Four Milwaukee aldermen are expressing concern about “the lack of adequate guardrails, auditing, supervision, and transparency” surrounding the use of Flock Safety license plate reader cameras. In a three-page letter sent Wednesday to the city’s Fire and Police Commission (FPC), Common Council President José Pérez and Alders Marina Dimitrijevic, Alex Brower and Sharlen Moore said that recent cases like one involving a Milwaukee police officer who used Flock to stalk a romantic partner “are alarming and underscore the systemic oversight gap rather than an isolated failure.” 

The letter is the latest ripple in a wave of community pushback against the use of Flock Safety cameras, which are equipped with license plate reading technology and can be accessed by law enforcement agencies across the country using search terms and filters. Critics also express concern that the cameras can be used for backdoor surveillance by the federal government, particularly as the Trump administration pursues an aggressive immigration crackdown. 

Audit data reviewed by Wisconsin Examiner shows that officers often use vague terms like “investigation,” “suspicious,” “cooch,” or just “.” to search the network. Some Wisconsin communities have canceled their contracts with the multi-billion dollar Flock Safety company due to concerns about its technology.

 

 

Just a day before the Milwaukee council members sent their letter to the FPC, TMJ4 reported that the Milwaukee Police Department cut off access to its license plate reader database. The police department said officers have been blocked from using the system while the department re-evaluates who needs access to the technology. Currently, TMJ4 reported, only officers in “sensitive portions” of MPD’s Criminal Investigations Bureau can access Flock for emergency cases. The department, headed by Chief Jeffrey Norman, has also banned facial recognition technology after months of community pushback.

In their letter, the four Milwaukee alders warned that a system like Flock — capable of “tracking movement patterns, identifying vehicles, and storing sensitive location data” — can be “weaponized against residents, including survivors of domestic violence, journalists, advocates, and everyday community members.” 

The alders were especially alarmed about a recent case involving Josue Ayala, a Milwaukee police officer facing one misdemeanor count of misconduct in public office for allegedly using Flock to track two people, one of whom was Ayala’s a romantic partner, 179 times. When he used Flock, Ayala entered the search term “investigation,” the most common search used by Wisconsin law enforcement agencies during the first half of 2025, according to the Examiner’s analysis of audit data.

In their letter, Milwaukee council members ask the FPC what specific training officers must receive to access Flock; how use is supervised real time, who’s responsible for reviewing searches, how frequently audits are conducted, and what “independent body oversees compliance and investigates misuse?” The alders are demanding that the city support reforms including: 

• Independent auditing of Flock cameras and other license plate reading technology;
• Limiting the purpose for using these technologies to “documented casework,” 
• Establishing a system of real-time flagging and increasing approval to use the system by supervisors,
• What the letter calls “a clear firewall for immigration enforcement,” preventing the police department’s Flock network from being used by federal agencies in ways that go against the department’s own policies restricting cooperation with immigration enforcement, 
• Transparent reporting including query volume trends, high-level categories of uses, who the data is shared with, and discipline/misuse outcomes, 
• Oversight hearings built into normal governance routines, such as the council’s Public Safety and Health Committee, which the letter notes “is a natural forum for recurring surveillance oversight hearings and for receiving transparency reports,” 
• Treating surveillance technology contracts as public interest infrastructure agreements “requiring clarity on retention and disclosure, clear rules on secondary use, and enforceable audit access for the city and designated independent reviewers,”
• And reforms to local legislation such as adopting a Community Control Over Police Surveillance (CCOPS) policy, which local activists and community members have been calling for in recent years. 

Just a day after the alders issued their letter, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Wisconsin also sent its own communication to the Public Safety and Health Committee regarding Flock and other police surveillance technology. 

“It is critical that our community has a say in if and how invasive surveillance technologies are used, how they are deployed against residents, if and how their data is stored and shared with third parties, and whether spending our limited tax dollars on surveillance technologies is the best way to promote public safety,” the ACLU letter stated.

Abuse of surveillance tech cases across Wisconsin

The ACLU’s letter also noted “a disturbing trend in Wisconsin and across the country regarding law enforcement abuse of Flock [Automatic License Plate Reader] technology to stalk and harass people, in most cases women.” 

If convicted, Ayala could face up to nine months in prison and up to $10,000 in fines. However, a criminal complaint issued for Ayala mentions that negotiations have been underway for a settlement that would include his resignation. 

Departments are also inconsistent in how they respond to the use of vague or overly common search terms. After the Examiner approached the Waukesha Police Department about why hundreds of Flock searches had been labeled with only “.” in the field indicating the reason for the search, a spokesperson said that a single officer was responsible for the searches and had been counseled and retrained. By contrast the West Allis Police Department — the state’s most frequent user of the “.” Flock search term during the first half of 2025 — only asserted that its officers are properly trained, and that it investigates misuse cases “when warranted.” 

In addition to Ayala, another officer accused of misusing surveillance technology is Jay Johnson, the chief of the Greenfield Police Department. Johnson is facing felony misconduct in public office charges for installing a department-owned pole camera on his property during a messy divorce. Johnson is also accused of destroying data by deleting text messages after a meeting where he learned about the accusations and was offered a chance to retire. 

In Menasha, Wisconsin, Cristian Morales is facing felony misconduct in public office charges for allegedly using Flock to track someone while he was off duty. If convicted, the Menasha Police Department officer could be imprisoned for up to three and a half years and be fined up to $10,000. As with Ayala, Morales’ alleged misuse of Flock was discovered only after a complaint was made to another police department, and not through oversight by Menasha, Auto Wire reported. 

A new case of Flock abuse in Kenosha

In Kenosha County, a sheriff’s deputy was reportedly offered a severance package to resign, and has yet to face charges for inappropriate use of surveillance technology. 

Internal investigation documents obtained by the Examiner through an open records request show that, in late September, Frank McGrath, at that time a Kenosha County Sheriff Department deputy, logged into an app on his phone to access his agency’s Flock network. McGrath wanted to search for a specific vehicle, entering “suspicious” as the reason for using the AI-powered cameras. But McGrath was off duty, and his searches — lacking any case numbers — weren’t intended to find a murder suspect, stolen car, or kidnapped child. Instead, McGrath was apparently stalking another Kenosha County deputy whom he was dating. 

