Reading Time: 12 minutes

Wearing his Milwaukee police uniform, Gregory Carson Jr. stepped into the witness stand, raised his right hand and swore to tell the truth.

Two years earlier, a man had been shot in an alley. His girlfriend said police pressured her to allow a search of the duplex as she held her infant. That search had turned up five guns, and now her boyfriend faced a federal charge.

On the stand that afternoon, a public defender asked Carson if he recalled making inappropriate statements to the girlfriend. Commenting on seeing her underwear on the floor? Reaching out to her hours later? Texting her?

Carson’s answer under oath to each question was the same.

No.

A few witnesses later, the girlfriend swore to tell the truth and read screenshots of text messages she had received.

Hey, it’s me. Honestly it was seeing your thong on the floor that had me like damn lol.

The woman replied to ask who was contacting her. She read the response in court: Hey it’s Carson from yesterday and I understand.

The officer had been caught in a lie.

At the time, Carson already was on the Milwaukee County district attorney’s list of officers with a history of credibility, integrity or bias concerns, commonly referred to as a “Brady/Giglio” list.

He also was under internal investigation for those same text messages. None of that was known to the defense attorney who questioned him. 

After that court hearing, Carson remained on the Milwaukee Police Department payroll for more than two years. In that period, he came under internal investigation three more times.

His nine-year career illustrates the risk of keeping such officers on the force and interacting with the public after their credibility and integrity have come under question. At least a dozen officers, including Carson, kept their jobs after landing on the Brady list, then ended up on the list again for another incident, an investigation by the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, TMJ4 News and Wisconsin Watch found.

Reached in April, Carson declined an interview request. 

Police Chief Jeffrey Norman said Carson faced several allegations that overlapped in time and that the officer had due process and collective bargaining rights. Internal investigations can take months or even years to complete, the chief added.

“But we still have to remember, just as a court case, you are innocent until proven guilty,” Norman said in an interview in January.

Officers’ rights are important, but so is protecting public trust, said Justin Nix, associate professor of criminology and criminal justice at the University of Nebraska Omaha.

“Officers can arrest us, they can use force on us, and along with that comes a lot of responsibility to uphold certain values and to be honest,” Nix said in June. 

“When officers fail to meet those standards, in my mind, it’s unacceptable.”

Officer lands on Brady list after domestic violence arrest but keeps his job

Carson wanted a long career with the Milwaukee Police Department.

He started as a police aide.

He had relatives who were cops and he wanted to make a difference in his community, “busting down drug houses, getting guns off the streets,” he wrote to a supervisor in 2015.

“I am striving for success, and 25 years plus on the job,” he added.

He became a sworn officer in 2018. Two years later, his own department arrested him on a domestic violence allegation.

A woman had called for help, saying she wanted Carson to leave their shared residence. She had confronted him over infidelity suspicions, and then he held her against the couch and bit her cheek, she said. 

Police separated the two. Officer Roy Caul asked the woman about domestic violence incidents that had occurred at any time, not just that night in 2020.

“Just because he’s a cop doesn’t mean that he’s free to do this to you,” Caul said, according to transcripts from body camera footage. 

The woman said she just wanted Carson out of the house.

The officer asked if anything occurred that night or within the last 28 days to cause her pain or make her fear for her safety. The woman replied no.

Officers arrested Carson, already in uniform for his next shift, and took him to the training academy for further questioning. He denied hurting the woman.

The department referred the case to the district attorney’s office. Assistant District Attorney Nicolas Heitman declined to charge Carson. In a recent email to the Journal Sentinel, Heitman said the office did not feel it could meet the burden of proof with the available evidence.

Three months later, the woman told Internal Affairs she had not feared for her safety. Carson told Internal Affairs nothing physical happened.

“I feel that I didn’t do anything wrong,” he said, according to department records.

Norman, the chief, disagreed and gave Carson a three-day suspension. 

The arrest resulted in the district attorney’s office placing Carson on its list of officers with credibility or integrity issues, often called a “Brady/Giglio” list, named after two landmark U.S. Supreme Court rulings. 

These lists are maintained to help prosecutors fulfill their legal obligations to share information favorable to the defense. Often, criminal cases come down to the word of an officer against a defendant. Judges and juries must weigh the credibility of both.

With Carson’s name added to the list, prosecutors would need to disclose his criminal referral and integrity violation to defense attorneys if he appeared on their witness list. 

Then it would be up to a defense attorney, and later a judge, to determine if it was relevant to bring up in court.

Carson kept his job, his badge and his ability to testify.

Wisconsin does not have statewide standards for Brady lists, leaving it to each county to track material

Until recently, the county’s full Brady list was kept secret.

After months of pressure from media organizations, the district attorney’s office released the entire list last September. It was inaccurate, inconsistent and incomplete, an investigation by the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, TMJ4 News and Wisconsin Watch found.

As a result of reporters’ questions, District Attorney Kent Lovern removed officers and added others. His office released a corrected and updated list of nearly 200 officers in February, which was published by the Journal Sentinel and media partners.

Who gets on a list – and whether counties even have a list – varies widely in Wisconsin, where there are no statewide standards. Officers can testify in multiple counties or in federal court, depending on the case and where an investigation leads. 

Federal prosecutors, however, have standardized U.S. Department of Justice guidelines. Prosecutors are supposed to ask law enforcement witnesses directly about potential Brady material and check with officers’ home agencies. 

“This process is designed to identify information that is even broader in scope than what is legally required and what might trigger being on a list in another jurisdiction,” said Kenneth Gales, a spokesman with the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Milwaukee, in an email.

Gales maintained the office followed all proper procedures prior to Carson’s testimony in the federal hearing.

Even if a formal list is not shared by prosecutors, state and federal public defenders in eastern Wisconsin often exchange information between their offices about the credibility of law enforcement witnesses.

Criminal defense attorneys in Wisconsin say inconsistencies in disclosing Brady material can lead to injustice and wrongful convictions.

Such information is crucial for an effective defense, said Bridget Krause, trial division director for the State Public Defender’s Office.

“Our clients have liberty at stake,” she said.

In shooting case, a witness says officer made inappropriate comments in person and through texts

In late 2021, the Milwaukee Police Department’s Internal Affairs Division received a letter from a prisoner at Kettle Moraine Correctional Institution.

In it, a man accused officers of illegally searching his house during a shooting investigation. 

