Like the Milwaukee Police Department (MPD), the sheriff's office is considering acquiring facial recognition applications from the company Biometrica, but civil liberties advocates are raising concerns about the technology. (Photo by Isiah Holmes/Wisconsin Examiner)

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Wisconsin is calling on the Milwaukee County Sheriff’s Office to reconsider plans to adopt the use of facial recognition technology. Like the Milwaukee Police Department (MPD), the sheriff’s office is considering acquiring facial recognition technology from the company Biometrica. The company has offered MPD free access in exchange for 2.5 million images, jail records, and other related data of people who have passed through Milwaukee’s criminal justice system, including many who presumably haven’t been convicted of a crime. 

“Given all the public opposition we’ve seen to the Milwaukee Police Department’s push to expand their use of facial recognition, the news of the Sheriffs office’s interest in acquiring this technology is deeply concerning,” Amanda Merkwae, advocacy director for the ACLU of Wisconsin, wrote in a statement for an ACLU press release. “Law enforcement’s use of facial recognition software poses a number of serious threats to civil rights and civil liberties, making it dangerous both when it fails and when it functions.” 

Just days ago, Milwaukee County Sheriff Denita Ball revealed that her office was looking into adopting facial recognition software. Ball told county supervisors during a June 17 meeting of the Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and General Services Committee Urban Milwaukee reported, that she was assessing a data-sharing agreement for the technology. MCSO did not respond to a request for comment for this story.

Like MPD, the sheriff’s office is exploring an agreement with Biometrica, a company which has pushed back against concerns about privacy and the use of its surveillance tools. Biometrica offers a third-party facial recognition algorithm to agencies like the Milwaukee police and the sheriff’s office. The sheriff’s office states that rather than using the technology for untargeted surveillance, it aims to use facial recognition software to identify people once investigators have an image of a criminal suspect. Ball says that facial recognition would never be the sole basis for an arrest or charges, Urban Milwaukee reported.

On Thursday, the Milwaukee County Board of Supervisors will vote on a resolution requiring the creation of a regulatory process for adopting facial recognition technology. Both at the county and city government meetings, however, law enforcement agencies have been met with public skepticism about their exploration of facial recognition technologies. 

Tension bubbled up during a hearing before the Milwaukee Equal Rights Commission last week. Police department Inspector Paul Lough  said that facial recognition could provide important leads for investigations similar to those derived from confidential informants and information databases used to run names. During the hearing, MPD officials presented examples of cases in which facial recognition technology helped solve crimes. “Whether or not they would’ve…may or may not have been solved without the use of facial rec., it’s hard to say,” said Lough. “Some probably would have been, some might still be open. But the important part of it is that all of the ones that we’re going to go over are very predatory in nature where there’s exigent circumstances to solve them quickly.”

MPD Capt. James Hutchinson went over two investigations from March 2024 which utilized facial recognition technology. One involved a drive-by shooting, where a passing car opened fire on a pedestrian, who died on the scene. Hutchinson explained that MPD obtained images from surveillance cameras, which were then sent to partner agencies with the ability to run facial recognition requests. Within 16 hours, the police captain told the commission, a potential suspect had been identified. 

“We don’t know who they are when we get those pictures back, but we have ways of vetting that information, confirming the identification provided to us,” said Hutchinson. “And that’s what we did in this case.” Unique tattoos helped narrow the search to a man who was wearing a GPS bracelet. When officers went to conduct an arrest, they found two alleged shooters, their guns and the car they are believed to have used. Hutchinson said that a trial is pending for both suspects arrested in that case. 

Facial recognition was also used in a sexual assault case, which occurred two days before the shooting. A victim had been followed home in the rain by a man offering her his umbrella, and asking for money. He mentioned that he’d already tried asking for money at a nearby gas station. As they walked, he held a gun to her head and forced her into a garage where he assaulted her. Officers were able to locate the garage with the victim’s help using Google Maps, and later the gas station the man had mentioned before. Surveillance camera photos potentially capturing the man were sent to other agencies for facial recognition assistance, which came back with images of a man who was on probation for sexual assault. He was identified both by the probation agent and the victim, and was sentenced to 20 years of incarceration. 

MPD listed 13 additional cases where it used facial recognition, including a string of taco truck robberies on Milwaukee’s South Side involving a group of masked assailants. Although they appeared careful to cover their faces, one suspect let his mask down briefly, which was seen by a camera, and sent to a partner agency for identification. In that case, three to four potential suspects were identified by the technology, each with a certain percentage of certainty such as 97%, 95% and so on. After further investigation, detectives identified those responsible for the taco truck robberies as people flagged by the  facial recognition search with the lowest percentage of certainty.