McGrath’s 16 Flock searches were first noticed by Kenosha County Sheriff Capt. Erik Klinkhammer, during an audit in October 2025. After checking the license plate which McGrath repeatedly searched in the TIME system — a consolidated information database used by law enforcement — Klinkhammer confirmed that the targeted vehicle belonged to a Kenosha County Sheriff’s deputy, whose name is redacted in the documents obtained by the Examiner through records requests. 

“There was no indication that [REDACTED] or her vehicle were connected to any investigation, and informal internal speculation suggested a possible romantic relationship between McGrath and [REDACTED],” the internal investigation report states. “These factors raised concerns regarding McGrath’s motive for conducting off-duty searches of her vehicle.” 

None of McGrath’s other Flock searches were like those that raised Klinkhammer’s suspicions. McGrath was placed on administrative leave and ordered to report to the sheriff’s office for questioning. The vice president of the Kenosha Sheriff Offices union was also notified of the situation.

McGrath initially denied having misused Flock stating that, “he performed the searches through the FLOCK app on his phone and dismissed the relevance of questions about a relationship with [REDACTED],” the investigation report states. McGrath surrendered his badge and firearm before leaving the room. “Within moments,” the reports continued, McGrath returned with the union vice president saying he didn’t want to leave the situation unresolved, and admitting that he was having romantic relationship problems with the deputy whose license he searched in Flock. Klinkhammer then called the deputy in question, who confirmed that she already knew about McGrath monitoring her vehicle through Flock. “[REDACTED] said she was not afraid of McGrath and is not in fear of her safety,” the investigation report states. 

In a separate interview, the deputy McGrath was monitoring also appeared with a union representative. She said that McGrath had told her about the Flock searches a week or two before Klinkhammer contacted her. “[REDACTED] stated she did believe his actions were in violation of policy and found it ‘weird,’ but she did not report the information to a supervisor,” the investigation report states. She elaborated on a close friendship she had with another male coworker who, after learning about her relationship with McGrath, had been giving her the “cold shoulder.” 

“She was extremely upset by this change, and while speaking with McGrath on the day of the FLOCK searches, she became emotional and cried,” the investigation report states. “She explained that she and this coworker communicated daily, both on and off duty, and the sudden distance was upsetting. She stated that McGrath told her her reaction was not normal and questioned whether she had romantic feelings for the coworker. [REDACTED] told him she did not, explaining she was simply hurt by the loss of the friendship.”

Later, McGrath questioned her about who had access to her vehicle. “Because she lives with her parents, she explained that either her mother or father can take her car at any time,” the investigation report states. “She noted it was unusual that McGrath repeatedly asked this question.” The two eventually had “a significant argument related to her having male friends,” which led to her distancing herself from her male friends, after which things with McGrath improved, according to the report. 

Surveillance motivated by jealousy

“[REDACTED] denied any physical altercations, domestic violence, or concerning behavior of that nature during the relationship,” the investigation report states. “She stated McGrath did not like her having male friends, wanted to go through her phone at times, and had expressed jealousy issues, but she denied any physical incidents. She also denied believing she was being stalked, stating that she and McGrath shared their iPhone locations with each other.”

The two talked about the situation again after McGrath was placed on leave, devolving into another argument. “[REDACTED] stated McGrath never asked her to lie for him and instructed her to tell the truth,” the investigation report states. “She confirmed they are still currently in a relationship, though McGrath has made only limited comments about discussing the situation with his union representative.” The investigation report notes that, “when asked why she did not initially report McGrath’s FLOCK use after he told her, [REDACTED] said she did not know what to do and felt the situation was strange.”

When he spoke with investigators, McGrath said he’d undergone Flock training and understood police databases can only be used for “legitimate investigative purposes,” and agreed that his own use was “unauthorized.” However, McGrath told investigators that his understanding of Flock and license plate reader policies “was vague” and he said that “although he signs off on policy updates, he often does not read them.”

McGrath said that his own insecurity and the way the female deputy reacted to her friend cutting her off contributed to his misuse of Flock. “He explained that he first ran a partial plate using the digits he knew, then used an Antioch, Illinois, camera hit from a prior visit to his residence to identify her full plate number,” the investigation reads. “He then continued searching her movements through the system. His stated goal was to determine whether [REDACTED] was at home or possibly visiting the male coworker he was suspicious of.” 

McGrath said he “knew [he] probably shouldn’t have” used Flock for personal reasons “but believed FLOCK was not as tightly regulated as TIME.” He also said that he didn’t use other police databases such as LEADS or New Work for personal reasons “and could not explain why he treated FLOCK differently.” McGrath also admitted to initially lying to Capt. Klinkhammer “claiming he was embarrassed and ashamed,” the investigation report notes. 

Besides Flock, McGrath also used a squad car tracking system called Polaris to monitor his partner. “He admitted these searches were motivated by jealousy, stating he checked to see where she was, who she might be sitting near, or which deputies she was working alongside,” the report states. “He agreed this behavior was inappropriate and understood how it could be viewed as stalking-type conduct.” McGrath entered the reason for the searches as “suspicious” as “likely an attempt to legitimize the searches, and stated that although he knew in the back of his mind that what he was doing was wrong, he was not in the right frame of mind at the time.”

‘Knowingly and repeatedly’ misusing Flock

The internal investigation found that McGrath “knowingly and repeatedly” misused Flock and Polaris, and was not truthful when confronted by a supervisor about his actions. “His actions constitute an abuse of his authority and a serious breach of trust regarding confidential law enforcement information,” the investigation report states. “His pattern of personal surveillance using restricted law enforcement systems, coupled with his initial dishonesty, represents serious misconduct. The misuse was repeated, knowing, and extended over multiple months. It occurred off duty, and it was directed at a fellow member of this agency in the context of a romantic relationship.” 