It was the call involving Carson. 

Internal Affairs opened an investigation and notified Carson, saying he was accused of taking part in an illegal search and failing to activate his body camera. 

A third allegation read that “while on scene, you made inappropriate comments to a female citizen as well as sending her an inappropriate text message,” according to paperwork served on Carson on March 1, 2022.

Seven days later at the court hearing, Carson denied knowing anything about the texts.

He also defended his decision to turn off his body camera, saying he had switched off the device to speak with other officers, who did the same. No one recorded the conversation detectives had with the woman about searching the home.

“My role in the investigation was over once the detectives were on scene inside the residence,” Carson said, according to a court transcript.

When the man’s girlfriend testified, she said she felt pressured to allow the search after an officer mentioned child welfare. She feared her baby would be taken away. She also said that Carson had flirted with her in the house.

When the prosecutor asked her to elaborate, she quoted Carson as saying: “Oh, you might as well kiss your man goodbye, because you ain’t never going to see him again.”

She also remembered this comment: “I’m going to come back and see you later, okay? You going to let me in? It’s just going to be me and you.”

As the hearing closed, Joshua Uller, a federal public defender, sharpened his argument that officers had acted improperly and their search was not lawful.

Carson and others violated department policy when they didn’t record their interaction with the woman as she signed the consent form. They treated a shooting victim as a suspect without evidence to do so, and Carson had acted completely inappropriately, he said.

“Turning a woman with a newborn child whose boyfriend was just taken away in an ambulance into a romantic objective is really beyond the pale,” Uller said, according to a transcript.

Later that month, Magistrate Judge Stephen C. Dries issued his report and recommendation. Though he chided officers for failing to record the woman signing the form, he concluded they had properly gotten her consent and the search was legal.

Carson’s testimony on the text messages, he said, was not credible.

Officer, already on the Brady list, tries to dissuade a woman from filing a complaint against another officer

Two days after the hearing, an internal investigator questioned Carson about the text messages.

He admitted to sending them, contradicting his testimony. 

He said he had a “weakness” and had contacted the woman in “romantic pursuit,” department records say.

“In no way shape or form did I ever intend to be inappropriate or disrespect her in that manner,” he said, according to the records. “It was honestly me trying to shoot my shot and that was it.”

He denied making inappropriate comments to her in person and denied using his position as a police officer as an advantage. He said he regretted it and had learned a lesson.

He never mentioned his false testimony. At this point, federal prosecutors had not notified the police department of any concerns.

About three months after that interview, Carson had another troubling interaction with a woman he met on duty when she and her ex-boyfriend walked into District 7 on the city’s north side.

The former couple had a heated property dispute. The woman also said the man had intentionally hit her head while closing a car door. The man said it was an accident.

Carson was one of four officers dealing with the situation.

The woman grew frustrated with an officer who implied she was lying about the car door injury and refused to write a report about the incident. Police cited the man for battery.

Hours later, the woman received a call from a blocked number. 

It was Carson.

He explained who he was and said he was off-duty. He pleaded with her not to file a complaint against his co-worker who had implied she was lying, according to police records. All of the officers involved were “good guys” who could only do so much, she remembered him saying.

She also recalled Carson saying that he hoped she would leave her ex-boyfriend alone because he did not want the ex “popping up at her house” while Carson was there, which she believed to be a flirtatious comment.

The next day, she filed two complaints at District 7: one against the officer who implied she lied and one against Carson.

In a recent interview with the Journal Sentinel, the woman called the actions of the officers that day “extremely disheartening.”

“When you’re going through one of the toughest times of your life, the last thing you should have to deal with is them approaching you in a sexual manner or accusing you of lying when you’re literally crying out for help,” said the woman, who asked not to be named publicly for privacy and safety reasons.

Internal Affairs classified her complaint against Carson as potential misconduct in office and assigned a detective to investigate.

A federal prosecutor tells the Milwaukee Police Department an officer gave false testimony in court

That summer, the federal case involving the shooting victim and Carson’s texts continued.

The defense attorney asked another judge to weigh in on the legality of the search. 

As prosecutors prepared for another hearing in July 2022, Assistant U.S. Attorney Megan Paulson reached out to Carson about his prior testimony. 

She then wrote a memo summarizing their conversation, in which she said Carson admitted to sending the texts and not being truthful in his testimony, adding: “I’m human and I’m attracted to women.”

On July 6, 2022, Assistant U.S. Attorney Tim Funnell emailed Internal Affairs with concerns about Carson’s credibility. He followed up the next day with a transcript from the March hearing, the earlier judge’s report and the defense motion for a second evidentiary hearing. 

Asked about the case and the length of time it took the U.S. Attorney’s Office to contact Milwaukee police, a spokesman for the office said prosecutors acted appropriately.

“The United States also timely satisfied all legal disclosure obligations to the Court and to the defense in the matter you have referenced,” Gales said in an email. 

Carson was on the county’s Brady list of officers with credibility issues — he had been since 2021 — but Uller, the federal public defender, said he had never seen the county’s Brady list until the Journal Sentinel and other media partners published it in February.

“While I cannot comment on this particular case, I am not aware of any instance in which, prior to the publication of this list, a lawyer in our office was notified of an officer’s inclusion in this list,” he said.

The Journal Sentinel tried to contact the woman who received the texts but was not successful. Her then-boyfriend charged in the case died in a shooting two years ago.

After hearing from the federal prosecutor in July 2022, Internal Affairs opened an investigation into Carson’s false testimony.

Carson was now the subject of three pending internal investigations, had previously received a three-day suspension and was on the county’s Brady list.  

Still, he remained on patrol.

“At the time, it’s an allegation,” Norman, the police chief, said in an interview.

“We have, again, due process,” he added. “And so we need to make sure that there is, you know, the fairness of ensuring that there is credibility to everything, even from a prosecutor.”

A domestic violence victim calls for help, and an officer under internal investigation responds

Bobbie Lou Schoeffling called 911 for help on July 11, 2022.

Over the previous months, Schoeffling or her sister had repeatedly called police to report violence from Schoeffling’s ex-boyfriend, Nicholas Howell. Howell had not been arrested despite the multiple reports, having an open warrant for fleeing and being under the supervision of correctional agents for a past robbery conviction.

That night, Schoeffling called police twice to report threats from Howell. On the second call, she said he had threatened to burn down her house on Hampton Avenue. She had left the area, fearing for her safety, she added.

