehicle and connect it to cases in Dane County. Flock was also used to locate someone involved in a shooting, and who pointed a gun during a road rage incident, Baumann said.

Communities waking up to surveillance risks

While it may be encouraging that departments are changing procedures and upping auditing, advocates still have  questions about whether it will  be enough. Jon McCray Jones, policy analyst for the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Wisconsin, hopes that people “don’t miss the forest for the trees” by focusing solely on Flock, when other companies sell similar technology. 

“I don’t believe that law enforcement are just acting out of good faith with a lot of these regulatory changes and auditing changes to Flock,” McCray Jones told the Examiner. “I believe that it comes from sustained pressure started at the most local level from people understanding and realizing the dangers associated with all these cameras and automated license plate readers, and specifically Flock, who is the worst company out of all of them so far.” 

It all also ties back to a growing mistrust and fear over the federal government. Under President Donald Trump, federal immigration agents have flooded Democratic-led cities across the country, resulting in multiple shootings and deaths in Minnesota earlier this year. The Trump administration has also directed federal agencies to begin investigating left-wing groups it has accused of domestic terrorism. 

Mohammad said that the ICE surges really brought surveillance to the forefront when people began to see “ICE agents scanning people’s faces in different cities, and telling them that we have a database and we can recognize your name. Or pulling people’s license plates and figuring out what their names were so that they could harass them directly by name.” She added, “I think this political moment is also a moral and ethical one.” 

McCray Jones also said the issue of police surveillance has new urgency as communities are “being targeted and their neighbors being disappeared by the federal government.” ICE and other federal agencies have access to Flock either directly, or through assistance from local and state agencies which have contracts with the company. Public officials, under pressure from voters, are “jumping on board,” McCray Jones said, “and they’re feeling courageous and empowered to take on these surveillance systems.”

Public meetings about surveillance technology in Milwaukee are energized, Mohammad said. “I don’t want to say exciting because I think that really betrays the seriousness of the moment,” she said. “But there is that buzz that often happens when that room is full, or there was a time when they had to open the overflow room.” It’s shown Mohammad that “people care about this stuff and that’s why I think that it’s really incredible that even though the FPC doesn’t really have any teeth to its accountability anymore, we as residents are using as many avenues as are open to us to make our voices heard.” 

McCray Jones suggests that people care about Flock because “at its core, it’s one of the easiest surveillance technologies for people to understand.” He believes that people understand that “anyone who drives is impacted by this technology in a way that other surveillance technologies, say like ShotSpotters or Stingray…I think people have a harder time one: knowing how these technologies work but two: viewing themselves as potential victims.” 

He added that in several cases, including in Milwaukee, officers who misused the technology were caught by people using websites like HaveIBeenFlocked, not by the department. “So we don’t know how much these systems are being abused,” he said. “And I think elected officials should use these moments of high, intense scrutiny from the community and in the media, and having anecdotal stories of officers doing this right now, to really be courageous and take the lead to fight for more accountability measures before the public forgets about this story, and forgets about the danger that they are under due to law enforcement’s ability to track where you are at all times.”

Mohammad said that she and her allies are not quitting anytime soon. “We understand our position, we understand the risks here,” she told the Examiner. “And so we’re not going to back down. We do not want our communities to be surveilled. And we believe that public safety comes from investments in other areas, not in police surveillance.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Reading Time: 3 minutes

In 2024, a sheriff’s deputy working for the Outagamie County Sheriff’s Department was forced out for being lousy at his job. But even though the deputy, Cristian Morales, was flagged in the state’s negative separation database, he ended up being hired a few months later by the Menasha Police Department. 

Earlier this year, Morales was arrested and accused of stalking an ex-girlfriend using the city’s Flock camera system. He’s now facing criminal charges.

While some folks are suited for the difficult work of being a law enforcement officer, many are not. It’s hardly a controversial statement to say that police, who can arrest people and use force when necessary, should be held to a higher standard than the rest of us.

And yet our reporting at The Badger Project has found that police chiefs and sheriffs in Wisconsin often give these “wandering officers” second or third chances, despite research saying that officers fired or forced out for misconduct are more likely than other cops to reoffend.

At our last count, more than 300 active officers in Wisconsin had been fired or forced out of previous law enforcement jobs. Many of these separations involved novices who couldn’t cut it in a tough job during their probationary period, when the bar for termination is low. But some, we’ve found, lost jobs for misconduct, including drunk driving, writing misleading reports and using sexist and racist language.

In Wisconsin, law enforcement agencies can report to the state DOJ when they fire or force out an officer, so we can track when that cop goes on to get hired by another policing agency. But we are currently unable to track these wandering officers who have been fired or forced out in other states and come to work here because we don’t have a list of all law enforcement officers here.