Kenosha County Sheriff Lt. Chase Forster concluded in the investigation that “this level of misconduct significantly undermines the integrity and credibility expected of a Kenosha County Sheriff’s Deputy, and formal discipline is warranted.” Yet that discipline never came. 

According to a John Doe petition filed by Kevin Mathewson, a controversial local figure who runs the Kenosha County Eye, McGrath resigned and avoided having his case referred to the district attorney’s office. Mathewson also wrote on Kenosha County Eye that McGrath received a severance agreement when he resigned. Mathewson points out in his John Doe petition that other Wisconsin officers — including in Milwaukee, Menasha and Greenfield — have faced misconduct in public office charges for abusing Flock. By filing a John Doe petition, Mathewson is asking a judge to consider whether probable cause exists to charge McGrath. If a judge decides that probable cause exists, he or she may appoint special prosecutors to explore options to convict.

The Examiner reached out to the Kenosha County Sheriff’s Office for comment. Acting as a spokesperson, Forster declined to comment, saying that the criminal investigation is being carried out by the neighboring Racine County Sheriff’s Office. While a spokesperson from Racine County confirmed that the department is  “working on it,” referring to the investigation against McGrath, they declined to comment further, stating that Kenosha is in charge of releasing information and statements. The Racine County Sheriff spokesperson assured the Examiner that they weren’t “trying to play ‘hide the ball.’”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Reading Time: 6 minutes

Credibility is central to the criminal justice system.

Who is telling the truth? Who do jurors and judges believe? 

A year ago, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, TMJ4 News and Wisconsin Watch published the Milwaukee County district attorney’s list of law enforcement officers with integrity violations, allegations of dishonesty or bias, and past criminal charges. 

It was the first time the full list had been made public. 

Prosecutors must share information about witness credibility, including that of police officers, with defense attorneys. Then the attorneys decide if they want to try to raise those credibility concerns in court. 

Often called the “Brady/Giglio list” because of landmark U.S. Supreme Court cases, the list is meant to help ensure people get a fair trial and prevent wrongful convictions. 

Since the list was published last year, local defense attorneys say they’ve noticed prosecutors giving more frequent Brady notifications. But they argue that Milwaukee County’s criteria of what gets an officer on the list remains too narrow – excluding officers who should qualify – and that there is still too much inconsistency among county prosecutors about when and how they share Brady material. 

District Attorney Kent Lovern said his office has always fulfilled its legal and ethical obligations, but he acknowledged making changes to improve the list’s accuracy. The most significant was appointing two executive staff members to help maintain the list.

The first list his office released to reporters in September 2024 had inaccurate, incomplete and outdated information.

Some examples: an officer wrongly described as involved in a custody death, another listed for a criminal case that had been expunged, and others listed with the wrong agency. A handful of officers were deceased.

A new list, released in October 2025, did not have those kinds of problems.

“We put more eyes on the list that were beyond my two eyes,” Lovern said, adding: “We think that’s enhanced, at least, the information, making it as current as possible.” 

In the last year, the District Attorney’s Office added 13 officers and removed two. Most of those officers were added because of internal, not criminal, investigations, and about half remain employed with their agency, according to public records. 

For Caitlin Firer, a defense attorney, the public list has served as a backstop.  

“If I’m watching a body camera and it’s striking me as something’s not right, I will run that officer’s name on the Brady list,” she told TMJ4 News, later adding: “It’s a resource now where we see those names, and we know they’re on the Brady list.” 

Last year, the city’s largest police union, the Milwaukee Police Association, criticized the district attorney’s decision to release the list and news organizations’ decision to publish it. Others in policing praised the transparency. 

“We’re given so much more credibility and respect when we take the stand as opposed to the average citizen,” said David Thomas, a Maryland-based policing consultant and expert.

The Brady list, he said, “goes to the very question of integrity.” 

District attorney’s office using same strict criteria to add officers to the list

What has not changed is the strict criteria used to get an officer on the list. 

Officers are added only if they have a pending criminal charge, a past conviction or an internal investigation “that brings into question the officer’s integrity.” 

Experts told the Journal Sentinel last year the policy appeared improperly narrow and omitted other potential Brady material, including when a judge finds an officer not credible. 

Lovern stood by that practice. His office still does not track those judicial decisions, commonly known as adverse credibility rulings. 

“Credibility determinations, which are frequently made by courts, don’t constitute judgments of untruthfulness,” he said in a recent interview. 

When prosecutors are weighing whether to call an officer to testify, it makes sense to distinguish between overt dishonesty and credibility rulings, said Rachel Moran, a professor at the University of St. Thomas School of Law in Minneapolis, in an interview last month. 

But an officer who was found not credible in court still belongs on the Brady list, she said.

“An officer who has misstated information in his police report, that’s exculpatory regardless of whether the officer intended to do it,” Moran said.

With long internal investigations, it can be years before an officer lands on the list

If an officer is referred to prosecutors for a potential criminal charge, he or she is placed on the Brady list immediately. 

But when it comes to internal investigations, police departments often notify prosecutors at the end of the process, if an officer is found to have broken any department rules.

That can leave a gap. 

Milwaukee police officer Eian West was added to the list in 2025, two years after he and three other officers came under investigation for their response to two domestic violence calls days apart that involved the same couple.  

The officers were accused of failing to make mandatory arrests or file prompt reports, despite the woman saying the man had threatened her with a gun and tried to set her on fire, according to department records. 

West and another officer went to the second call, on April 11, 2023, after two witnesses reported a man beating a woman in a front yard. The officers called her an ambulance.

Later that day, the woman woke up in the hospital and called Police District 4, prompting a sergeant to send two different officers to reinterview the woman and file a report.

Two days after that, the woman had a miscarriage.

Internal affairs asked West why he waited until his next shift, on April 12, after the other officers had been dispatched, to write his report. West’s report also listed the woman as the suspect and did not document the fact that she lived with the man, which is one of the elements of domestic violence, according to a summary from internal affairs.

West maintained he “was not trying to cover up that he was sent to a battery (domestic violence) and did not file it,” police records show.