Carson and his partner were dispatched to the second call. They did not drive to her house. Instead, Carson spoke to her over the phone and failed to activate his body camera to record their conversation.

Carson and his partner — and the two officers who responded earlier that night — did not file any reports or make any arrests.

Schoeffling was found shot to death two weeks later, on July 26. 

On Sept. 4, 2022, police leaders finally pulled Carson from patrol, stripped him of his police powers and assigned him to the stolen vehicle desk in the forensics division. 

He did not routinely interact with the public in the role, and the job limited him from having to testify, a department spokesperson said in an email to the Journal Sentinel.

As internal investigations conclude, officer faces a suspension, then termination

As Carson sat at his desk job, his discipline piled up.

In February 2023, Norman suspended him for six days for the inappropriate texts and for failing to activate his body camera at the shooting scene.

Two months later, in April, the Journal Sentinel published an investigation into Schoeffling’s death. The article prompted Norman to order a review of every contact she had with the department, including the one involving Carson. The chief later suspended Carson for eight days for how he handled the call.

That same month, Internal Affairs interviewed Carson about the complaint filed by the woman at District 7. That investigation had slowed, in part, because it was difficult to reach the woman for follow-up interviews, records show.

The woman told the Journal Sentinel that she recalled speaking to an investigator once after filing her complaint and said she received several letters from the department.

Carson told the investigator, Sgt. Adam Riley, that when he called the woman, he did not say anything suggestive, only that she was worth more than her ex-boyfriend, according to department records. He acknowledged urging her not to make a complaint.

Riley pointed out the officer appeared to have a “pattern.”

Riley asked about Carson’s court testimony in the earlier case, pointing out he knew about the allegation related to the texts before his testimony. Carson said he thought he was truthful on the stand because he did not remember the text at the time.

Carson also said the federal prosecutor who wrote the memo had “misinterpreted” their conversation. Riley asked if Carson would have done anything differently. 

No, he said.

Federal and state prosecutors declined to file criminal charges of perjury or misconduct against Carson.

But the district attorney’s office did add him to the Brady list for a second time — and the false testimony cost him his job.

Norman fired him for lying under oath and for discouraging the woman at District 7 from making a complaint. 

Carson’s discharge date was Aug. 28, 2024, three years after he was first placed on the Brady list in the aftermath of his domestic violence arrest.

The woman who filed the complaint against Carson and the other officer at District 7 knew Carson had been fired. Still, she has concerns about how the department investigates misconduct allegations.

“I think it’s not handled appropriately or quickly enough,” she said.

Tia Schoeffling, Bobbie Lou Schoeffling’s sister, called it “ridiculous” that an officer arrested in such a case could then respond to domestic violence victims.

She thought of Carson on desk duty for two years, collecting nearly $80,000 in annual wages while he was the subject of several ongoing internal investigations.

She questioned if it would have taken that long to investigate a regular citizen for similar allegations. 

“It’s mind-blowing that he was even allowed to respond to her call,” 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.

Already flagged for integrity concerns, a Milwaukee police officer lied under oath – and kept patrolling 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.

Reading Time: 3 minutes

The Milwaukee Police Department is still undecided about whether to expand its use of facial recognition technology, an MPD spokesperson said. 

“We are in continued conversations with the public related to FRT (facial recognition technology) and have not made any decisions,” the spokesperson said.

MPD has been in discussions with the company Biometrica, which partners with police agencies and others to provide the technology. 

Meanwhile, opposition to the technology continues to grow. 

In July, the Milwaukee Equal Rights Commission unanimously passed a resolution opposing MPD’s use of facial recognition. The Equal Rights Commission is a city body working to promote equality in the city’s institutions and the broader community. 

Tony Snell, chair of the commission, sent a letter to Milwaukee Police Chief Jeffrey Norman urging him to reject the technology. Copies were also sent to the Milwaukee Common Council, Milwaukee Mayor Cavalier Johnson and the Milwaukee Fire and Police Commission.

The resolution cited the risk of error, which it said disproportionately affects historically marginalized groups, as a major reason for opposition.

The Equal Rights Commission’s overall goal is to help the city limit the risk of discrimination against people, Snell said. 

The resolution also noted a lack of publicly available data on positive outcomes in other cities that have adopted the technology. 

In May, 11 of the 15 members of the Milwaukee Common Council sent a letter to Norman opposing facial recognition, citing the risk of misidentification – particularly for people of color and women – and the potential for harm to the community’s trust in law enforcement. 

Additional concerns raised in public testimony to the commission – by community members and civil groups – included the potential sharing of immigration-related data with federal agencies and the targeting of individuals and groups exercising their First Amendment rights. 

What MPD says

MPD has consistently stated that a carefully developed policy could help reduce risks associated with facial recognition.

“Should MPD move forward with acquiring FRT, a policy will be drafted based upon best practices and public input,” a department spokesperson said. 

Facial recognition technology is a potent investigation tool to quickly and effectively generate leads, said Heather Hough, MPD’s chief of staff, during the Equal Rights Commission public meeting about the technology. 

But Hough emphasized facial recognition’s role as one tool among many used by MPD.

“The real work is in the human analysis and additional investigation by our detectives, by our officers,” Hough said.  

She also presented case studies, including a March 2024 homicide, in which facial recognition from a neighboring jurisdiction helped identify suspects.

More recently, MPD said it used facial recognition to identify a suspect in a July 20 homicide on Milwaukee’s North Side after accessing footage from a residential camera near North 55th Street and West Custer Avenue.

What Biometrica says

Biometrica, the company MPD is considering partnering with, stressed how facial recognition’s potential errors can be reduced. 

Kadambari Wade, Biometrica’s chief privacy officer, said the company is constantly evaluating and re-evaluating how it does its work, looking for ways to ensure it is more accurate. 

She said she and her husband, Biometrica CEO Wyly Wade, are aware of concerns about racial bias and work to address them.

“Wyly is a white man from Texas. I’m a brown-skinned immigrant,” she said.

Kadambari Wade said they want to make sure their services would work as well on her as they do on him. 

Wade also denied any current or future plans to cooperate with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

“We do not work with ICE. We do not work in immigration,” she said. 

What’s next?

Since the passage of Wisconsin Act 12, the only official way to amend or reject MPD policy is by a vote of at least two-thirds of the Common Council, or 10 members. 

