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

The Milwaukee County Courthouse (Photo by Isiah Holmes/Wisconsin Examiner)

The Milwaukee County Board of Supervisors unanimously passed a resolution on Thursday, calling on the Milwaukee County Sheriffs Office (MCSO) to work with the community to create a regulatory framework for the use of facial recognition technology. MCSO is currently exploring an agreement with Biometrica, a data company that provides facial recognition technology to local police departments. 

“Facial recognition technology has been proven to disproportionately affect communities of color and young women,” said Sup. Juan Miguel Martinez. “The more facial recognition technology, the more people are able to criminalize people executing their First Amendment rights. I feel this is an issue not left or right.” Miguel Martinez also expressed concerns about the use of facial recognition technology to aid immigration enforcement or to surveil protests. 

Privacy concerns have been heightened during the Trump administration’s surge in immigration enforcement and crackdowns on dissent. In Milwaukee, several people were arrested by federal agents after attending regular hearings at the county courthouse. In April, Milwaukee County Circuit Court Judge Hannah Dugan was arrested and accused of obstructing federal agents after she directed a man sought by immigration officers out a side door in her courtroom that led into a public hallway. 

MCSO leaders said they aim to use the technology to identify people after violent crime incidents. 

Nevertheless, members of the public and some elected officials raised concerns about the technology.  The resolution contains language stating  that facial recognition technology can be inaccurate and could negatively affect certain groups including people of color, LGBTQ people, activists, immigrants and people seeking reproductive health care. 

The resolution states that the county board supports pausing any future acquisition of facial recognition until regulatory policies can be developed. It also calls on the county’s Information Management Services Division, Corporation Council and MCSO to collaborate with “relevant stakeholders” including privacy and free speech advocates, in developing that policy framework. Out of this collaborative effort will eventually emerge recommendations to the county board as to whether facial recognition technology:

• Should be prohibited or strictly limited without the informed knowledge and consent of the individual being scanned, except under narrowly defined circumstances, such as during active criminal investigations, 
• Whether the types of data collected by the technology should be defined and limited, as well as strict retention periods for data, 
• Prohibit facial recognition data from being shared with third parties, unless authorized through a rigorous, transparent approval process which itself would be subject to oversight, 
• And whether departments using facial recognition should be required to submit annual reports detailing its use, including metrics of deployment, effectiveness, and analysis on the impact on communities of color, immigrants and other vulnerable groups.  

The resolution passed by the county board calls for a final recommendation to be established no later than May 2026. By December 2025 the county board expects a status update, according to the resolution. 

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.