Reading Time: 3 minutes

Although the Milwaukee Police Department halted its use of facial recognition technology in February, there are still cases being prosecuted in Milwaukee County in which the technology was used at some point in the investigation. 

This means concerns about the technology – and the potential errors it can introduce – still remain, community members told NNS.

Facial recognition technology uses artificial intelligence to identify someone by comparing a photo of an unknown face to a database of images of known faces.

“The reliability of these systems is certainly in question, and particularly the disproportionate risk of inaccuracy when identifying non-white faces,” said Amanda Merkwae, policy and advocacy director for the American Civil Liberties Union of Wisconsin.

Questions also remain about whether defendants and their lawyers have always been told when facial recognition technology played a role in an investigation.

MPD and facial recognition

In April 2025, the Milwaukee Police Department acknowledged it had, for two to three years, used other agencies’ licenses to obtain facial recognition search results without having a written department policy governing the practice.

At the same time, MPD was considering expanding its access to facial recognition technology through an agreement with the company Biometrica.

The proposal provoked substantial opposition from residents and civil rights groups who raised concerns about misidentification, racial bias, surveillance and public trust.

Milwaukee Police Chief Jeffrey Norman announced in February that MPD would prohibit its members from using facial recognition technology and would not consider acquiring the technology until after the department develops a policy with the Fire and Police Commission.

However, the moratorium did not eliminate the technology from criminal cases in which it had already been used.

MPD did not respond to questions about its policies and practices relating to disclosing the use of facial recognition to the DA’s office. 

What happens at the DA’s office?

Milwaukee County District Attorney Kent Lovern said his office treats facial recognition technology as an investigative lead.

“It is not, in and of itself, probable cause,” Lovern said. “It’s not, in and of itself, the sole basis for gaining a search warrant.”

Lovern said information his office receives about the use of facial recognition in an investigation gets turned over to the defense as part of the case file. 

Deputy District Attorney Matthew Torbenson described a 2021 home invasion and sexual assault case prosecuted by the DA’s office in which another law enforcement agency used facial recognition technology to develop about five potential suspects from surveillance footage.

Investigators pursued these leads and focused on one person based on additional evidence, including an identification by his former spouse.

The five individuals who it came back with as a potential match were all turned over to the defense, Torbenson said.

Torbenson said the potential errors would be more concerning if just facial recognition were being used to directly identify a suspect.

“That is not at all how we’re using it,” he said.

Technology creates challenges

Connor Romenesko, a forensic science practice coordinator with the Wisconsin State Public Defenders Office, said defense attorneys can obtain the image submitted for a facial recognition search and some information about the software used but may not have the information needed to evaluate the system as a whole.

“The biggest concern I have with these services is that they’re provided by private companies who don’t necessarily provide information about how these systems are trained,” Romenesko said.

This can make challenging a facial recognition result “extremely difficult,” he said.

Federal research has found that facial recognition systems can have higher false-positive rates for some racial and ethnic groups, including Black, Asian and American Indian people. 

‘Still a big unknown’

Another question is whether prosecutors and defendants have always been told when MPD used facial recognition technology.

The ACLU of Wisconsin reviewed police reports from more than a dozen cases MPD had identified as examples of facial recognition use.

“In many of those cases, there was just no mention of (facial recognition technology) use at all,” Merkwae said. 

She said it still isn’t known how many total cases in recent years – or ever – MPD used facial recognition technology in any step of an investigation. 

“And of that total – was that information turned over to the defendant in discovery if that person was charged?” Merkwae asked. “I think that’s still a big unknown.”

Romenesko said facial recognition information is sometimes included in initial discovery but sometimes must be requested from law enforcement or prosecutors.

Public defenders are trained to spot vague language such as “investigative lead” that can indicate facial recognition technology was used, Romenesko said.

“Our lawyers are all trained, so that if they see that language, they’re going to go up to kind of alert to the fact that maybe this hasn’t been disclosed up front, which we also see in some cases,” he said. 