However, council members cannot make any decision about it until MPD actually drafts its policy, often referred to as a “standard operating procedure.” 

Ald. Peter Burgelis – one of four council members who did not sign onto the Common Council letter to Norman – said he is waiting to make a decision until he sees potential policy from MPD or an official piece of legislation considered by the city’s Public Safety and Health Committee. 

Snell’s main concern is for MPD’s decision to be fair and just.

“Regardless … you want to be part of the process in order to eliminate, or to the extent possible, reduce risk of discrimination to people,” Snell said.

Milwaukee police still weighing expanding use of facial recognition technology 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.

Milwaukee Police Chief Jeffrey Norman (Photo by Isiah Holmes/Wisconsin Examiner)

“I will say whether I’m glad to be here after the questions,” said Milwaukee Police Department (MPD) Chief Jeffrey Norman in a joking tone on Tuesday morning, during his opening remarks at a Milwaukee Press Club Newsmaker Luncheon. As he spoke, Norman glanced at the media panel, including David Clarey of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Jessica McBride of Wisconsin Right Now and Jenna Rae of TMJ4 News. 

As Norman predicted, the panelists proceeded to keep him on the defensive throughout the contentious luncheon. Before he was peppered with questions about safety in downtown Milwaukee, police surveillance and whether officers should return to what courts have ruled were racially discriminatory and unconstitutional stop and frisk practices, Norman presented his own perspective on public safety in Wisconsin’s largest city. 

“I always like to start off by saying that I am proud to be the leader of the Milwaukee Police Department,” said Norman, thanking the men and women of MPD “who protect our city through challenging times, through good times, 365 days a year, seven days a week — holidays included.” Norman also thanked the community for supporting MPD after the killing of Officer Kendall Corder, who was shot while responding to a call about a subject with a gun. 

Corner was one of at least two officers who have been shot this year. Norman said of the killings that it’s important for MPD officers to feel that “even though we have challenging times, we know that we have a community that’s behind us, and who understands the challenges that we’re going through, in regards to the work of public safety in our community.”

Tremaine Jones (who has pleaded not guilty) was arrested for the slaying with MPD compiling witness statements, and locating a backpack on-scene containing Jones’ social security card, employee I.D., birth certificate, debit cards, and a receipt for the lower receiver of the gun police say was used in the shooting. Since 2018, there have been six MPD officers killed in the line of duty. 

As Norman moved on to the latest crime statistics, he cautioned that “the numbers are numbers, they’re data sets, but they’re not the reality of what you feel from a personal feeling, your perspective…Never will I ever say that what you feel is not your reality, or the truth. And we have to work to continue to address those concerns.”

Citing the MPD’s mid-year crime statistics report, Norman told the audience at Milwaukee’s Newsroom Pub that there has been: 

• A 17% violent crime reduction
• 7% property crime reduction
• 11% reduction overall for serious crimes
  

“And let me put that in the proper context,” Norman said, “this is on top of reductions in 2024.” According to MPD’s crime statistics dashboard, since this time last year Milwaukee has seen an 18% decline in non-fatal shootings, a 44% decline in car jackings, a 24% decline in robberies, and another 21% decline in aggravated assaults. “Now, the elephant in the room, yes homicides are up,” said Norman. In 2024, there were 132 people who lost their lives to homicide incidents in Milwaukee. A little over half way through 2025, there have been 93 deaths.

 

 

At the time of the mid-year report, homicides were up 13%, though the most recent numbers on the online dashboard show a 9% increase. “I always say this, anything [more] than zero is unacceptable,” said Norman. The dashboard also shows a 32% increase in human trafficking since last year, and a 52% increase since 2023. Norman didn’t address this increase, and the panelists and audience members didn’t ask about it.

Norman focused on the homicide increase, highlighting what he called “the undercurrent of what these homicides are about” — inter-personal conflict and violence that escalates into harm or death. “Poor conflict resolution,” he said, “availability of firearms to our youth. These are things that we can work together to impact, to intervene, to intercede.” 

While MPD is adept at finding high-level offenders in the community, with the department boasting a nearly 80% clearance rate for solving homicides, Norman emphasized that “it’s not enough to have somebody in custody for such a horrible crime. It’s more important to prevent it.” Collaboration has been a key asset for MPD including working with community groups, elected officials and partnerships with other law enforcement agencies including the Milwaukee County Sheriff’s Office and State Patrol. “When we work together we are better, together, said Norman. “Leaning into the collaboration, leaning into the partnerships truly is where the rubber meets the road, so that we’re able to address when we have a flare-up of crime on Hampton Avenue, or during Cinco de Mayo, or during Juneteenth, or during Water Street, or during the Puerto Rican Fest.” Although Norman said that his own legacy has never motivated his service, he hopes to be remembered as a chief who was there, and who cared, he said, when the Milwaukee Bucks celebrated winning the NBA championship, during the  COVID-19 pandemic, the Republican National Convention and the historic floods just days ago. “He was there,” Norman said of himself. “He cared.” 

A grilling by the media panel 

The first media panel question came from Clarey of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel about MPD’s use of surveillance technology. The department’s use of facial recognition software, drones and other technologies have raised concerns about privacy and due process. 

Norman said that some public safety investigations and interventions have been “wrapped up in a more quick and efficient manner by utilizing the technology.” He mentioned Flock cameras the department uses to monitor license plates and identify vehicles taken in car jackings. He also noted facial recognition technology used in repeat sexual assault and homicide cases. “These are what is going on with this particular technology,” said Norman. “I am very sensitive to the concerns about surveillance, abuse, but I say this, as any tool that can be utilized by law enforcement, has the ability to be abused. It’s about what are the bumper rails? What are the expectations? What is the oversight?” 

Norman said his department is committed to oversight and dialogue with the community about the technology. Yet, he also feels that the fears that he’s heard about surveillance technology are often “speculative.” By contrast, the chief said he could describe numerous concrete examples of carjacking suspects and people who committed violent crimes who were apprehended because of the technology. “That is what is going on,” said Norman, “and if there’s any tools that the Milwaukee Police Department can utilize to ensure that there is direct, serious and quick accountability, we shall use it.”

McBride, a journalism lecturer at University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee and contributor to the right-wing website Wisconsin Right Now, asked if Norman would support calling on the city to end its obligations under the Collins settlement, the result of a lawsuit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Wisconsin, which found that MPD had utilized racially motivated and unconstitutional stop and frisk practices for decades. 

