The Milwaukee County Courthouse (Photo by Isiah Holmes/Wisconsin Examiner)
The Milwaukee County Board of Supervisors unanimously passed a resolution on Thursday, calling on the Milwaukee County Sheriffs Office (MCSO) to work with the community to create a regulatory framework for the use of facial recognition technology. MCSO is currently exploring an agreement with Biometrica, a data company that provides facial recognition technology to local police departments.
“Facial recognition technology has been proven to disproportionately affect communities of color and young women,” said Sup. Juan Miguel Martinez. “The more facial recognition technology, the more people are able to criminalize people executing their First Amendment rights. I feel this is an issue not left or right.” Miguel Martinez also expressed concerns about the use of facial recognition technology to aid immigration enforcement or to surveil protests.
The Wisconsin Examiner’s Criminal Justice Reporting Project shines a light on incarceration, law enforcement and criminal justice issues with support from the Public Welfare Foundation.
Privacy concerns have been heightened during the Trump administration’s surge in immigration enforcement and crackdowns on dissent. In Milwaukee, several people were arrested by federal agents after attending regular hearings at the county courthouse. In April, Milwaukee County Circuit Court Judge Hannah Dugan was arrested and accused of obstructing federal agents after she directed a man sought by immigration officers out a side door in her courtroom that led into a public hallway.
MCSO leaders said they aim to use the technology to identify people after violent crime incidents.
Nevertheless, members of the public and some elected officials raised concerns about the technology. The resolution contains language stating that facial recognition technology can be inaccurate and could negatively affect certain groups including people of color, LGBTQ people, activists, immigrants and people seeking reproductive health care.
The resolution states that the county board supports pausing any future acquisition of facial recognition until regulatory policies can be developed. It also calls on the county’s Information Management Services Division, Corporation Council and MCSO to collaborate with “relevant stakeholders” including privacy and free speech advocates, in developing that policy framework. Out of this collaborative effort will eventually emerge recommendations to the county board as to whether facial recognition technology:
Should be prohibited or strictly limited without the informed knowledge and consent of the individual being scanned, except under narrowly defined circumstances, such as during active criminal investigations,
Whether the types of data collected by the technology should be defined and limited, as well as strict retention periods for data,
Prohibit facial recognition data from being shared with third parties, unless authorized through a rigorous, transparent approval process which itself would be subject to oversight,
And whether departments using facial recognition should be required to submit annual reports detailing its use, including metrics of deployment, effectiveness, and analysis on the impact on communities of color, immigrants and other vulnerable groups.
The resolution passed by the county board calls for a final recommendation to be established no later than May 2026. By December 2025 the county board expects a status update, according to the resolution.
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.”
The Wisconsin Examiner’s Criminal Justice Reporting Project shines a light on incarceration, law enforcement and criminal justice issues with support from the Public Welfare Foundation.
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.
The Milwaukee Police Administration Building downtown. A surveillance van, or “critical response vehicle” is in the background. (Photo | Isiah Holmes)
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.”
The Milwaukee County Courthouse. (Photo by Isiah Holmes/Wisconsin Examiner)
“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.
As the Milwaukee Police Department moves to expand its use of facial recognition technology, a June report from the federal government finds this technology continues to disproportionately misidentify people of color.
Elected officials and civil rights groups have been raising this concern as a clear reason why MPD’s plan should be paused or rejected entirely.
MPD says there are ways to address this limitation.
The Milwaukee Equal Rights Commission on Wednesday, June 18, will hold a public meeting to assess potential discrimination-related risks.
The report
In 2019, the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology released a major report evaluating how demographics affect outcomes in facial recognition systems.
The report found skin color and ethnicity often had an effect.
With domestic law enforcement images, for example, the system most often led to false positives – when someone is incorrectly identified – for American Indians. Rates were also elevated for African American and Asian populations.
On June 2, the agency issued a report showing that facial recognition systems were more likely to mistake people from predominantly darker-skinned regions for someone else. This included people from sub-Saharan Africa, South Asia and the Caribbean, compared with people from Europe and Central Asia.
Higher rates of misidentifications for people of color raise concerns that facial recognition could lead to more wrongful stops and arrests by police.
MPD’s plan
MPD Chief of Staff Heather Hough, speaking during an April meeting of the Milwaukee Fire and Police Commission, said the department has used facial recognition technology in the past in coordination with other police departments.
She stressed its crime-fighting benefits.
“Facial recognition technology is a valuable tool in solving crimes and increasing public safety,” Hough said.
Milwaukee Mayor Cavalier Johnson supports the use of this technology for the same reason, Jeff Fleming, spokesperson for the mayor’s office, wrote in an email.
“Identifying, apprehending and bringing to justice criminals in our city does reduce crime,” Fleming wrote.
During the commission meeting, Paul Lau, who oversees MPD’s criminal investigations bureau, said the department is considering an official agreement with a company called Biometrica.
“We anticipate this usually being used by our detective bureau in the investigation of major violent felonies,” Lau said.
Community response
Emilio De Torre, executive director of Milwaukee Turners, cited some of the 2019 federal findings in an op-ed, arguing that “entrusting facial recognition to routine policing is not public safety; it is an avoidable risk that history shows will fall hardest on Black Milwaukeeans.”
Milwaukee Turners is one of 19 organizations that sent a letter to the Milwaukee Common Council expressing concerns about surveillance technology. The letter urges the council to adopt an ordinance ensuring community participation in deciding if and how it is used.
Some members of the Common Council have come out in strong opposition to MPD’s plan as well.
“It’s both embarrassing and dangerous for false positives to occur at such a high rate,” Alderman José G. Pérez, Common Council president, told NNS.