Still, the officer agreed that he had violated the core value of integrity because he was not completely honest and accurate about all relevant facts in the case, the records say. 

The domestic violence calls took place in April 2023. Internal affairs interviewed West that July. But the internal investigation did not end until 2025, and only after that was West added to the Brady list.

During those two years, prosecutors did not know his integrity was under question in an investigation that ultimately resulted in a 20-day suspension. 

Since prosecutors did not know, they could not disclose it to defense attorneys. 

Milwaukee Police Chief Jeffrey Norman acknowledged it sometimes takes years to complete internal investigations, depending on the complexity. 

“We are not trying to delay for delay’s sake,” Norman said in an interview. “It is unfortunate that we have a number of investigations on our plate.”

More urgent internal investigations, such as police shootings, can take priority, and the department must respect the officers’ due process and collective bargaining rights, the chief said.

Angel Johnson, a regional attorney manager with the State Public Defenders Office in Milwaukee, said that the office’s clients also have rights. 

“If there’s an officer that has credibility issues and they’re going to testify in a proceeding against my client, (my clients) have the same right to due process,” she said. 

Why some officers were removed from the Brady list

The Brady list is fluid. 

As officers come on, others come off. 

Kenton Burtch and Elric Erving, both of the Milwaukee Police Department, were removed in the last year. 

Erving was investigated for disorderly conduct in 2019. No criminal charges were filed, and his name came off the list, Lovern said. 

Burtch was accused of improperly filing his time card and claiming an estimated $1,700 he was not owed. He was demoted from sergeant and suspended for six days.

He appealed to the city’s Fire and Police Commission, which found the situation was a mistake related to the officer’s remote work arrangement and confusion over how to handle it. The commission overturned his discipline, finding “no indication or evidence of intentional misconduct,” and restored his rank. 

Because of that, Lovern said, his name came off the list. 

In the past, Lovern has removed officers who complete deferred prosecution agreements or who win appeals to get their jobs back. 

Some defense attorneys have argued that officers should only rarely, if ever, come off the Brady list.  

“Once you’re placed on the Brady list, if you continue to testify in court, you should not be removed,” Johnson said. 

As of September 2025, the list had 217 entries involving 190 individual officers. The district attorney’s office released the list in October in response to a public records request. Reporters filed records requests to gather more information about new individuals on the list. Some of those requests remain pending. 

In the months since, the list continues to change. For example, the district attorney’s office added a Milwaukee officer recently charged with accessing sensitive license plate data for personal reasons, despite tagging the purpose of his searches as “investigation.”

It was not the first time the officer, Josue Ayala, had been accused of dishonesty on the job, with one defense attorney even telling a federal prosecutor that Ayala exaggerated so much that it seemed to be a “compulsion,” the Journal Sentinel previously reported. Ayala has since resigned.

Defense attorneys continue to rely on media reports, decisions from the city’s Fire and Police Commission and civil lawsuit judgments to identify officers with questionable credibility – and that’s a problem, Johnson said. 

“It should be happening from the DA’s office, but we are still finding ourselves doing that legwork and it’s not our obligation or ethical duty to do so,” she said.

This story is part of Duty to Disclose, an investigation by the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, TMJ4 News and Wisconsin Watch. The Fund for Investigative Journalism provided financial support for this project.

Milwaukee County’s list of officers with integrity issues became public. What’s happened since? 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.

The Milwaukee Police Department has explicitly banned officers from using masks or other facial coverings to hide their identities, Milwaukee Common Council members announced on Monday. 

“We met with the police chief, delivered the message of what our constituents were demanding, and he acted. This is about responsiveness, accountability and trust,” Alderperson JoCasta Zamarripa said in a statement that quoted four members of the council, including council president José Pérez.

The statement said the new policy is aligned with the council’s “ICE Out” public safety plan. 

Last month, officials announced a package of local ordinance proposals that aim to prepare the city for a possible surge in Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) operations. The package included a requirement for all ICE agents to be unmasked when interacting with the public in Milwaukee. 

City ordinances could be struck down in court, but people in Milwaukee want to see their local government try to protect against abuses by the federal government, Milwaukee Ald. Alex Brower said.

The department updated the uniform requirements in its standard operating procedure, effective Monday. 

The Milwaukee Police Department procedure states that facial coverings and masks are allowed in certain circumstances. These include but are not limited to the following: protection to prevent exposure to hazardous materials, protection on assignments to prevent the spread of diseases or viruses and protection from cold or extreme weather during assignments that require a staff member to be outdoors for periods of time. 

“Note: Facial coverings and masks shall not be used for the purpose of concealing identity,” the procedure states. 

In a statement to the Examiner, the police department expressed gratitude to elected officials, the Milwaukee Police Association and the Milwaukee Police Supervisors Organization, who worked in collaboration to make the modification to the operating procedure, the unsigned statement said, adding, “We are always better together.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Reading Time: 3 minutes

A federal lawsuit filed Feb. 23 by the legal nonprofit group Protect Democracy alleges the Department of Homeland Security used facial recognition technology unlawfully to track legal observers and label them domestic terrorists. 

In Milwaukee County, law enforcement representatives are addressing facial recognition technology-related fears from residents. They’re concerned about a potential collaboration with a company called Biometrica, which provides access to facial recognition search results.  

In August, Milwaukee County Sheriff Denita Ball signed an “agreement of intent” to enter into a contract with Biometrica, said James Burnett, director of public affairs and community engagement and acting chief of staff at the Milwaukee County Sheriff’s Office. 

“But the contract is still considered to be in draft form – not fully signed, executed or valid – and has to proceed, like any other proposed contract, through the county’s statutory signing process,” Burnett said. 

There currently are no services or technology being provided by Biometrica, and Biometrica does not have access to any sheriff’s office data, Burnett said.

County Supervisor Sky Capriolo, member of the county’s Judiciary, Law Enforcement and General Services Committee, said she and residents have serious concerns.  

“It warrants more consideration, education and discussion,” Capriolo said. “I certainly am not ready to green-light a contract.”

Capriolo said she’s waiting to hear whether the contract will go to her committee again. 

