Milwaukee County Sheriff Denita Ball (right) sits beside Chief Deputy Brian Barkow (left) during a meeting of the Milwaukee County Board. (Photo by Isiah Holmes/Wisconsin Examiner)

Dozens of people filled a room in Milwaukee’s courthouse complex Tuesday morning, listening as representatives from the sheriff’s office pushed for adopting facial recognition technology and answered questions about the Flock camera system. The Milwaukee County Sheriff’s Office hopes to equip its booking room cameras with facial recognition software from the company Biometrica, a move that was not well received by some county residents.

For over an hour, Chief Deputy Brian Barkow and other sheriff’s office staff attempted to quell residents’ fears. During the Tuesday meeting of the Committee on Judiciary, Law Enforcement and General Services, board members listened to a lengthy presentation from the sheriff’s office differentiating various camera systems, and highlighting aspects of a proposed policy governing facial recognition technology. 

In June, the county board unanimously voted to call on the sheriff’s office  to work with community members to create such a policy. Residents had increasingly expressed concern after the Milwaukee Police Department signaled that it was exploring an agreement with Biomentrica to provide 2.5 million images, booking records and other information in exchange for access to facial recognition software. As concerns mounted about  the police department contract, the public learned that the county sheriff’s office  was also exploring a similar agreement with Biometrica. 

During the Tuesday committee meeting, Barkow ran through the various camera systems the sheriff’s office uses. From Genetec, a video management platform that can detect motion and loitering, to general purpose security cameras used from the zoo to the courthouse, cameras installed in police vehicles, camera trailers, body cameras, and AI-powered Flock cameras used to identify vehicle license plates. 

A sprawling network of Flock cameras has been erected by over 5,000 law enforcement agencies nationwide, including at least 221 in Wisconsin. The cameras perpetually photograph and identify vehicles using license plates, storing that data for a period of time and allowing law enforcement to search Flock’s network for that data. The cameras can be set up to notify officers of when specific vehicles are spotted, sending more notifications as they pass Flock cameras installed in one neighborhood or another.

Barkow and Sheriff Denita Ball said that saying that this practice amounts to “tracking” is a misrepresentation. “When you say ‘tracking’,” Barkow told the Wisconsin Examiner, “most people think of I’m like, live tracking you. And so an alert occurs, right, but it occurs after that vehicle has already been someplace.” Ball underscored the point. “What it says is the car is here at this time,” said Ball. “Now because it has alerted the police officer, the deputy sheriff, what they’re going to do now is follow that car.” Barkow added in such situations a deputy could “respond to that area to attempt to locate the vehicle.” It may then pass in front of another Flock camera at some point, or it may not, Barkow added. 

None of these systems use facial recognition software, Barkow and other sheriff’s office  staff said. Rather, the sheriff’s office sees its booking room cameras — used to photograph people during the intake process at the jail — as good candidates for Biometrica’s software. A PowerPoint presentation produced by the sheriff’s office states that these cameras can capture high-quality images of scars, marks, tattoos, and other distinctive characteristics. 

The presentation states that the sheriff’s office  is evaluating how facial recognition could be used to compare booking images against law enforcement databases. No biometric information or data would be accessed, stored, or transmitted, the PowerPoint stated, and all searches would be both private and logged, nor would the data be sold to third parties. 

Facial recognition software could be used to identify people linked to active investigations, missing persons, witnesses, victims, mitigating “imminent threats” like terrorism and violence, and assisting forensic processes. Sheriff’s office staff would be prohibited from using it for mass surveillance or indiscriminate tracking, automated real-time identification without human oversight, targeting people based on race, gender, religion, or other protected traits, or relying on facial recognition as the sole reason for an arrest or for pursuing a search warrant. 

Committee members peppered Barkow and company with a variety of questions. They raised concerns about the adoption of surveillance technologies in the current political climate, particularly when it comes to actions by the Trump administration. There were questions about whether agencies like immigration enforcement could access the accumulated data of Flock or facial recognition cameras, and who exactly in the sheriff’s  chain of command would be making decisions about how the technology is used and who accesses it. Some expressed concerns that facial recognition has been shown to have higher failure rates for non-white faces. Sheriff’s office staff  and representatives from Biometrica countered that although early models of the technology did have those issues, advancements have all but eliminated those concerns, though no specific improved detection rates were provided. 

Sup. Justin Bielinski, who chairs the committee, set a strict two-minute limit on speaking time because of the large volume of people waiting to comment

Calling Sheriff Ball a “liar” who had failed to respond to community concerns about the jail, Ron Jansen, the first member of the public to speak, said, “this department cannot be given additional power, period.” Jansen said that sheriff’s office  staff could run screenshots through facial recognition software applications, or request other law enforcement agencies to do it for them. Jansen pushed back against the sheriff’s claims that running a photo through facial recognition technology is similar to putting a picture out in the news. “Great!” Said Jansen. “I would encourage them not to waste our money on [facial recognition] technology and instead to continue running photos in the news, and asking for public support. It’s cheaper and probably a lot more effective.” 

One person after another  expressed doubts about the Milwaukee sheriff’s  push to adopt facial recognition technology, and also questioned the use of Flock cameras. Several referred to a recent scandal involving the Greenfield police chief, who is facing felony charges after having a department-owned pole camera installed at his home to monitor his wife during a messy divorce. Others compared the capabilities of Flock and facial recognition technology to World War II-era European countries where secret police photographed and identified targeted individuals. 

Many, including members of the committee, echoed fears about federal agencies accessing the data collected by the Milwaukee sheriff’s tools. “I haven’t heard one community member today say that they support this,” said Angela Lang, executive director of Black Leaders Organizing Communities (BLOC). “All of the folks that we have been talking to in the community say if we actually want to get to the root causes of crime, we invest in things like mental health and health care and affordable housing.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

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.