McBride said that she’s heard from officers who feel that the agreement, which mandated changes to MPD’s practices, has made it “difficult if not impossible” to do “proactive policing.” McBride cited a decline in “field interviews,” or officers talking to and gathering information from people, as well as traffic stops. She connected those changes to the rise of reckless driving in Milwaukee. Norman said that officials have focused on checks and balances to ensure that MPD is compliant, but that he also agrees that the Collins settlement should be “heavily modified.” 

The agreement carries “a number of administrative burdens,” Norman said, stressing that he wholly supports constitutional policing. “There is really no wiggle room,” said Norman. “At the end of a shift, reports need to be filed. Some of our officers have done two shifts. They’re tired…There’s a cost associated with this, that’s overtime being used.” Norman said that MPD no longer sees the sort of constitutional violations which led to the Collins settlement, and that the department has shown itself to be responsible, and that things will never “backslide” on his watch.

Rae of TMJ4 asked about an incident involving a car that crashed through a police barrier in downtown Milwaukee, severely injuring two women who were crossing the street. She pushed Norman to explain why “no detectives interviewed the victims or any of the bystanders to follow up on the investigation after that crash?” 

Norman said that the investigation went as far as it needed to go, and that it culminated in “accountability measures,” which included issuing citations. Rae, unsatisfied, pushed back saying Norman didn’t answer her question, but the chief reiterated that officers were on scene, interviews were done, and that nothing more was required. An awkward silence followed as the microphone passed back to Clarey, who asked about Norman’s support of city ordinances related to so-called “street takeovers”, where people noisily gather in intersections and do tricks with their cars. Later, Rae pressed Norman further on the car crash. He said he was unprepared to focus on the specific details she wanted him to discuss.

McBride asked Norman about his $65,000 raise, bringing his salary to $243,000, and added that MPD officers have gone without a raise for over two years. She asked Norman why he accepted the raise, whether he’d suspend his raise until other MPD officers receive one, and whether he supports officers getting back-pay from the city. Norman said that he earned his raise not only through his credentials, which include a law degree, but also through the amount of hours he puts in as chief.

“I sometimes work maybe 12-14 hours, work Saturdays and Sundays, I’m actually really never off,” said Norman. “It is important to understand that no one has given me anything for free, the work that I do is earned.” In 2022, CBS58 reported that over a dozen officers made more money than the chief due to overtime pay. 

Norman said he supports contract negotiations that could include back pay for officers, and that the process is in the hands of the Milwaukee Police Association and the mayor. McBride pressed again about how his raise hurts officer morale and whether he supports officers getting back pay. 

Norman was also asked about officers being sent away from their own districts to work downtown and whether “broken windows” policing — a strategy that favors tight control of even small infractions to create an overall climate of safety — should be brought back. McBride suggested he did not have “an articulable policing strategy.” 

Norman was asked how he defines reckless driving; how a driver could crash into people after driving through a police barrier and “not see a day in court”; why reckless drivers without insurance retain their vehicles; how MPD retains recruits; whether prosecutors and judges should mete out tougher charges and penalties; how the Black Lives Matter protests and media reporting of policing hurts the profession and how MPD has achieved declines in carjackings. He expressed disappointment that reporters were focusing on certain incidents rather than others — including a deceased 13-year-old who wasn’t claimed for over a week, another 13-year-old who shot and killed people with an extended magazine firearm and crime on the South Side. Norman said in those cases “I wish you had the type of reporting as you have right now.”

Norman responded to a question from Wisconsin Examiner about inter-personal violence in the community and whether arresting more people and bringing more serious charges is the most effective strategy. 

“When you’re talking about inter-personal conflict, how or why does it rise [to] a level of firearm violence is perplexing,” he said. “The other day we had a situation where a person was inappropriately touched. She sees the individual who inappropriately touched her, wants to confront that person, and [in] that particular confrontation someone dies, because a firearm was used.” It would have been better to call the police than to try to resolve things with a firearm, he said.  

Therapists and social scientists might have better answers to questions about violent behavior, he said. But, he added, he is committed to strengthening community partnerships with public health and safety teams, mental health specialists and other non-law-enforcement experts to try to resolve conflicts before they become violent. Many situations that escalate into homicides and firearm violence are “emotional,” he said. MPD embraces violence intervention and encourages people to be more introspective instead of  “going zero to 90.” 

“I do know that we’re not going to be able to arrest our way out of this,” Norman said of social conflict that can turn violent. Solving Milwaukee’s homicide cases is important but, he said, the community should ask, “How do we prevent it from happening, to where we don’t even have those numbers? That’s the real question.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

A Flock camera on the Lac Courte Orielles Reservation in Saywer County. | Photo by Frank Zufall/Wisconsin Examiner

Across Wisconsin, a vast camera network is tirelessly photographing and identifying vehicles and license plates, storing that information on a central platform that can be searched at will by law enforcement. With just a few keystrokes, including a reason for the search, officers in local departments across the state can uncover where a vehicle has been and who it belongs to. The network, known as Flock, logs these searches, a feature Flock Safety’s CEO says “underscores accountability” and allows for increased oversight. Still, residents and advocates have raised questions about who is using Flock and why.   

Analyzing Flock audit data, Wisconsin Examiner found that no less than 221 Wisconsin law enforcement agencies used Flock from Jan. 1 to May 31. Although officers logged reasons like drugs, shootings, or traffic violations, many also entered vague reasons such as “investigation” or no clear reason at all. 

Wisconsin Examiner obtained the audit data through open records requests to the Wauwatosa Police Department (WPD). The data was then analyzed using computer coding programs. 

 

 

While favored by many law enforcement agencies nationwide, Flock cameras have also attracted controversy. CEO and Flock co-founder Garrett Langley stressed the importance of audits in an extensive June 2025 statement. “As the Founder and CEO of Flock Safety, I take nothing more seriously than the values we built this company upon — to give cities tools to uphold public safety, while enabling accountability and transparency,” Langley wrote. “I spend time with my team thinking about these issues every single day: how to build our search interface, audit records, compliance tools, and data policies to allow individual agencies to police in the best way for their community — not as prescribed by us, a private technology company, but by the elected officials and individuals the tools actually serve. Public safety does not need to come at the expense of community values.”