Jeffrey Altenburg, Milwaukee County’s chief deputy district attorney, said there are instances in which leads or suspects developed early in an investigation are not initially shared with prosecutors.

“However, once those leads are corroborated using standard investigative techniques, those details are included in the reports that are provided to our office and turned over to the defendant if they are criminally charged,” Altenburg said. 

Despite police department ban, facial recognition technology lingers in Milwaukee’s criminal justice system 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 is tightening the leash around Flock automatic license plate reader cameras, with elected leaders calling for more oversight and restrictions as investigations into misuse by officers continue. 

Flock cameras utilize AI-powered technology to identify vehicles and license plates that pass within their view on roadways. The data is stored for several weeks or longer, allowing law enforcement officers from anywhere across the country to search for specific vehicles as long as their agency has a contract with Flock. 

An analysis by the Wisconsin Examiner found that at least 221 Wisconsin law enforcement agencies searched the Flock network during the first half of 2025, and that officers often used vague search terms to query the system. That same year, the multi-billion dollar Flock Safety company spent $102,000 lobbying the state government for grants to allow law enforcement agencies to acquire license plate reader cameras, though the Republican-backed bills were unsuccessful. 

On Tuesday, a directive went out from the office of Milwaukee County Executive David Crowley to county departments and the Milwaukee County Sheriff’s Office to limit Flock-related operations on county property, and to work towards adopting new transparency and accountability standards. 

“Public safety partners should have the right tools to keep Milwaukee County safe, but unchecked surveillance isn’t the answer,” said Crowley, who is running against Republican Tom Tiffany to become Wisconsin’s next governor, in a statement. “We have seen what can happen when this technology operates without clear rules, transparency and accountability. Protecting our residents’ privacy and maintaining the public’s trust is a responsibility I take seriously. That is why I am directing all County departments to limit the usage of all Flock camera systems and establish safeguards proactively, before a breach of public trust can occur.”

Crowley is calling on the Office of Corporation Counsel and the Information Management Services Division to evaluate current policies governing the use of any surveillance tech and to develop binding standards for its use. The standards will determine how surveillance technology can be used, how long data is kept, who can access that data and why, and limit when data is shared with an emphasis on prohibiting use for federal immigration enforcement without a judicial warrant, a county press release stated. These standards would also establish independent audits and enforceable consequences when surveillance technology is misused. 

Crowley is also calling on other local elected leaders to look closely at their own use of Flock cameras and adopt similar policies. Ultimately, these efforts could result in the adoption of a consistent standard across the county for Flock. 

In April Tiffany said he had never heard of Flock cameras, when he was asked about controversy around their use. “I’m going to sound ignorant on this, what are Flock cameras?” Tiffany said during a virtual question-and-answer session. 

More recently, Tiffany said that “government should not be building an AI surveillance network that tracks law-abiding Wisconsinites everywhere they drive.” Tiffany said that he would pause state funding for Flock and create a task force to establish stronger protections, penalties for misuse, limits on data sharing, and safeguards against foreign adversaries. Tiffany criticized Crowley for “repeatedly” seeking to install “more red-light cameras, speed cameras, and massive funding increases for automated license plate readers.” 

Police departments often acquire Flock cameras through non-competitive sole source contracts which bypass a public bidding process, keeping local councils and residents from even knowing that the technology has been acquired.

The changes in Milwaukee County come after the Milwaukee Police Department announced on Monday that it will be further restricting its Flock network. In a Monday press release the department said that it “supports the use of technology to assist in solving crimes that cause harm to our community,” and that new technology can help solve cases more quickly than traditional methods for investigations. 

“With that, we recognize that the use of such technology, like Flock technology, comes with great responsibility,” the department said in the press release. “These tools must always be used to prevent and reduce harm, not create more.” The department acknowledged the growing discontent and angst over Flock technology in the community, saying that “we do not dismiss these opinions.” The department went on to say that it “acknowledges the harm that former department members have caused that has damaged the trust we work so hard to build” and that it “acknowledges the human error that comes with the use of technology” and that the department is “working tirelessly to reduce error as much as we can.”