During public testimony, several people expressed concerns about the accuracy of facial recognition technology. Facial recognition software has been shown to have trouble identifying non-white faces, and is prone to errors particularly when identifying people of color. Some feared that defendants might have trouble learning how facial recognition was used in their cases, and felt that police oversight was lacking. Others pointed to the 2.5 million images MPD would give to Biometrica in exchange for the software licenses, and argued that such a move would only further harm community trust in the police. Because the images include mugshots, it’s possible that people whose images were included in that transaction will not be convicted of a crime after being  arrested or detained at the jail for a period of time. Other questions included  what access federal agencies, such as Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), would have to MPD’s facial recognition system. 

“As we recently found, MPD has been using facial recognition technology on the faces of Milwaukeeans for years, without being transparent with the public or the FPC,” Krissie Fung, a member of the Milwaukee Turners and Milwaukee’s Fire and Police Commission (FPC), said during public testimony. “Because there’s no standard operating procedure to provide guidelines around their process, relying on MPD to follow their own gentlemen’s agreements and internal process is just not how oversight works.” 

Fung also said MPD Chief Jeffrey Norman acknowledged when he was reappointed that there is no way to guarantee the safety of the data and faces of Milwaukeeans, and that the data would be going to a third-party company the city does not oversee and which uses algorithms the city will not be able to  access. “MPD’s proposal is to trade 2.5 million mugshots in exchange for this license which, by the way, includes my mugshot,” said Fung. “I believe that there are serious legal concerns that have not yet played out in the courts, and that would open us up to significant lawsuits.”

“I cannot help but wonder if the reason Biometrica is so thirsty to trade 2.5 million ‘jail records or mugshots’ in exchange for free access to this technology, is that they assume that those jail records are Black faces, and they clearly need more Black faces to train their inaccurate algorithm,” Fung added. “But we don’t need to let them get those Black faces from Milwaukee.”

“I don’t know a single person in this city that trusts the police,” said Ron Jansen, who has testified about law enforcement at previous city and county meetings. “So the last thing Milwaukee needs to do is hand this department a tool that creates even greater opportunity to harm the people of this city.” 

“This is not free,” Jansen added.  “… the cost is 2.5 million mugshots of residents, non-residents, whatever. Anybody who’s been through the system here in Milwaukee…2.5 million human beings…Human beings, maybe half of which or more, were never convicted of a crime. This includes people who were wrongfully arrested, or accused, or just anyone who was ever booked into their custody. And while I was writing this, I thought, ‘that also includes people who’ve already been victimized by this department.’ People who have been beaten by the police. People who have been wrongfully accused by the police. This is your biological data, my biological data, everyone’s biological data, and it is being sold to a private company without your consent, all so that they can expand their surveillance network.” 

Jansen asserted that the millions of images could include protesters, teachers, even state Rep. Ryan Clancy (D-Milwaukee), who was wrongfully arrested by MPD during a curfew. “His arrest record is likely in there,” said Jansen. He also raised the 2025 case of officer Juwon Madlock, who used his access to police databases to pass intelligence about confidential informants and the home addresses of  targets to gangs searching out rivals. “If this is already happening, imagine what will happen when their abilities get expanded,” said Jansen. 

Protesters gather in Kenosha the second night of protests on August 24th, 2020. This was before the clashes with police later that night. (Photo by Isiah Holmes/Wisconsin Examiner)

Imagine you hear about a protest in your community and,  curious, you join your neighbors who are marching in the street. Although the protest is loud and slows down  traffic, it appears peaceful and non-violent. Then suddenly, someone throws a rock or spray-paints a building, and now you find yourself among those apprehended for felony rioting, regardless of whether you committed an act of vandalism or  know who did.

Civil rights advocates fear such a scenario if under a Republican bill that defines a riot as a public disturbance, an act of violence or a “clear and present danger” of property destruction or personal injury involving at least three people. A similar bill was introduced in 2017 by Rep. John Spiros (R-Marshfield). A new version is  (AB-88), authored by Rep. Shae Sortwell (R-Two Rivers) and Sen. Dan Feyen (R- Fond du Lac). 

People who say their property was damaged or vandalized during what the bill defines as a “riot” would also be able to seek civil damages from people or organizations that “provided material support or resources with the intent that such support or resources would be used to perpetrate the offense,” under the bill. It also prohibits government officials with direct authority over law enforcement agencies from limiting or restricting those agencies’ ability to quell vandalism or rioting, as defined by the bill.