The statement was released as Flock faced controversy over the platform’s alleged use for immigration and abortion-related surveillance. According to investigative reports by 404 Media, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers have used local law enforcement to access the nationwide AI-enabled camera network to track immigrants, and a Texas sheriff’s office conducted a Flock search with the reason for the search recorded as “had an abortion, search for female”. Langley denounced the abortion report as “misinformation” and “unequivocally false,” citing law enforcement statements and internal checks by Flock. 

Although Wisconsin Examiner’s analysis found that 11 of Wisconsin’s 13 county sheriffs which partner with ICE through the federal 287(g) program appeared in the Flock audit data, it’s unclear thus far whether any of those agencies used Flock for immigration-related reasons. 

“Once this level of surveillance is normalized, it becomes incredibly hard to roll back,” Jon McCray Jones, policy analyst for the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Wisconsin said in a statement to Wisconsin Examiner. “Today it’s license plates — tomorrow it could be forced search and seizure or checkpoints on the road. We need to draw the line somewhere. Flock cameras track the movement of millions of cars, often without a warrant or your knowledge. That’s a profound erosion of your right to move freely and privately in your own community. Flock cameras aren’t targeted at individuals but mass surveils the movement of all residents.”

Flock use in the Badger State 

A breadcrumb trail is left behind whenever Flock is used. “Everytime a search is run on the Flock System, that search and search reason is preserved permanently in the audit trail of every agency whose camera was included in the search,” Langley wrote. “Those searches are viewable in an agency’s ‘network audit’ and available for regular oversight: to command staff, to elected officials, to communities. This is part of our commitment to transparency and accountability from the beginning of the design process.”

According to an Examiner analysis, the top Wisconsin-based law enforcement agency was the Milwaukee Police Department (MPD). When the agency first established a contract with Flock, a spokesperson told Wisconsin Examiner, it was attached to MPD’s intelligence-focused fusion center known as the Southeastern Threat Analysis Center (STAC). Fusion centers were formed to bridge intelligence gaps between agencies after the 9/11 attacks, and consolidate resources across local, state, military and private sector entities. STAC partners with the FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force and Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and shares information between local police departments across eight counties in southeastern Wisconsin. Although the Flock contract was later modified to cover the entire police department the name “milwaukee wi pd – STAC” remained in the dashboard. 

 

 

Nearly 40,000 searches originating from MPD alone appeared in network audit data from the Wauwatosa Police Department. 

After MPD, the second most frequent user of Flock in Wisconsin was the Brown County Sheriff’s Office, with just over 13,000 searches between Jan. 1 and May 28. West Allis PD and the Fond Du Lac County Sheriff’s Office each conducted nearly 12,000 searches. Wauwatosa  PD, was the fifth highest user of Flock with10,372 searches. 

A Milwaukee PD spokesperson said it makes sense that the department, including STAC, are Wisconsin’s biggest user of Flock. “Milwaukee is the largest city in the state, and the eight county area of operations also falls under STAC.” 

McCray Jones feels there needs to be more oversight. “That’s not happening now,” he said. Local elected officials and the public deserve to know how this data is being used, stored and shared — especially with their data being shared with an oppositional federal government who will weaponize this information against our community members.”

Fears about federal law enforcement rose dramatically this year after high-profile immigration-related arrests in Milwaukee, including of a man who was falsely accused of writing a letter threatening President Donald Trump and Circuit Court Judge Hannah Dugan, who was arrested for not cooperating with immigration officers who came to her court room to arrest a man who was appearing before her.

In May, Wisconsin Examiner reported that STAC used Flock for a “classified” investigation, which MPD said was not immigration-related. Residents have called for independent oversight of police surveillance. In late July, Michigan Advance reported that the Grand Rapids PD used Flock to monitor protesters who participated in pro-Palestine, LGBTQ+ and anti-Trump protests, although the department denied using Flock to surveil protesters.

McCray Jones called the spread of Flock cameras in Wisconsin “concerning, especially with the sprawling violation of civil liberties, rights and privacy by the federal government.” He specifically cited “ICE obtaining side-door access to the Flock network through local law enforcement for immigration enforcement.” 

“We have not seen a complete list of Wisconsin police agencies with access to Flock,” he added, “and that is concerning considering the long history of surveillance being disproportionately targeted at the most marginalized of communities, especially when layered on top of existing disparities in traffic stops and interactions with law enforcement suffered by Black and brown communities in the state.”

The term “wanted” was MPD’s top reason for using Flock in the data the Examiner reviewed.  An MPD spokesperson explained that the term  “wanted” “does not mean that a warrant has been issued for a person. ‘Wanted’ refers to people, vehicles, investigative leads related to an investigation. This also includes investigative purposes that are not criminal in nature to include missing critical persons and Amber alerts.”

 

 

“Robbery” and “Shooting” were MPD’s second and third most frequent reasons for using Flock. Other categories included “res,” which could be an abbreviation for  Reckless Endangering Safety and drug dealing. “Homicide” ranked as MPD’s ninth most frequent reason. Among all 221 Wisconsin agencies using Flock, violent crimes do not appear among the top 10 reasons for searches. MPD’s spokesperson said this aspect of the Examiner’s audit data review was misleading. “I would say that the vast amount of usage would be related to violent crime,” the spokesperson wrote in a statement. “This would include homicides, shootings, armed robberies, carjackings, batteries, and sexual assaults.” Although the reason column is intended to document the purpose of a Flock search, information in that column was often not detailed enough to determine whether violence was involved. 

 

 

The discrepancy between the reasons for using Flock cited in the audit data and law enforcement claims about using Flock to fight violent crime raise doubts, says McCray Jones. “This directly contradicts how agencies like MPD have sold this technology to the public,” he told Wisconsin Examiner. “They say it’s about violent crime — but in practice, that doesn’t appear to be the case. It also begs the question of what is the technology and data being used for? If this tool is mostly being used for minor offenses or vague investigations, then we’re creating a mass surveillance infrastructure to enforce petty infractions — usually disproportionately against Black, brown, and poor residents. Is it being used to track protesters and dissidents?”

 

 

MPD’s fifth most frequent Flock search term, with over 1,000 searches, was simply “investigation” with no other context. MPD’s spokesperson said that this “denotes that the search was related to a legitimate investigative purpose.” 

“Investigation” was also the most frequent reason Flock was used by Wisconsin law enforcement agencies. Unlike entries including  “stolen,” “drugs,” “warrant” or “homicide,” it’s unclear what the “investigation” entries meant. The audit data included categories for case numbers and licence plates, but these were redacted upon release to protect ongoing investigations and citizen privacy.