That’s why The Badger Project, along with our partners at the Invisible Institute, a Chicago-based nonprofit journalism organization, requested the full list of names and work histories from the Wisconsin Department of Justice and sued when it refused.

In April, Dane County Circuit Court Judge Rhonda Lanford ruled in our favor and ordered the DOJ to release the records. She cited a previous state appeals court ruling that said law enforcement officers “necessarily relinquish certain privacy and reputational rights by virtue of the amount of trust society places in them and must be subject to public scrutiny.”

Prominent members of Wisconsin’s law enforcement community have criticized the judge’s ruling, saying it goes too far. An appeal could be coming.

Jim Palmer, executive director of the Wisconsin Professional Police Association, wrote an op-ed saying the release of these records could put officers at “risk of harassment, doxxing and worse.” He said officers’ birthdates are part of the records whose release we are seeking. Not so: While our initial records request asked for birthdates or birth years (to distinguish between officers with the same name), our lawsuit only asked for birth years, not months and days.

The state DOJ raised another objection, saying release of the names would jeopardize undercover officers. But what cop uses his or her real name when working undercover? We did not request photos of the officers.

I salute and thank the men and women in law enforcement who are serving their communities. I don’t envy the chiefs and sheriffs who must staff their agencies at a time when finding good job applicants for law enforcement jobs is as hard as ever.

And you know what? We at The Badger Project are not against second chances for cops who screwed up. Perhaps an officer who made a fireable mistake has learned from it. Whether that officer should continue in law enforcement is not for us to decide. Our job, as journalists, is to shine a light on those in power and get facts to the public who are being policed by these folks.

If chiefs or sheriffs want to hire an officer with problems in the past, they should say so publicly and defend their decision. They just can’t make these decisions in secret.

Your Right to Know is a monthly column distributed by the Wisconsin Freedom of Information Council (wisfoic.org), a nonprofit, nonpartisan group dedicated to open government. Peter Cameron is managing editor of The Badger Project, a nonprofit news outlet.

Your Right to Know: Names of police should be public is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.

WASHINGTON — A multibillion-dollar package to fund immigration enforcement for the rest of President Donald Trump’s term faced new delays Thursday as Senate Republicans showed a rare split with the president over his new “anti-weaponization” fund.

The administration dispatched Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche to Capitol Hill to meet with Senate Republicans as many fought to add restrictions to Trump’s $1.776 billion fund as a condition for passing a proposed $72 billion for the departments of Homeland Security and Justice.

Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., said the hourslong closed-door meeting with Blanche included “spirited discussion.”

The Department of Justice announced Monday the fund for “victims of lawfare” in exchange for Trump dropping his $10 billion lawsuit against the IRS. Both agencies are under his purview.

“It’s unprecedented to see a settlement between two parties that seem to be the same person,” Paul said.

Ultimately, senators left their meeting with Blanche with no immediate path forward for the budget reconciliation bill that requires a simple majority to pass. Senate Majority Leader John Thune can only afford to lose a handful of votes in the GOP-led Senate that is split 53-47, as all Democrats vow to oppose the package.

“We’re going home,” Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., said as he made flight arrangements with his staff while standing outside the meeting room. 

Thune told reporters “we will pick up where we left off.” 

Asked whether he thinks a resolution can be reached, the South Dakota Republican said “that’s what I’m counting on.” 

The Senate has adjourned except for pro forma sessions until the afternoon of June 1, the date Trump set to have the finished bill on his desk.

Among the sticking points in the Blanche meeting: whether Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot defendants who assaulted police officers would qualify for the financial relief.

“I did raise that issue,” said Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine. “But we haven’t seen (bill) language yet.”

The administration maintains the fund will be nonpartisan, and not only open to Trump supporters. A five-seat commission — four to be appointed by Blanche and the fifth in consultation with Congress — will issue decisions on financial claims.

Further details emerged Tuesday from the Department of Justice, revealing that Trump and his family will be forever immune from tax audits as part of the settlement.

Ballroom battle

Before debate erupted over Trump’s “anti-weaponization” fund, Republicans had already fractured over a $1 billion Secret Service security earmark in the bill, $220 million of which was set to be used to “harden” Trump’s White House ballroom project.

The funds for the “East Wing Modernization Project” would have paid for bulletproof glass, drone detection technologies and filtration systems designed to detect chemical or other contaminants. 

Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-La., who lost his primary Saturday after Trump supported another candidate, told reporters he would not vote for ballroom funds.

Democrats claimed credit for getting the $1 billion tossed from the bill after challenging whether the provision fit within the strict parameters of reconciliation. Ultimately, the Senate parliamentarian ruled it out, sparking a social media attack from Trump Tuesday.