The Milwaukee police  announced that access to Flock has been restricted to supervisors only, and that the department will no longer share its Flock data with neighboring jurisdictions. Furthermore, the cameras may only be used for “Part I crimes” such as homicide, rape, robbery, aggravated assault including non-fatal shootings, burglary, larceny, motor vehicle theft, arson, human trafficking, as well as for critically missing people and investigating drug trafficking organizations. 

Earlier this year, the department began revamping its auditing procedures and limited the number of officers with access to Flock cameras to an “as needed basis,” risk manager James Lewis told the Examiner in June.

“MPD will continue to robustly audit its Flock systems,” the department’s Monday press release reads. “We are better together!”

The changes were followed on Tuesday by a statement from Mayor Cavalier Johnson that while technology can help law enforcement, “it is essential that we recognize the limitations and dangers associated with these tools.” Johnson added that “I recognize the benefits of the Flock cameras system.” He said that “on multiple occasions this tool has located critical missing persons and helped apprehend violent criminals in Milwaukee. The technology has also been misused in several notable instances, both locally and nationally, compromising the rights of individuals.” 

Several of those cases played out in Milwaukee and elsewhere in Wisconsin. Josue Ayala of Milwaukee, Cristian Morales of Menasha, and Frank McGrath of Kenosha County were all charged with either misdemeanor or felony misconduct in public office after using Flock to surveil their current or former romantic partners. Ayala was given a year of probation and avoided incarceration, whereas Morales was sentenced to six months in jail and three years of probation while avoiding prison time. McGrath’s case is still ongoing. 

In July, Tehrangi Chapman, a Milwaukee police internal affairs detective who was involved in investigating Ayala’s misuse of Flock, was also charged with using the cameras and car-mounted GPS devices to keep tabs on someone who he’d surveilled since 2019, before Flock even arrived in Milwaukee. Chapman has been charged with felonies, and his case is still ongoing. On Aug. 26, Chapman pled not guilty, and is expected back in court for a scheduling conference on Oct. 7, according to online court records. 

Each of the officers who’ve been found to have abused their access to Flock used terms like “suspicious” or “investigation” to search the Flock network, which were common terms found in the Examiner’s 2025 analysis. Other cases have also emerged, such as that of a man who is now suing the Waukesha County Sheriff’s Department after a deputy searched him in Flock following a traffic stop, for which the man sought to file a complaint against the deputy. 

As misconduct cases have emerged, communities across the state have opted to drop their Flock cameras including Kaukauna, Sturgeon Bay, Verona, Appleton, Oshkosh, Dane County and Stoughton. 

In Oshkosh, the request to cancel the Flock contract actually came from the police chief, who told local elected officials that representatives of the multi-billion dollar Flock Safety company had misled him on whether the cameras were able to develop heatmaps depicting a vehicle’s movement patterns. 

Elsewhere, community members have packed public meetings to tell local officials that they don’t want to be placed under perpetual surveillance, expressing fears about how the cameras could be misused by both local and federal law enforcement. Police leaders have had mixed responses to the concerns from residents. The police chief in Green Bay has opted to keep the cameras, citing their usefulness in solving violent crime while also acknowledging that steps need to be taken to protect people’s privacy, while a chief in the small city of Chetek threatened to do background checks on residents who spoke against the cameras in a public meeting.

Exactly how to handle the cameras is still a question local and national leaders are trying to answer. In August,  President Donald Trump said that the cameras have “pros and cons” and that “it’s being studied right now, we’ll have an answer soon as to our views on it.” When asked whether he’d consider banning Flock cameras statewide, Democratic Gov. Tony Evers said, “I don’t know what the solution is, but I think there’s people all across our country that’s talking about it.” Evers said he recently talked with Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz about Flock cameras. “Whether that [banning the cameras] is the answer, all’s I know is that we need to have an answer.”