Wauwatosa PD led all 221 Wisconsin law enforcement agencies in using only “investigation” to denote the reason for Flock searches. More than 1,900 searches by WPD used that term. WPD’s next most frequent reason was “stolen” with  871 searches. Spokesperson Det. Lt. Joseph Roy, Ph.D, said WPD Flock use is guided by a formal written policy. 

“The system is a critical investigative and public safety tool that supports a wide range of legitimate law enforcement functions, from stolen vehicle recovery to identifying suspects in violent crime investigations,” said Roy. “While officers are expected to document their searches clearly, the department continues to refine training and oversight to ensure transparency, consistency, and proper use of the system.” 

MPD’s spokesperson said that “the system requires a generic input to conduct a search and will include a case number. We require monthly audits to ensure that the system is utilized for legitimate investigative purposes.”

Vague reasons for tapping into a powerful network

Not every agency in Wisconsin uses Flock  under a specific policy. Capt. John Rousseau, spokesperson for the Brown County Sheriff’s Office, told Wisconsin Examiner that the office does not have a Flock-specific policy. “We have policies and audits that dictate our use of law enforcement databases and tools generally, but not platform specific,” Capt. John Rousseau said in a statement. 

Brown County’s Sheriff’s Office, Wisconsin’s second most frequent Flock searcher, added, “We conduct regular training on all law enforcement tools, Flock included.” Wisconsin Examiner’s audit analysis found that “1410” was Brown County’s top reason for using Flock. This was a badge number, the captain explained.

The Examiner’s analysis “is not capturing Flock usage completely,” he said. “It is aggregating the reason code, but we primarily use specific case numbers in our search. That would be the largest category of our usage, but it will not be captured in your analysis.”

Flock’s system always records a search reason, and provides a dropdown menu of search terms, as well as a case number category. “Agencies should prescribe, in their [License Plate Reader] policies, how users should populate that search field,” the company’s CEO wrote in a statement.

 

 

Clear reasons for using Flock were sometimes lacking in the audit analysis. West Allis PD led all of Wisconsin in using only a dot in the reason field when recording Flock use. Just over 1,200 searches were conducted using the dot. Only six other agencies used a dot to indicate the reason for Flock use, including the police departments of Waukesha, Ripon, Elm Grove, MPD, and the sheriffs of Columbia and Portage counties. MPD – STAC and Portage County’s uses of this reason code was so infrequent that they barely appeared when graphed. 

 

 

The dot was also West Allis’s top overall reason for using Flock. Others included “sus,” “investigation,” “stolen” and “theft,” as well as “mvth,” “pd”, “dea,”, “s,” and others which the police department did not define when asked, nor did it explain why the dot  was so often favored by its officers. 

West Allis PD Deputy Chief Robert Fletcher said in a statement that the department’s officers “receive training on the proper use of law enforcement databases.” 

“This training includes training that the use of law enforcement databases, whether FLOCK, department records or information received through NCIC database can only be queried and used for law enforcement purposes,” Fletcher said.

Fletcher added, “Any allegation that a department member is obtaining information for a non-law enforcement purpose would be investigated by a member of the WAPD Command Staff and corrective action would be taken by the WAPD if warranted.” 

 

 

WAPD’s policy states that personnel “must have an articulable law enforcement reason to access and/or perform any query in the Flock system,” and that regular audits may be performed to ensure the system is being used correctly. 

Waukesha PD, the state’s second biggest user of the dot — also the department’s top reason for using Flock — suggested that this use was improper. Capt. Dan Baumann told Wisconsin Examiner that, when it came to this vague use for Flock, “we isolated this to a specific officer and have readdressed the [Standard Operating Procedure] and have provided that officer with extra training…This is being addressed through training with the officer. The Flock administrator ran an audit specific to your request and isolated this to only one officer. This has been corrected.” 

Waukesha PD’s Flock policy states that officers should “enter the primary reason” for conducting a plate search “i.e. burglary suspect, robbery suspect, vehicle pursuit,” when an incident report number is unavailable. The Columbia County Sheriffs Office, Wisconsin’s third biggest user of the dot as a reason for its Flock use, didn’t respond to a request for comment for this story.

Debating the merits

McCray Jones found the Flock audit searches using only “investigation” or “.” to be “incredibly concerning.” 

“Vague entries like ‘investigation’ or a period provide no meaningful oversight and violate the spirit of transparency and democracy. This kind of documentation undermines any public trust or accountability,” he said.

But police departments using Flock stressed its versatility and usefulness in netting investigative leads. “Flock has proven instrumental in criminal investigations and does help increase public safety,” MPD’s spokesperson told Wisconsin Examiner, adding that the platform has aided  investigations of  car theft, homicides and kidnappings. 

 

 

Capt. Rousseau of the Brown County Sheriffs Office said, “We use Flock during a host of public safety activities that can range from locating missing/endangered people to wanted persons,” as well as looking for criminal suspects. “In one example, we investigated a fatal hit and run car crash where a pedestrian was killed and the vehicle fled the area,” said Rousseau. “Analysis of Flock data identified the suspect vehicle and allowed investigators to follow up on the information. That’s a significant example, but we also use Flock daily to identify and locate persons that have outstanding warrants for their arrest, known drug trafficking suspects, and many other uses.”

Capt. Bauman of the Waukesha PD said, “Our agency’s deployment of FLOCK reflects a commitment to public safety that is deliberate and respectful of civil liberties. We believe that transparency, policy integrity, and community engagement are essential in maintaining trust while responsibly leveraging technology to protect the community.”

Regarding the Examiner’s analysis of Flock audit data, McCray Jones said, “What stands out is how many agencies are using this tool with little to no transparency around the justification for its use. That kind of vagueness makes it difficult to know whether Flock is being used in ways that respect people’s rights or whether it’s enabling a dragnet approach to surveillance. We need guardrails, third-party audits, and standardized reporting across jurisdictions. It’s not enough to trust that agencies will use Flock responsibly — we need mechanisms to ensure they are.” 

The ACLU and local activist groups have pushed for Community Control Over Police Surveillance (CCOPS) ordinances, which can be passed at the local level and would require public hearings and annual reports on surveillance technology. “Given the lack of safeguards and history of abuse, we believe there should be a moratorium on expanding Flock use until real oversight structures are in place — if ever,” said McCray Jones. 

