LoginAnalysis of Flock use by Wisconsin cops reveals trends, raises questions
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.
The public deserves to know who is deploying these technologies, under what policies, and with what accountability.
– John McCray Jones, policy analyst for the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Wisconsin
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.
In our time using Flock, we have found it extremely beneficial in helping solve crimes and increasing public safety in our communities.
– Capt. John Rouseau, Brown County Sheriff’s Office
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.
This level of opacity is unacceptable.
– John McCray Jones, policy analyst for the ACLU of Wisconsin
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.