Milwaukee Police Chief Jeffrey Norman took a different step and banned the use of facial technology by his department in early February. 

On Feb. 24, Norman announced the suspension of MPD officer Josue Ayala for the improper use of a different tracking tool, the Flock camera system, to track a dating partner and a former partner. 

“I am extremely disappointed to learn about the incident and expect all members, sworn and civilian, to demonstrate the highest ethical standards in the performance of their duties,” said Norman in a statement.

Ayala was charged by the Milwaukee County District Attorney’s Office with one count of attempted misconduct in public office. Norman said he immediately directed MPD to create additional auditing mechanisms.

Concerns remain high

Social justice and civil rights advocates have expressed grave concerns about the use of the technology by both agencies, citing evidence of inaccuracies, racial bias and privacy violations. 

Facial recognition technology uses artificial intelligence to identify someone by comparing a photo of an unknown face to some database of images of known faces, said Katie Kinsey at the Feb. 5 Milwaukee Fire and Police Commission meeting during a presentation by the NYU Policing Project. 

The image databases can include mug shot collections, driver’s license records or images found on the internet, Kinsey said.

Facial recognition technology and local law enforcement

In spring, MPD acknowledged it used outside agencies’ licenses for facial recognition search results for two to three years without a written department policy.

The department also announced it was considering an agreement with Biometrica – an agreement that would have provided access to facial recognition technology to the department in exchange for approximately 2.5 million Milwaukee County Jail booking photos.

This proposal prompted months of public pushback before the announcement by Norman in February that the department would no longer pursue the technology.

ACLU preaches vigilance

The American Civil Liberties Union of Wisconsin welcomed Norman’s announcement but also expressed concerns about MPD’s past decision making.  

It is “extremely concerning that MPD secretly used FRT (facial recognition technology) searches for years without any standard operating procedure – or any written guidelines – in place,” an ACLU spokesperson said in an email to NNS.

The organization is urging Milwaukee residents to remain vigilant.

“Countless Milwaukee residents and community leaders have engaged in thoughtful community education, spent hours upon hours in public meetings and contacted their local elected officials to voice their unequivocal opposition to the use of (facial recognition technology), and they will still be watching,” the spokesperson said. 

The MPD spokesperson told NNS the department could revisit the issue in the future when a policy is in place that aligns with both public safety benefit and public concerns.

---

Jonathan Aguilar is a visual journalist at Milwaukee Neighborhood News Service who is supported through a partnership between CatchLight Local and Report for America.

Milwaukee law enforcement faces growing scrutiny around facial recognition technology use 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.

A Milwaukee police officer has been accused of abusing his access to the department’s Flock camera network, according to a criminal complaint filed by the Milwaukee district attorney’s office Tuesday. Josue Ayala is charged with one count of misdemeanor misconduct in public for allegedly using MPD’s Flock network to determine the locations of two people, one of whom was in a romantic relationship with Ayala. 

If convicted, Ayala could face up to nine months in prison and up to $10,000 in fines. The criminal complaint states that a negotiation is underway, “a condition of which requires Josue Ayala to resign his position as a police officer” for MPD. 

Flock cameras continuously photograph and identify vehicles with AI-powered Automatic License Plate Reader (ALPR) technology, and then store that data in a network which can be searched by law enforcement agencies across the country. Distributed by the multi-billion dollar company Flock Safety, the cameras have been criticized for facilitating mass surveillance of citizens using a system that can be easily abused or misused by law enforcement. 

According to the criminal complaint, one of the alleged victims used a website to determine that Ayala had conducted numerous searches of that person’s license plate. “VICTIM ONE believed that Officer Ayala ran VICTIM ONE’S license plate over 100 times,” the complaint states. Detectives reviewed audit data from MPD’s Flock network showing that one victim had been searched by Ayala 55 times while the other victim had been searched 124 times over the same time period. 

Detectives learned that both victims used to be in a relationship together but had since broken up. After the relationship ended, one of the victims began to date Ayala. The investigation revealed that Ayala had used Flock while dating the victim.

The complaint states that Ayala was on duty when he conducted the searches. When officers use Flock, they need to put in a reason for the search. Ayala used “investigation” in order to conduct the unlawful searches. Last year, an analysis by the Wisconsin Examiner found that “investigation” was the most common search term Wisconsin law enforcement agencies used to access Flock during the first five months of 2025. Other agencies used even more vague search terms, including  just a dot. Agencies disagreed about whether officers should be held accountable for using vague terms. 

In December 2023, MPD leadership issued a memorandum warning that staff who used Flock for reasons unrelated to law enforcement could face discipline. MPD’s policy on ALPR technology and Flock also states that the system should only be used for “bona fide law enforcement purposes.” 

Ayala had been assigned to the MPD’s District 2 station on Lincoln Avenue, but is now on full suspension. The resignation agreement is pending with the Milwaukee County District Attorney’s Office, a police department press release states. 

Police Chief Jeffrey Norman said in a statement, “I am extremely disappointed to learn about the incident and expect all members, sworn and civilian, to demonstrate the highest ethical standards in the performance of their duties.” 

“If a member violates the code of conduct, they will be held accountable,” Norman added.  “… I want to remind the public that everyone is afforded the right of due process under the law, and as such, are innocent until proven guilty.” Norman also directed his department to create additional auditing mechanisms, although the department’s press release does not explain what exactly those mechanisms are. 

Ayala’s alleged use of surveillance technology for personal reasons is not an anomaly. In Menasha, an officer is facing felony misconduct in public office charges for using Flock to track a person’s vehicle while he was off duty. In Kenosha County, a sheriff’s deputy is also accused of using Flock and a squad car tracking system called Polaris to track one of his co-workers. The Examiner has filed records requests to obtain the internal investigation regarding the Kenosha sheriff’s deputy. 

The chief of the Greenfield Police Department is also facing felony misconduct in public office charges for installing a department-owned pole camera system on his property for personal reasons, and then deleting texts which may have been related to the investigation of the camera’s use. WTMJ reported that the chief captured himself deleting the messages using a body camera he’d worn to document a meeting where he was being offered the chance to retire. 