With concerns around surveillance, however, Capt. Rousseau cautioned that “there may be a fundamental misunderstanding about what Flock is and isn’t.” He explained in a statement that, “Flock is not facial recognition. It does not track any personally identifiable information. It is not used for traffic enforcement. Flock cameras perform the same actions that an officer could do if we were to assign a police officer to sit at an intersection recording license plates. We don’t have the resources for that kind of a deployment, so we supplement it with technology. Cameras are used everywhere.” 

Wisconsin Examiner’s analysis found that  “traffic enforcement” was the top reason entered by the Fond Du Lac County Sheriff’s Office for its Flock use. Fond Du Lac didn’t respond to a request for comment. Fond Du Lac County also led the state in using Flock for school-related reasons, followed by sheriffs of Kenosha counties, Milwaukee PD, the Sheboygan County Sheriff’s Office, and others. Most of those uses involved school bus violations or complaints, such as cars passing in front of a school bus. Several searches were also for school-related threats.

Rousseau said that Flock must be considered in a societal context where cameras are everywhere. “A police officer wears a body camera inside of a patrol car that’s equipped with a camera driving down a highway that’s covered in cameras conducting traffic stops on cars that also may have dash cameras. Flock is but one of a handful of law enforcement tools that we use on a daily basis to improve public safety through the proactive and efficient delivery of law enforcement services. Proper data safeguards are in place to protect against abuse.”

McCray Jones agrees there are cameras everywhere, but says  no surveillance network should be underestimated. “Surveillance creep is real — and Flock is just one piece,” he told Wisconsin Examiner. “Communities need to decide if this technology has any place in public safety, and if so, under what strict and democratically accountable conditions. The public should demand hearings, insist on transparency and support local ordinances that put the community — not private corporations or law enforcement — in the driver’s seat.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

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. 

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Reading Time: 3 minutes

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. 

Biometrica directly addresses concerns about racial disparities on its website.  

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.

People may attend in person or virtually. 

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 police push for more facial recognition technology as federal report shows persistent bias 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.

Reading Time: 3 minutes

It’s the kind of exchange that criminal justice data is meant to clarify: a police official insisting that law enforcement practices are fair and targeted, while a city commissioner questions whether those practices contribute to racial disparities. 

“If I’m understanding what you’re saying correctly, it’s the police department position – not that you are policing in a racially motivated way, but just that it’s Black youth that are committing more crimes,” asked Krissie Fung, a commissioner on the Milwaukee Fire and Police Commission during a recent meeting. 

“I would not say Black youth are committing more crimes,” responded Heather Hough, chief of staff for the Milwaukee Police Department. “I would say that when we are arresting suspects, we are ensuring reasonable suspicion or probable cause, whether or not the identity of those youth is one race or another.”

This conversation – about the overrepresentation of youths of color in Milwaukee’s criminal justice system – unfolded during the May 1 meeting of the Fire and Police Commission. However, it relied in part on a misunderstanding of the county-run dashboard that tracks youths in the justice system.

Such misinterpretations have been common, said Kelly Pethke, administrator for Milwaukee County Children, Youth and Family Services, which hosts the dashboard. 

“There’s been a lot of misunderstanding,” Pethke said. “We are in the process of making some changes.”

The point of the dashboard 

The dashboard was designed to provide real-time transparency about Milwaukee County youths in secure custody.

“We didn’t have a good, single place to go to really look at the scope of the child incarceration problem,” said Rep. Ryan Clancy, D-Milwaukee, who helped move the dashboard through the Milwaukee County Board of Supervisors when he served as a supervisor.  

But the dashboard doesn’t yet offer a complete picture, including when it comes to race.

Because of this limitation, conversations about racial disparities in Milwaukee’s youth justice system – like those during the Fire and Police Commission meeting – are incomplete. 

What’s missing?

To understand what’s missing from the dashboard, it helps to know that Milwaukee youths in secure custody can fall into three categories. 

Some youths are held at the county-run Vel R. Phillips Youth and Family Justice Center for lesser offenses, remaining fully under Milwaukee County’s responsibility. 

Others, deemed serious juvenile offenders, are in the custody of the state and housed at state-run youth prisons such as Lincoln Hills School for Boys and Copper Lake School for Girls. 

A third group consists of youth who are the county’s responsibility but are housed in state-run facilities. The dashboard currently only shows racial data for this third group.

Pethke provided NNS with point-in-time data that helps fill out the racial picture of youths in county custody. As of May 19, there were 113 youths in the county detention center: 92 were Black, 12 were Hispanic, seven were white, and two were Asian. 

Persistent problem

Even with the updated county data, overrepresentation of youths of color – especially Black youth – in the criminal justice system continues, said Monique Liston.

She’s the founder and chief strategist of UBUNTU Research and Evaluation, a Milwaukee-based strategic education organization. 

“The disproportionality is still the same for me. Still the same flag,” she said.

Liston wrote a blog that generated a wide community response and was cited by Fung during her exchange with Hough.  

Liston doesn’t dispute Hough’s claim that Milwaukee police are acting legally and fairly. Still, she argued, the city’s criminal justice system is structured in such a way that disproportionately targets Black youths. 

“Black youth are more surveilled. That means you’re going to end up with more incidents.”

It’s a cycle, Liston said – data collected on these incidents presents an imbalanced picture of who is committing crime. 

That picture reinforces the notion that more money and policing are needed to address crime by Black youths, resulting in continued – or escalated – monitoring, she said. 

Yes, Liston wants to see clearer and more complete data from the dashboard. But she also wants that data to be used for real accountability and change.

“Whatever we measure becomes a priority,” she said. “The cycle is not disrupted if we don’t think about the data.” 

MPD and root causes

Hough does not dispute the county’s data and acknowledges that racial disparities exist in Milwaukee’s criminal justice system. But she told NNS she is confident the city’s police department is not the source of those disparities.

“We get a call for service, and we respond,” she said. 

Hough emphasized that the department holds officers accountable if they fail to meet standards of reasonable suspicion and probable cause. 

She also said that the police department – and Milwaukee Police Chief Jeffrey Norman – are committed to working with the community to address the root causes of the disparities highlighted by the county’s dashboard. 

Milwaukee County looks to tweak youth incarceration dashboard after community feedback 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.