Flock Safety, the multibillion-dollar producer of Flock automatic license plate reader cameras, spent $102,000 in Wisconsin last year lobbying for state legislation to increase its nationwide surveillance network. That’s according to a report by OpenSecrets, which found that the controversial company dedicated over $2 million on lobbying efforts across the country in 2025.

The findings come as communities continue pushing back against Flock cameras. Some areas have cancelled contracts and removed the cameras altogether, while others have opted to increase oversight and auditing of how the cameras are used by police.

Flock cameras work by photographing every vehicle and license plate that passes by their view. The images and information are stored in a database that can be searched by law enforcement officers who work at agencies with Flock contracts. In many cases, police officers may query tens of thousands of cameras at once to determine whether any have sighted a vehicle sought by law enforcement. Using the captured data, police departments can also use Flock to keep track of a vehicle’s regular movement patterns.

In Wisconsin, Flock spent the $102,000 lobbying for a pair of Republican bills, Assembly Bill 300 and Senate Bill 299, which would have provided grants to allow local law enforcement agencies to obtain and install automatic license plate reader cameras. The legislation failed to pass in 2025.

Police departments have defended Flock cameras as valuable tools to combat crime from homicides to car theft. Critics, however have pointed to cases of officers searching Flock’s network for questionable or illegal reasons. Some departments have used Flock for immigration enforcement as the Trump administration ramped up its plans to carry out mass deportations. One sheriff’s deputy in Texas used Flock to locate a woman who’d recently had an abortion, fueling fears that local law enforcement were working to criminalize reproductive healthcare following the overturning of Roe v. Wade. In many other cases, male officers used Flock to monitor or stalk people, particularly current or former romantic partners.

Several of these cases have played out in Wisconsin. Earlier this month, former Menasha officer Cristian Morales was sentenced to six months in jail and three months probation for misusing Flock to stalk his ex-girlfriend. Meanwhile, new felony charges have been levied against former Kenosha County sheriff’s deputy Frank McGrath, who was found to have used Flock and a squad car tracking system to monitor his girlfriend, also a Kenosha sheriff deputy. 

Josue Ayala, a former Milwaukee officer, was charged for the same behavior. Ayala avoided jail time and instead received a year of probation after taking a guilty plea. More recently, Milwaukee Detective Tehrangi Chapman was charged with using Flock to monitor someone he has been accused of stalking since 2019, years before Flock came to Milwaukee. Chapman was one of the internal affairs detectives who investigated the allegations of Ayala’s Flock misuse. 

Each of the officers in these cases were charged with felony misconduct in public office, except for Ayala, who was charged with a misdemeanor. 

Questions around how the cameras are used have led to a distrust of the Flock Safety technology itself. Wisconsin communities including Kaukauna, Sturgeon Bay, Verona, Appleton, Oshkosh, Dane County and Stoughton have all cancelled their Flock camera contracts. 

Despite having several officers charged with misusing Flock and sustained calls from the public to stop using the technology, Milwaukee has retained its Flock contract. The police department has cited it as an asset in quickly developing leads and solving crimes. On Tuesday, however, 12 of Milwaukee’s 15 common council members signed a letter asking both the Fire and Police Commission and Police Chief Jeffrey Norman to review the department’s use of Flock cameras and to consider additional safeguards before the city begins to shape its 2027 budget — three times the number of alders who signed a similar letter in March. 

The council is asking for more information on how the Flock system is used, including a list of every agency that shares license plate reader data with the Milwaukee Police Department, and every agency with which the department shares its own data. The council is also demanding a complete accounting of searches by outside agencies using Milwaukee’s Flock network, as well as those conducted by the department on behalf of another agency. The letter also is requesting a list of all system users and their searches. 

In June, as controversy over Flock grew, the Milwaukee Police Department took steps to increase auditing procedures to flag suspicious searches, and restrict the number of officers who had access to the Flock system. The department also said that it shares its Flock network with state partners, but not with federal agencies. 

But the common council letter asks for more, including for case numbers and specific justifications for every Flock search, automated misuse detection, independent auditing, prohibitions on using Flock for immigration enforcement without a judicial warrant and regular public reporting to both the Fire and Police Commission and council. 