Residents in Milwaukee have been increasingly critical about the use of Flock cameras and facial recognition technology by both the police department and sheriff’s office. After a Fire and Police Commission meeting earlier this month related to facial recognition, where dozens of residents denounced the use of surveillance technologies, Norman announced that MPD would ban facial recognition for its staff. Locals have called for more oversight and transparency around police surveillance technology in the city.

The Milwaukee Police Association (MPD’s union) denounced Norman’s decision to restrict facial recognition. After the charges were announced against Ayala, the union posted on Facebook that he is innocent until proven guilty, that it respects “the integrity of that process,” and clarified that Ayala is not related to the union’s president Alex Ayala. 

Jon McCray Jones, policy analyst for the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Wisconsin, said in a statement that these latest accusations of Flock misuse “exemplify just how easily Flock cameras can be turned against the very people the technology purports to protect.”

McCray Jones criticized the use of vague terms to search Flock’s network, referencing reporting from the Examiner. “These meaningless, one-word descriptions make it impossible to know what the technology is being used for or whether it’s justified,” he said. McCray Jones called for greater public reporting and oversight of surveillance technologies in Milwaukee.

This story has been updated with comment from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Wisconsin.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

An effort to limit the Milwaukee Common Council’s ability to shape police and fire department policy passed an Assembly vote Thursday, in the form of an amendment to a completely unrelated bill. If the measure becomes law, the council would need a unanimous vote before suspending or modifying police or fire department policy. 

The amendment was offered by Rep. Bob Donovan (R-Greenfield) on Thursday, as lawmakers undertook a lengthy Assembly floor session voting on legislation. Although the amendment falls in line with past Republican moves to weaken the control local government has over law enforcement, it was attached to a bill completely unrelated to that issue. 

Donovan’s amendment was attached to a Republican bill framed as granting parents and guardians more access to medical records of minor children. The bill, among other things, would eliminate the ability for children who are at least 14 years old to contest release of their mental health records and the results of HIV testing to their parents or guardians. 

Nothing about the bill Donovan attached his amendment to involves common councils setting policy for police and fire departments. Yet this sort of maneuver was not unheard of in the lead up to the Assembly floor vote on Thursday. Republican lawmakers also amended a bill regarding hunting sandhill cranes to include provisions covering wake boat regulations. Another bill designed to provide additional court support statewide was amended to selectively remove additional public defenders from Milwaukee County. 

It’s also not the first time Republicans worked to disrupt the ability of officials in Milwaukee to oversee the Milwaukee Police Department (MPD). In 2023, after failing to pass bills backed by the Milwaukee Police Association aimed at preventing the city from ever reducing its police force and removing, forcing Milwaukee Public Schools to re-adopt school resource officers, and eliminating the policy-setting power over MPD that the Fire and Police Commission (FPC) had enjoyed for decades, Republican leaders attached those same provisions to a shared revenue deal which Milwaukee County needed in order to avoid a fiscal catastrophe.

Since the passage of the deal, FPC members and local activists alike have decried the attack on the FPC’s ability to oversee the police department. In lieu of setting policy, the FPC is able to make policy recommendations to the common council, an alternative avenue Donovan’s amendment is tailored to close.

Although the amended bill passed the Assembly, it now needs to pass in the Senate, and then to the governor’s desk. It’s unclear if the bill will gain Senate support, where several organizations have lobbied against it.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Reading Time: 4 minutes

The backlog of unresolved felony-related matters in Milwaukee County has surpassed the pandemic-era peak, topping more than 10,000 as of Oct. 13, according to data obtained from the Milwaukee County District Attorney’s Office through an NNS open records request.

As cases linger, people throughout the criminal justice system feel the effects, including victims and their families, people accused of crimes and the broader community, said Kent Lovern, Milwaukee County district attorney.

“‘Justice delayed, justice denied’ applies to everybody,” Lovern said. 

One recent high-profile incident reaffirms how case backlogs could have tragic and life-altering consequences. 

On Feb. 5, a Milwaukee man, Mile Dukic, allegedly stabbed and killed 44-year-old Amanda Varisco on West National Avenue and S. 36th Street. At the time of the killing, Dukic had separate open felony cases in Milwaukee County Circuit Court – for bail jumping and stalking. He was charged with another felony, first-degree intentional homicide, on Feb. 9.

Dukic is currently in custody with bail set at $500,000.

Two backlogs

The district attorney’s office plays a pivotal role at both ends of the felony pipeline, said a spokesperson for the Wisconsin State Public Defender’s Office: referrals from police awaiting a charging decision, plus charged felony cases working their way through the courts.

The Milwaukee Police Department made 5,650 summary felony arrests in 2025, according to an MPD spokesperson. The department continues to work with the Milwaukee County District Attorney’s Office to best address the felony backlog, the MPD spokesperson said.

District attorney records show 2,924 pending uncharged felony cases as of October 2025.

State office wants county to change approach, charge fewer felonies

The spokesperson for the Wisconsin State Public Defender’s Office said the district attorney’s office can and should do more to address the growing backlog by adjusting its approach. 

“We believe prosecutors should be exercising more discretion in which referrals they are charging,” the spokesperson said. The spokesperson said the office regularly sees clients charged with relatively minor offenses lose jobs or housing as a result – consequences that can outweigh the underlying charge.

When the prosecutor’s office officially presses felony charges, these cases can get bogged down and stay in the courts. Resolution to the cases depends not only on prosecutors but also on defense attorneys, judges, court staff and other resources that are strained as well, Lovern said. 

Based on the district attorney’s internal case-tracking system, more than 7,000 felony cases were charged but not yet resolved as of Oct. 13. 

“The influx of felony charges coming out of the DA’s office isn’t benefiting the court system or public safety,” said State Public Defender Jennifer Bias. “It’s a waste of our scarce attorney resources.”

Increase in serious criminal activity

Lovern pushes back on the idea that prosecutors are charging too many cases.