Trump told reporters Thursday if Senate Republicans didn’t find a way to pass the extra security money, “Then the White House won’t be a very secure place.”

Senate Dems vow to stop ‘slush fund’

Democrats pounced on the opportunity to spotlight the Republican division.

“This afternoon, Republicans — so divided, so dysfunctional, so disorganized — are fleeing Washington,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer told reporters at a press conference after movement on the package stalled. 

“Republicans are divided over things that Americans don’t want, but Democrats are united around things that the people do want — for us to lower their costs, rein in the chaos, fight the corruption that is endemic to this administration,” the New York Democrat added. 

Schumer added that “we’ll do everything we can to stop this slush fund, whether it’s in the courts, whether it’s legislative, whether it’s through reconciliation, or any other legislative means.”

Senate Democrats still plan to offer up a handful of painful amendments for GOP senators to vote on during a marathon voting session when and if the bill finally reaches the floor. 

War powers vote postponed

On the other side of the Capitol, House Republicans abruptly delayed an Iran War Powers Resolution vote moments before it was scheduled to open on the floor.

This would have been the fourth time Democrats brought the privileged motion to the floor. The 1970s-era War Powers Resolution sets reporting procedures and limitations on a president’s military campaigns abroad.

An effort to curtail Trump’s campaign in Iran failed in a tied House vote just one week ago.

Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass., shouted on the floor as the presiding officer moved procedures forward, skipping the War Powers Resolution.

“Are we not voting on it because the American people are sick and tired of this illegal war that’s costing tens of billions of dollars? Gas prices are through the roof. People can’t afford their groceries,” McGovern said, alleging the Republicans lacked the “guts” to vote on it.

The House now also leaves for the Memorial Day break and will not return until June 1.

House Speaker Mike Johnson’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Jennifer Shutt contributed to this report.

Reading Time: 6 minutes

This article was produced by the nonprofit journalism publication Bolts, which covers the nuts and bolts of power and political change, from the local up.

The Dane County Sheriff’s Office will stop using dozens of AI surveillance cameras posted up across Madison and surrounding towns, after the county Board of Supervisors pulled funding from a contract with Flock Safety, the latest setback in this state for the Atlanta-based tech company.

Flock has swiftly grown a sprawling, nationwide network of cameras that photograph passing cars and use AI to track their movements with precision, with thousands of law enforcement agencies installing Flock cameras in exchange for access to the company’s database. But many local governments are now breaking off their agreements with Flock after numerous instances where the cameras were misused and breached, or where the data they collected ended up in ICE’s hands. 

Within Dane County, the cascade started when the city of Verona pulled its three automated license plate readers from the Flock network in November, after police officers elsewhere in the country accessed Verona’s cameras on behalf of immigration agents. Bolts previously reported that Flock ignored demands by Verona officials to take down the cameras for months after they ended the contract, and the city eventually covered the surveillance cameras with black plastic bags to protect residents’ privacy. Verona Mayor Luke Diaz told Bolts at the time that the county government’s contract with Flock was “the next big domino” to fall in Wisconsin.

Verona’s representative on the Dane County Board, Supervisor Chad Kemp, then proposed defunding the sheriff’s agreement with Flock, and the board voted 32-1 in April to strip $80,000 from the budget allocated to paying for the cameras. Sheriff Kalvin Barrett’s office confirmed to Bolts via email on April 30 that he will abide by the board’s wishes and cease using Flock. 

Other Wisconsin cities have dropped their Flock contracts since Dane County’s vote, including Monona, a suburb of Madison, and Oshkosh, in Winnebago County, where the police chief not just ended the contract but also covered cameras in plastic bags after Flock allegedly misrepresented how its data was used.

Diaz is heartened by this ongoing domino effect that’s rocking Wisconsin. “If police chiefs are bailing on it, that really shows momentum,” he said in a follow-up interview this month. “I feel like, at least politically, it is a sign that we’re winning.”

“It really shows that local activists can make a really big difference,” he said. “Small communities can be laboratories of democracy, and we can stand up to be an example for other communities.”

Now privacy activists are pushing to remove Wisconsin’s remaining Flock cameras, including those operated by the Milwaukee Police Department and by the University of Wisconsin-Madison police.

But beyond targeting any specific Flock contract, they’re also pressuring local officials across the state to set proactive guardrails around AI surveillance technologies. 

They hope to stop law enforcement agencies from responding to their wins against Flock by just turning to Flock’s competitors to install similar systems of automated license plate readers (ALPRs).

A spokesperson for the Dane County Sheriff’s Office told Bolts that the office is already exploring other vendors to replace Flock.

