Milwaukee PD officers monitor the May Day 2025 march with a Critical Response Vehicle, outfitted as a surveillance van. (Photo by Isiah Holmes/Wisconsin Examiner)

A group of 19 community organizations have joined forces to push for oversight of police surveillance in Milwaukee. Together the groups signed an open letter addressed to the city’s common council, asking it to adopt a Community Control Over Police Surveillance (CCOPS) ordinance.

The measure would require existing surveillance technologies used by the Milwaukee Police Department (MPD) to receive a public hearing and be subject to approval by the Milwaukee Common Council.  The ordinance would also require the department to produce an annual report of surveillance gear. 

“The proliferation of surveillance technology by the Milwaukee Police Department has occurred with virtually no transparency, no opportunities for community input and — without a real opportunity to reject surveillance techs or advocate for critical guardrails — presents significant threats to civil rights and civil liberties that hurts us all but disproportionately impact communities of color, queer communities, people seeking reproductive healthcare, immigrant communities, people fleeing violence, and low-income communities,” the coalition states in its letter. 

“While we trust our local elected officials in Milwaukee, in light of the current political climate and the uncertainty surrounding future administrations at both the federal and state levels (both in Wisconsin and in other states), it is critical that our community has a say in if and how invasive surveillance technologies are used, how they are deployed against residents, if and how their data is stored and shared with third parties, and whether spending our limited tax dollars on surveillance technologies is the best way to promote public safety,” the letter adds.

CCOPS ordinances have already passed in 26 cities nationwide, and calls to rein in the flow and development of police surveillance technologies have grown in recent years in Milwaukee. Last year, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Wisconsin began advocating for CCOPS ordinances in the Badger State, prompted by a lack of discussion on the issue and the impending Republican National Convention during the summer of 2024. 

As with the 2020 Democratic National Convention four years earlier, the RNC brought with it an influx of new equipment that allowed MPD to augment its surveillance network. Before the DNC the police department upgraded its mobile phone surveillance gear, expanded a camera network capable of using automatic license plate reader technology, and purchased vans equipped with cameras and drones. The RNC likewise opened the door for a new open source intelligence software, growing MPD’s social media surveillance capabilities. 

During the summer of 2020, many people who joined protests following the death of George Floyd witnessed these technologies, and reported suspicions that they were being monitored. As time passed, investigations revealed that local police departments monitored social media closely and drew information from confidential databases, with one agency funneling much of what it’d learned into a “target list” of nearly 200 people. The list had been shared with dozens of local, state, and federal agencies from Milwaukee to Kenosha. 

Since then more attention has been focused on intelligence units such as the MPD’s fusion center, the Milwaukee County Sheriff’s “MATRIX Group”, and on technologies including drones, wiretap devices, gunshot detection sensors like Shotspotter, and spyware. More recently, Milwaukee residents have begun to express concerns about MPD’s plans to acquire facial recognition technology. 

The accumulation of these issues spurred the group of 19 community organizations to sign the letter calling for CCOPS. The coalition includes Planned Parenthood, Black Leaders Organizing Communities (BLOC), the ACLU of Wisconsin, Milwaukee Alliance Against Racist and Political Repression, Ex-Incarcerated People Organizing (EXPO), Voces de la Frontera Action, ComForce, Citizen Action of Wisconsin, the Milwaukee County League of Women Voters and others.  

The letter states that “policies are increasingly enacted, and local governments and their surveillance mechanisms will likely be used to target individuals seeking or providing these services. This scenario is particularly alarming given that Black, Brown, Muslim, queer, low-income, and immigrant communities are already disproportionately affected by law enforcement practices.” 

The letter suggests the stage is being set to repeat law enforcement spying scandals from the 1960s and ‘70s.

“Without robust oversight, we risk a resurgence of COINTELPRO-like tactics, where surveillance was used to suppress political dissent and target minority groups, including Dr. Martin Luther King Jr,” the letter states. “At a minimum, people who live, work, visit, or attend school in Milwaukee deserve to know if and how they’re being surveilled and who has access to that surveillance data.”