“I want to make it very clear: I don’t have goals for what we ought to be charging,” he said. “I don’t have a directive of what the percentage of our charging rate should be.”

Prosecutors decline to move forward on many referrals, said Jeffrey Altenburg, Milwaukee’s chief deputy district attorney. 

On a basic public safety level, there are simply more serious felonies being committed, Lovern and Altenburg said.

“I think that that’s exactly what we’re seeing,” Altenburg said. “We’re seeing more referrals coming to this office that involve firearms, violence, sexual violence.” 

Milwaukee Police Department data show reports of the majority of the most serious offenses declined from 2024 to 2025, with the exception of homicides and human trafficking, which increased slightly.

Violent crime in Milwaukee has generally declined in the past few years – but from historic highs seen during the pandemic, according to data from the Council on Criminal Justice.

When to charge

Charging decisions begin with a decision about whether a case is provable beyond a reasonable doubt, Altenburg said.

“We adhere to that standard very scrupulously in this office,” he said.  

Once that is determined, the district attorney’s office moves to the question of whether prosecution is necessary or a different kind of intervention is more appropriate, Altenburg said.

Alternatives to traditional prosecution

In Milwaukee, there are two alternative interventions: diversion and deferred prosecution.

Diversion allows a person to complete requirements, such as treatment, restitution or community service, without a criminal charge. 

Deferred prosecution involves issuing charges with an agreement in which a conviction is withheld if the person meets various conditions.

Lovern said local prosecutors created an early-intervention approach designed to steer nonviolent cases driven by substance use or mental health challenges out of the criminal justice system when appropriate. 

In 2020, Milwaukee County intervened in roughly 600 cases, Altenburg said. Last year, the county intervened in roughly 1,600 cases.

Lovern said the nature of modern policing – and modern evidence – has fundamentally changed prosecutors’ workload.

The sheer volume of evidence that must be reviewed contributes to growing wait times before charging decisions can be made, Lovern said. 

More evidence is generated because of modern technologies and other tools used by police. A single incident can, for example, generate hours of body camera footage that prosecutors review before making charging decisions, Lovern said. 

In 2020, there were 84,000 pieces of evidence in Milwaukee’s database. In 2024, there were 1.7 million items. 

“I’m sure last year, it was even higher. That’s just where we’re headed,” Lovern said.

Staffing and system capacity

Something that adds to both backlogs – uncharged cases awaiting a decision and charged cases in the system – is insufficient staffing levels throughout the court system, a trend that has continued since the pandemic. 

The district attorney’s office has about 125 full-time prosecutors, Lovern said. 

“Now that is a lot. It’s the same number that we had when (Altenburg) and I started in this office 28 years ago, though.”

The State Public Defender’s Office also faces staffing challenges, according to its spokesperson. 

“Broadly speaking, our agency needs more staff statewide,” the spokesperson said. “This wouldn’t address delays caused by prosecutors, but it would help to decrease the time it takes to appoint attorneys to indigent defendants and reduce the turnover in staff that office experiences due to burnout.”

There is also a need for support staff who help with administrative tasks, freeing up attorneys.

Lovern said unstable funding adds to staffing pressures.

About a third of legal staff in the county had been funded with federal grant money, which has been a little less predictable in the last couple of years, Lovern said.  

“We can use more positions,” Lovern said. “There’s no question about that.”

Justice delayed: More than 10,000 felony matters unresolved in Milwaukee County 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.

A years-long debate over the use of facial recognition software by the Milwaukee Police Department (MPD) came to a head at a contentious Thursday meeting of the city’s Fire and Police Commission (FPC) attended by more than 60 local residents. Over the course of questioning, stretching late into the evening hours, commissioners learned from MPD leadership that the department had continued using facial recognition software, even as a draft policy to put guardrails on the technology was still being developed outside of the FPC’s control. 

By meeting’s end, FPC vice chairwoman Bree Spencer expressed a desire for the commission to consider finding some way to push for a pause to MPD’s use of facial recognition software, though the FPC itself did not take any immediate formal action. Less than 24 hours later, MPD Chief Jeffrey Norman announced that the department would ban the use of facial recognition technology, and discontinue its efforts to acquire permanent access to the technology. 

During the Thursday meeting, Norman and his staff were grilled by FPC commissioners after hours of impassioned public testimony. The sweltering meeting room was packed almost shoulder-to-shoulder, with every seat taken and people standing along the wall in spaces not already taken by the local news station’s bulky cameras. Many others waited in the hallway, as an overflow room had not been set up.

One by one, local residents expressed a variety of grievances about facial recognition. Some decried MPD’s prior use of software without disclosure to the public or FPC, while others expressed fears about how the technology could be used against Milwaukeeans by what many called an authoritarian federal government. 

Paul Smith, a member of the Oneida Nation who serves on Milwaukee’s Equal Rights Commission, was the first to speak. Smith described how his relatives had been among the first to come down from the Oneida reservation to Milwaukee seeking factory work. “We are also people who have to carry two IDs all the time,” said Smith. He suggested that facial recognition and other camera technologies are methods the government uses to track people it considers enemies. 

“I live in fear every day,” said Smith, describing how his heart rate accelerates when he drives out of Milwaukee County. Smith added that facial recognition technology is unreliable.  “My dad can use my phone because his face looks like mine,” he said.  “These cameras don’t work and they punish people, and there’s no presumption of innocence when you’re being watched all the time.”

Nadiyah Johnson, founder and CEO of the Milky Way Tech Hub, highlighted the notoriously high error rates facial recognition software has for people of color. Johnson said that federal tests have shown false positive rates as much as 10 to 100 times higher for Black people. “I’m sure that we all can understand why that would be a problem for the city of Milwaukee,” said Johnson. She added that “guardrails do not fix the core problem.” 

When surveillance infrastructure is created, Johnson said, the scope of who is targeted expands. She and other community members who spoke brought up Flock license plate reader cameras which, like facial recognition, are AI-powered and a top concern for many who attended Thursday night’s FPC meeting. Flock has attracted criticism for being used for vague or unlawful reasons by police, and for leaving some feeds exposed on the open internet. “This is not a future concern, this is already happening nationally,” said Johnson. “The public cannot meaningfully consent to systems we can not see, audit, or challenge.”