Law enforcement agencies often deploy invasive technologies like ALPRs without notifying the people being spied on and without approval from elected officials, said Jon McCray-Jones, a policy analyst with the ACLU of Wisconsin. He warns that, without robust protections limiting what police can do, residents will be “playing a game of Whack-A-Mole with surveillance companies” as police seek lesser-known companies like Motorola.

“We’re starting to miss the forest for the trees, where the conversation has been about how bad Flock is,” McCray-Jones told Bolts. “Sure, the headline changes with a slightly better company. But the innate issues around ALPRs don’t. You still have similar cameras, similar databases, similar mass, warrantless tracking. You just have a different logo on the contract.”

The Dane County sheriff was able to install the Flock system initially without getting approval from the board since it was paid for by a $68,750 grant funded by a separate surveillance company, Axon Enterprise. Axon used to have a partnership with Flock but has since severed it. The sheriff’s spokesperson ruled out seeking outside funding again.

Jade, a Madison resident and privacy advocate who created Deflock Dane, a project that maps the cameras that watch over the area, warns that a new technology could just as easily be installed to replace the Flock cameras without any public input. (Jade agreed to talk using only their first name for privacy concerns.)

“Some regulation has to be put in place,” Jade said. “Reacting to whatever secretive contract is signed in the future might work, but it is not ideal to have a revolving door of surveillance companies.”

In the absence of state restrictions, the ACLU of Wisconsin is advocating for local governments to adopt ordinances that give elected officials oversight over police surveillance. A model policy endorsed by the ACLU called Community Control Over Police Surveillance, or CCOPS, would require law enforcement to get approval from a city council or county commission before using new surveillance tools, as well as develop use policies and provide annual reports on them. 

According to the ACLU, 26 jurisdictions nationwide already have a CCOPS ordinance in place, but the city of Madison is the only one in Wisconsin. (Madison police currently have no ALPR contract.) Dane County has no such ordinance, which gives the sheriff a lot more discretion. 

Supporters say CCOPS ordinances allow cities to better vet the vendors that are hired, while also allowing residents to weigh in on what level of surveillance and risk they are willing to accept before the technology is used on them. McCray-Jones says elected officials can make informed decisions “instead of having to look into these technologies on their own and after the fact, in the aftermath when the damage is already done.”

But efforts to curtail AI surveillance in this way are hitting a wall in Milwaukee, Wisconsin’s most populous city, which became a cautionary tale for Flock when a police officer repeatedly used the cameras to stalk a romantic partner. The police chief quickly revoked most officers’ access but the city is continuing to use Flock cameras at this time. 

In March, four members of the common council wrote a letter calling on the city to adopt a CCOPS policy. They also demanded other checks on surveillance, such as a requirement for officers to list a case number to justify searching the network, routine civilian hearings and independent audits, and a ban on ALPRs being used for immigration.

Even as they push for stronger oversight, though, a 2023 state law known as Act 12 has sharply limited Milwaukee’s ability to regulate police surveillance. 

Though primarily a tax bill aimed at stabilizing pension debts, Act 12 forced Milwaukee to abandon civilian oversight in exchange for the funds. It stripped the Milwaukee Fire and Police Commission of its oversight authority, gave the police chief broad control over department policy and restricted the city council’s ability to set new rules. 

Until then, the commission had offered a relatively strong model of civilian control, like when it banned officers from using chokeholds and no-knock warrants, putting it in the crosshairs of the local police union. Act 12 made it into a “rubber stamp” for the police.

Several council members told Bolts that Act 12 also interferes with their ability to forbid the Milwaukee Police Department from using Flock cameras, enact a CCOPS policy or set standards for how the city uses surveillance technology. 

“We cannot propose that law here,” said Ald. Alex Brower, who cosigned the letter endorsing CCOPS. “It was extremely frustrating to find that out. There is less democratic control than there should be.”

Another council member who signed the letter, Sharlen Moore, echoed Brower’s concern, saying, “We do not have a lot of power and say-so around how they spend their budget.” 

Moore and Brower are hopeful that the state could eventually restore some level of outside control over Milwaukee police; voters this fall are electing a new governor and Legislature, and Democrats hope to win control of the state government for the first time since 2010. But until the state takes action, the council members say they’ll have to rely on the police to voluntarily restrict their use of surveillance. 

Local activists were able to convince Milwaukee police leadership to ban facial recognition technology this year after a massive show of opposition by residents at a public meeting in February.

Brower told Bolts, “The police chief would not have banned facial recognition technology on his own if it hadn’t been for the groundswell of regular people.”

Now he hopes for a similar public outcry against ALPRs and other AI surveillance. Echoing the Madison-based advocates who say they’ll keep fighting contracts in Dane County, he said, “We need an active and engaged and organized population that is fighting for their liberties.”

Foes of AI surveillance get wins in Wisconsin. But they fear they’re playing Whack-A-Mole. is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.