The letter also urges that, as discussions begin over the 2027 city budget, the city examines how Milwaukee’s Flock camera network has been funded over recent years, including how the contracts were granted multiple waivers as they were renewed. The city’s waivers, along with the use of sole source contracts with Flock, has made it possible for Milwaukee’s camera network to grow without  approval from the council. 

In response to the letter, MPD said in a statement that it will work with the commission and council to respond to concerns, and that it is committed to transparency and dialogue. 

 

Reading Time: 3 minutes

Milwaukee has become part of a mass surveillance apparatus. Surveillance technology is dangerous, and few know that these are counterinsurgency tactics being practiced on residents by our own police department. 

Integrated surveillance technology tactics, like drones, automatic license plate recognition (ALPR), video cameras, “Stingray” international mobile subscriber identity (IMSI) catchers, and social media trackers, were developed during colonial endeavors and on battlefields like Vietnam, Colombia and the Middle East to pacify local populations. 

These types of surveillance technologies made their way back for use against the domestic populace in the United States. 

The dangers of Flock cameras

It’s unfortunate that the police have resorted to counterinsurgency tactics to surveil Milwaukee residents, but one is uniquely dangerous: automated license plate reading technology, more popularly known as Flock cameras. 

Flock technology can establish a “pattern of life” for Milwaukee residents, especially when combined with other surveillance technologies, without a warrant or probable cause. 

A “pattern of life” is the recurring patterns, behaviors and cycles that make up your average day-to-day activities. Establishing a pattern of life involves law enforcement collecting surveillance data and combining it to build a detailed picture of a person’s habits, routines, relationships and behavior. This includes where a person sleeps, when they leave, where they work, where they regularly meet, what vehicle they drive, which routes they take and much more. 

Flock cameras and other automatic license plate recognition tools also record other information, such as make, model, color, body style, temporary tags, damage and stickers. They call it the “vehicle footprint” and use it when there is no license plate or the license plate is unreadable. These cameras actually record everything in a wide angle, but allegedly the interface that the local police can see only displays what I’ve mentioned. 

The companies that make them, and theoretically anyone who accesses the recording, can see everything captured in the videos. That means faces, cellphones, clothes, actions – everything. 

The Milwaukee Police Department combines this with open-source intelligence like Babel Street, which analyzes publicly available information, such as social media data. This means they can also begin to build out a psychological profile, ideology, interests and a network of associates. 

Over-policing the community

Although the MPD has acquired this technology under the pretext of solving crime, it indiscriminately monitors all Milwaukee residents’ whereabouts and online activities, and that does not make Milwaukee safer. Instead, it reinforces over-policing, and these technologies tend to be concentrated in Black and Latino communities.

Studies show that over-policing produces more crime because it deteriorates community-police relations, causing communities to abide by what sociologists call the “code of the street,” which causes retaliatory violence. 

Researchers have clearly illustrated that most crime is a result of unmet needs, so if we intend to make Milwaukee safe, policing and surveilling the populace will not create a safe community. If people still have to survive harsh circumstances, the government can place all the surveillance technology and police they desire; people will still find ways to survive when faced with intense, concentrated poverty, hyper-segregation, economic exclusion and structural racism. 

Furthermore, the current federal landscape has set a dangerous precedent for how it accesses and exploits the surveillance data collected by local police and sheriff’s departments. We must oppose and ban Flock automated license plate readers and any other technology that undermines civil liberties and privacy. The abuse of these technologies causes more problems for Milwaukee residents. We need to remove them to protect our privacy and democracy.

Nickolas X Doherty is the Confronting Mass Incarceration coordinator at the Milwaukee Turners.

Milwaukee Neighborhood News Service invites community members to submit opinion pieces of 500-800 words on topics of interest to central city Milwaukee. To send a submission for consideration, please email info@milwaukeenns.org. The views expressed are solely those of the authors.

Guest opinion: We must oppose and ban the use of Flock 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.