Jon McCray Jones, a policy analyst at the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Wisconsin is concerned that the bill’s definition of a “riot” is too vague. “Using that definition, a riot could be three teenagers driving around in a car knocking off mail boxes,” McCray Jones told Wisconsin Examiner. “Technically, with this definition, a riot could be a food fight.” The bill’s language concerning people who “urge, promote, organize, encourage, or instigate others to commit a riot” is also vague according to McCray Jones, who says this aspect of the bill would open protest leaders and organizers up to criminal and civil liability, regardless of their involvement in rioting.

Sortwell and Feyen did not respond to requests for comment for this story. In written testimony before the Assembly Committee on Judiciary on May 7, both lawmakers said that riots have become more common in recent years. “We saw the destructive riots a few years ago in several metropolitan areas, including right here in Madison and Kenosha,” said Sortwell, referring to George Floyd-inspired protests and unrest in 2020. “Taking a walk down State Street, one would see busted doors and windows of businesses, products stolen, and a smashed statue of a Civil War hero. Several business owners, employees, and citizens had their lives upended.”

Feyen said that “peaceful protests are a cornerstone of our public discourse and will always be protected under the First Amendment, but a line needs to be drawn when those protests go from being peaceful to being destructive and violent.” Although the bill does not  mention specific protests, Feyen wrote, “stricter penalties are needed to deter protesters from crossing that line from protest to property destruction, vandalism, arson, and physical violence.” 

Although scenes of burning buildings and looted stores received a lot of news coverage in 2020, studies suggest that at least 96% of Black Lives Matter protests during the movement’s peak in May and June of 2020 were peaceful. Reports by TMJ4 found that 74.3% of the nearly 200 people who’d been placed on an intelligence list by police in Milwaukee county that year had never been charged with a misdemeanor or felony. Some reports, however, using data derived from insurance claims, estimate that as much as $2 billion in damage nationally occurred due to protests in 2020. 

Some residents of Kenosha – a city referenced by the bill’s authors – recall how months of non-violent protest in Kenosha after Floyd’s death were overshadowed by the unrest that  occurred in August 2020. The shooting of Jacob Blake by Kenosha officer Rusten Sheskey, which paralyzed Blake, led to days of protest and unrest, millions of dollars worth of property destruction, and ended when  then-17-year-old Kyle Rittenhouse fatally shot two people and wounded another, in what a jury later ruled was an act of self-defense. 

During committee hearings on May 7, Sortwell said that the bill seeks to punish not only people who commit vandalism but also “those people who put together the riot.”

Several groups have either lobbied or spoken out against the bill. The Wisconsin Civil Justice Council submitted written testimony opposing the bill on the behalf of “16 business associations working together on civil liability matters.” The council said that the bill would allow for civil compensation for emotional distress stemming from property destruction, noting that emotional damages are generally limited. AB-88 would also allow for any civil compensation to include attorneys’ fees, which would be another departure from current law, the council wrote. Others spoke against the bill in person on May 7, pointing to the bill’s broad language and the chilling effect it could have on political movements. 

“This bill is just a blatant attempt to stop people from protesting,” said McCray Jones. “This is a way to silence organizers from fighting for political change and threatening the status quo in power.” Organizers could potentially be sued for anything that happens at a protest, or even just for transporting someone to a protest that later turns into a riot, as defined under the bill. 

What counts as urging or promoting a riot is broad enough to include common protest chants, like “no justice, no peace,” McCray Jones said. “And if you have ambitious or politically motivated district attorneys…politically motivated prosecutors, the vagueness of this bill could be weaponized … free speech now gets criminally turned into inciting a riot.” 

McCray Jones added that he wonders what a police figure like former Milwaukee PD Chief Harold Breier — notorious for targeting and surveilling Black, brown and LGBTQ communities — would have been able to accomplish had such a law been at his disposal. 

As police departments develop their social media surveillance capabilities, it’s possible under the bill that making posts encouraging people to attend a protest could be seen as an attempt to “urge, promote, organize, encourage, or instigate” a riot under the bill. After the protests of 2020, some agencies that monitored protesters enacted new intelligence-gathering policies to help prevent broad, ideology-based surveillance.  

“I think that right now this moment gives us a very opportune chance to highlight the importance of protecting the privacy of protesters here in Wisconsin,” McCray Jones told Wisconsin Examiner. McCray Jones said he hopes debate about the bill  will become “a jumping off point to talk about not just data privacy for protesters, not just privacy from law enforcement for marginalized communities, but what does it look like to re-think our position on surveillance in the midst of this regime in D.C. that is blatantly ignoring due process, the rule of law, and civil rights.”