Protesters gather to march in Wauwatosa alongside the families of Antonio Gonzales, Jay Anderson Jr., and Alvin Cole in 2020. (Photo by Isiah Holmes/Wisconsin Examiner)

Update: Rep. Shae Sortwell issued a statement Wednesday morning disputing claims from Democratic Reps Ryan Clancy and Andrew Hysell that the riot bill was taken off the Assembly’s executive agenda. Sortwell accused Clancy and Hysell of “spreading misinformation” regarding the bill.

“To be clear, the chair never pulled the bill because he has not officially scheduled a vote on it yet after receiving a hearing two weeks ago. I am in discussions with colleagues on the committee, which is standard practice for bill authors after a public hearing. I ask both Democrat representatives to brush up on legislative policy on how bills actually move.”

Wednesday afternoon Rep. Ron Tusler, who chairs the assembly committee, which held public hearings on the riot bill, wrote in an email statement to Wisconsin Examiner that the riot bill needs work before it can be scheduled.

Tusler wrote that the bill “is not on the agenda because, in its current form, it fails to be good legislation. I wanted to give the bill author a chance to explain the bill out of respect for Representative Sortwell and the victims of riots. But in its current form, this bill has constitutional, common-sense, and enforcement issues. Assembly Bill 88, as it exists now, was never going to be scheduled for an executive session until those problems were/are addressed.”

A Republican-sponsored bill that would have defined a riot as a gathering of at least three people that could pose a threat of property damage or injury has been removed from the Assembly Judiciary Committee’s executive session agenda. The bill has been criticized for being overly broad, and potentially chilling First Amendment protections of protest and free speech. Besides defining a riot, the bill also exposed accused rioters and riot organizers to felony charges and civil liability including restitution for attorneys’ fees and property damage, and carried a prohibition on government officials with authority over law enforcement from limiting an agency’s response to quell unrest. 

Rep. Andrew Hysell (D- Sun Prairie), a member of the Assembly Committee on Judiciary, said that he criticized the bill because it “actually weakens existing law for the very people it was supposed to help.” The committee held a public hearing on the bill on May 7, at which  a large number of Wisconsinites voiced opposition to the bill. Rep. Shae Sortwell (R- Two Rivers), one of the bill’s authors, testified in favor of the bill, saying that it’s needed to prevent protests from spinning out of control into riots, property destruction, and injury. Sortwell and other republican supporters of the bill referenced protests and unrest in 2020 in Kenosha and  Madison. 

Among those who testified against the bill was Rep. Ryan Clancy (D-Milwaukee). Like other critics, Clancy said the bill was written vaguely in order to be applied broadly to crack down on protest movements. “While myself and many of my Democratic colleagues are tired of wasting our time and our constituents’ resources on badly written, unconstitutional bills like AB-88, I’m ecstatic that Republicans have abandoned this one for now,” Clancy said in a statement after the bill was shelved by the Assembly committee. “It’s clear that passionate, thoughtful testimony from the public, free speech advocates and civil rights experts – along with excellent technical critiques from Rep. Andrew Hysell – has stopped this so-called ‘anti-riot’ bill dead in its tracks.”

Clancy added that “in reality, however, this isn’t an ‘anti-riot’ bill: it’s a threat to free speech, expression and assembly disguised as a public safety measure. Thankfully, it’s now unlikely to move forward this session.” 

During the May 7 committee hearing where people spoke either in favor of or against the bill, one person wore a hat which used an expletive to denounce President Donald Trump. Committee Chair Ron Tusler (R- Harrison) demanded that the man remove the hat because it was offensive. Tusler threatened to have law enforcement remove the man, and called the hearing into recess. Later, when the hearing continued, the man was allowed to continue wearing the hat. Clancy told  Tusler his emotional reaction to the hat and his impulse to call for police was an example of how a broad, penalty-heavy bill for protests like AB-88 is a bad idea.

In his statement, Clancy urged his colleagues to spend “less time trying to dismantle our rights and getting angry at rude hats” and more time “addressing the actual needs of Wisconsin residents. Until that changes, we must all remain vigilant to fight back their next, terrible idea.” 

This article has been updated to add a statement from Rep. Shae Sortwell accusing Reps Ryan Clancy and Andrew Hysell of spreading misinformation about why the bill was taken off the executive session agenda. The article was updated again Wednesday afternoon with Committee Chair Rep. Ron Tusler’s statement regarding the riot bill. It has also been edited to correct Rep. Ron Tusler’s last name.