Such flaws would likely lead to due process violations, he said.
Addressing flaws
Hough said MPD knows there are people in the community who are “very leery” of police using this technology, adding that their “concerns about civil liberties are important.”
“I want to make it very clear: Facial recognition on its own is never enough. It requires human analysis and additional investigation.”
MPD is committed to a “thoughtful, intentional and mindful” policy that considers community input, Hough said.
Lau said MPD will look into racial bias training provided by Biometrica, and people using the technology will need to have training on best practices.
The company says errors identified in 2019 stemmed from several flaws that can be countered with, for example, anti-bias training for analysts who review facial recognition alerts.
Who gets to decide?
Since Wisconsin Act 12, Milwaukee Police Chief Jeffrey Norman is free to develop any official policy he chooses. The Common Council has the only formal check that exists.
By a two-thirds vote – or 10 of Milwaukee’s 15 aldermen – the council can block or modify MPD policies. But it must wait for a policy to be officially implemented.
The state Legislature could pass a statewide ban or restrictions, and the Common Council could adopt an ordinance regulating or banning its use.
Alderman Alex Brower told NNS he will be doing everything in his power, as a member of the Common Council, to oppose MPD’s acquisition of facial recognition technology.
What residents can do
People will have an opportunity to share their opinions about MPD’s plan – for and against – at an upcoming meeting of the Milwaukee Equal Rights Commission.
Commission members will use testimony about facial recognition to help determine the discrimination-related risks it may pose, said Tony Snell, chair of the commission.
“We want to listen to as many people as possible,” Snell said.
The commission can make recommendations to the Common Council, the mayor, MPD and the Fire and Police Commission.
The commission meeting will be held at 4 p.m. Wednesday, June 18, at Milwaukee City Hall, 200 E. Wells St.
Those who wish to speak must register by emailing ERC@milwaukee.gov. Each speaker will have up to three minutes. People can also send written testimony to this email address so it can be included in the public record.
Milwaukee PD officers monitor the May Day 2025 march with a Critical Response Vehicle, outfitted as a surveillance van. (Photo by Isiah Holmes/Wisconsin Examiner)
A group of 19 community organizations have joined forces to push for oversight of police surveillance in Milwaukee. Together the groups signed an open letter addressed to the city’s common council, asking it to adopt a Community Control Over Police Surveillance (CCOPS) ordinance.
The measure would require existing surveillance technologies used by the Milwaukee Police Department (MPD) to receive a public hearing and be subject to approval by the Milwaukee Common Council. The ordinance would also require the department to produce an annual report of surveillance gear.
The Wisconsin Examiner’s Criminal Justice Reporting Project shines a light on incarceration, law enforcement and criminal justice issues with support from the Public Welfare Foundation.
“The proliferation of surveillance technology by the Milwaukee Police Department has occurred with virtually no transparency, no opportunities for community input and — without a real opportunity to reject surveillance techs or advocate for critical guardrails — presents significant threats to civil rights and civil liberties that hurts us all but disproportionately impact communities of color, queer communities, people seeking reproductive healthcare, immigrant communities, people fleeing violence, and low-income communities,” the coalition states in its letter.
“While we trust our local elected officials in Milwaukee, in light of the current political climate and the uncertainty surrounding future administrations at both the federal and state levels (both in Wisconsin and in other states), 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 letter adds.
CCOPS ordinances have already passed in 26 cities nationwide, and calls to rein in the flow and development of police surveillance technologies have grown in recent years in Milwaukee. Last year, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Wisconsin began advocating for CCOPS ordinances in the Badger State, prompted by a lack of discussion on the issue and the impending Republican National Convention during the summer of 2024.
As with the 2020 Democratic National Convention four years earlier, the RNC brought with it an influx of new equipment that allowed MPD to augment its surveillance network. Before the DNC the police department upgraded its mobile phone surveillance gear, expanded a camera network capable of using automatic license plate reader technology, and purchased vans equipped with cameras and drones. The RNC likewise opened the door for a new open source intelligence software, growing MPD’s social media surveillance capabilities.
During the summer of 2020, many people who joined protests following the death of George Floyd witnessed these technologies, and reported suspicions that they were being monitored. As time passed, investigations revealed that local police departments monitored social media closely and drew information from confidential databases, with one agency funneling much of what it’d learned into a “target list” of nearly 200 people. The list had been shared with dozens of local, state, and federal agencies from Milwaukee to Kenosha.
An officer films a rally and march held at Red Arrow Park for Dvontaye Mitchell and Sam Sharpe. (Photo | Isiah Holmes)
The accumulation of these issues spurred the group of 19 community organizations to sign the letter calling for CCOPS. The coalition includes Planned Parenthood, Black Leaders Organizing Communities (BLOC), the ACLU of Wisconsin, Milwaukee Alliance Against Racist and Political Repression, Ex-Incarcerated People Organizing (EXPO), Voces de la Frontera Action, ComForce, Citizen Action of Wisconsin, the Milwaukee County League of Women Voters and others.
The letter states that “policies are increasingly enacted, and local governments and their surveillance mechanisms will likely be used to target individuals seeking or providing these services. This scenario is particularly alarming given that Black, Brown, Muslim, queer, low-income, and immigrant communities are already disproportionately affected by law enforcement practices.”
“Without robust oversight, we risk a resurgence of COINTELPRO-like tactics, where surveillance was used to suppress political dissent and target minority groups, including Dr. Martin Luther King Jr,” the letter states. “At a minimum, people who live, work, visit, or attend school in Milwaukee deserve to know if and how they’re being surveilled and who has access to that surveillance data.”
Login