Amanda Merkwae, advocacy director for the American Civil Liberties Union of Wisconsin, recounted her attempts to learn more about MPD’s use of facial recognition by filing open records requests. After waiting five months and threatening to sue, the ACLU was sent a response that the MPD does not track requests made for use of facial recognition in individual investigations. When the city’s IT department ran an email search, the term “facial recognition” appeared in 196,688 emails from 2020-2025. 

When the ACLU narrowed the request to 16 cases which MPD cited in presentations to city commissions, they found that “in a handful of those cases” which had been “hand picked” by MPD for those presentations, “the police reports did not mention [Facial Recognition Technology] at all,” Merkwae told the FPC. “In conversations with some defense attorneys, it appears that [Facial Recognition Technology] use was not turned over to the defense in discovery in some cases,” said Merkwae. “In cases where attorneys filed pre-trial motions to get insight into the notoriously racially biased [Facial Recognition Technology] algorithms, they hit a brick wall because that information is proprietary.” 

In its presentations to city officials, MPD had said that facial recognition helped identify suspects in cases including sexual assault and shooting investigations.

Much of the public testimony Thursday focused on the potential for surveillance technologies to harm democracy. Speakers focused on the immigration crackdown in Minnesota, where thousands of people have been arrested and two people killed by federal agents. Videos posted online show immigration agents taking pictures of protesters, legal observers and vehicles, using facial recognition technology to identify detainees, and taunting members of the public by saying their pictures were going to be uploaded to a database of  domestic terrorists. An immigrants’ rights group recently discovered what it describes as a watchlist of immigration attorneys created by ICE.

Taleavia Cole and her husband Caliph Muab-El have experienced police surveillance after protesting the killing of Cole’s brother Alvin. Several of Cole’s family members, their lawyers and dozens of others were placed on a list created by the Wauwatosa Police Department. The list, which also included a Wisconsin Examiner reporter, was shared with numerous state, local, and federal agencies and was also referred to by police as a “target list”.

Muab-El said Black and brown communities have been used as test subjects for surveillance and militarized policing. This is how he views MPD’s deal with the data company Biometrica, which has offered to trade 2.5 million jail and booking photos from Milwaukee for MPD to have access to facial recognition software. 

“We’re talking about people,” said Muab-El. “And when we’re talking about people, we need to focus on the things that are most important for people to thrive in circumstances like this. Everything in our society and our community has been gutted from us almost. The resources are very scarce already…To institute something like this that will exacerbate the circumstances of our already falling and broken-in-pieces communities is definitely an attack on justice on our people.” 

He stressed that “anybody can be misidentified at any time,” and that the city will not be able to prevent federal agencies from accessing the data it collects using facial recognition software. “No one is safe,” said Muab-El. “Bystanders who believe in justice and the cause of people, these people are going to become more vulnerable. These attacks are going to become more prevalent…They’re going to become more intense.”

Cole recounted her own experiences of being placed on the target list, and her belief that even her family’s phone calls were being monitored. “So whose side are you on is the real question, because someday it could be your family member,” she said. “And next thing you know, they want to know what you know, what you’re saying, what you’re doing. Like you’re a criminal, like you’re nobody.” 

Testimony went on for several hours, pausing for a presentation on facial recognition technology from the New York University Law School Policing Project. The presenters said that while facial recognition can assist law enforcement investigations, the technology also carries serious constitutional and civil risks. Whether a city or town uses facial recognition software should be a decision made by the entire community, the presenters said, adding that having guardrails to prevent abuse of the technology is important. 

Late in the meeting, after many people had left, Chief Norman and MPD staff provided an update and took questions from the FPC. Norman said a draft policy his department’s use of facial recognition technology had not yet been finalized, and that he was “slow walking” the process to get as much input as possible. He stressed that facial recognition software is used to develop leads, and cannot be used as the sole basis for establishing probable cause for an arrest. The department had also begun logging uses of facial recognition, but those records only captured uses since 2024. 

Under sharp questioning from FPC Commissioner Krissie Fung the commission learned that MPD had continued using facial recognition technology even as the drafting of a policy was ongoing. Some sort of of a draft policy — described by Fung as a “draft of a draft of a draft” — appeared to have been viewed by at least some members of the city’s common council, but not the FPC. 

Although several commissioners expressed concerns about facial recognition technology and MPD’s deal with Biometrica, the FPC’s power to do anything about it is limited, since the Republican-controlled Legislature had worked to eliminate the FPC’s policy-making powers for the Milwaukee police. The debate over the use of facial recognition software in Milwaukee had gone on since last year, with members of the public speaking against its adoption consistently and in great numbers. Spencer, the FPC’s vice-chairwoman, said that the public shouldn’t have to attend more meetings to say the same things, and that her own trust in the department on the issue had eroded. 

In a statement issued Friday, Heather Hough, Norman’s chief of staff, said the police department understands “the public concern, particularly in light of national circumstances…Despite our belief that this is useful technology…we recognize that public trust is far more valuable.” Hough’s statement continued, “therefore, effective immediately, Chief (Jeffrey) Norman will issue a department directive banning the use of facial recognition for all members.” 

Hough said that MPD will continue work on creating a policy, but will not use facial recognition technology until that process is complete. While MPD appeared to be responding to the public outcry, the Milwaukee Police Association (the department’s union) said in a statement that it was “deeply concerned and disappointed” by the decision to restrict facial recognition technology. The police association was also irked by recent restrictions on vehicle pursuits saying that both policy shifts do not “eliminate crime or danger,” but instead “risks shifting that danger onto Milwaukee residents and the officers sworn to protect them.” 

The union’s statement described facial recognition as “an investigative tool that can assist detectives in generating leads in violent crime cases. It does not replace traditional police work or serve as a basis for arrest without further investigation. When used responsibly and with appropriate safeguards, this technology can help identify violent offenders, support victims, and improve case clearance rates.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE