ACLU letter raises alarm about Milwaukee PD surveillance

Yahoo

18-04-2025

A surveillance van or "critical response vehicle". (Photo by Isiah Holmes/Wisconsin Examiner)
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Wisconsin has issued a letter asking elected leaders in Milwaukee to temper the acquisition and use of surveillance technologies by the Milwaukee Police Department (MPD). On Thursday evening, the police department went before the Fire and Police Commission (FPC) to push for the use of facial recognition technology. This, along with the common council's recent approval of drone usage by the MPD, has spurred the ACLU to call for a two-year pause on the adoption of new surveillance technologies, and craft frameworks to regulate the technology MPD already has 'with meaningful opportunities for community input.'
Although it acknowledges that many on the council and within MPD 'care deeply about the safety and well-being of our city,' the ACLU's letter also warns that 'history has shown time and again, authoritarianism does not always arrive with flashing lights and villainous speeches — it often comes wrapped in routine procedure, paperwork, and people 'just doing their jobs.''
'We are already seeing how surveillance technology is being weaponized in real time,' the ACLU continued, citing data-gathering, automatic license plate readers, artificial intelligence (AI), and other tools that are used to 'target and detain individuals.'
The MPD has long denied that it uses facial recognition technology. As part of an investigation into surveillance technologies which the department obtained ahead of the 2020 Democratic National Convention (DNC), Wisconsin Examiner reviewed 'investment justification' records from the state's Homeland Security Council which suggested that the Southeastern Threat Analysis Center — a homeland security-focused aspect of the MPD's intel-gathering Fusion Center — utilized Clear facial recognition technology. It was described as a 'mobile device' that would allow police to 'conduct timely identification of individuals in the field to prevent terrorist attack.'
By contrast, MPD PowerPoint presentations prepared for the April 17 FPC meeting openly advertise the use of facial recognition. The PowerPoint details two examples of arrests made using facial recognition software. One 'case study' from March 2024 involved a fatal gun violence incident where the suspects fled. The PowerPoint said that they were later seen at a gas station, and that facial recognition software provided leads to both suspects. Noting that 'facial recognition results are advisory in nature and are to be treated as investigative leads only,' the PowerPoint states that a Department of Corrections agent confirmed the software's results, leading to arrests the next morning.
One of the PowerPoint slides shows in-custody photographs of the arrested men above pictures of them masked in a gas station. The slides showed that the facial recognition software had a 'similarity' rating of 99.7% for one man, and 98.1% for another. Both men are waiting for a trial. The other case study focused on a sexual assault incident involving a gun. Like the other example, surveillance footage of the suspect from a gas station helped lead to the arrest. MPD sent out a facial recognition request to local agencies. It was answered by the Wauwatosa Police Department, which returned two pictures of the same individual. The pictures had similarity ratings of 99.1% and 98.9% respectively. The arrested man was sentenced to 20 years in prison.
The PowerPoint presentation lists 14 cases from the North and South Sides of Milwaukee. It states that MPD 'would be diligent in balancing the need for effective, accurate investigations and the need to respect the privacy of others,' and that facial recognition does not establish probable cause to arrest someone or obtain a warrant. 'It may generate investigative leads through a combination of automated biometric comparisons and human analysis,' the PowerPoint states. 'Corroborating information must be developed through additional investigation.'
PUBLIC Facial Rec for FPC
A PowerPoint presentation detailing the Milwaukee PD's plans for facial recognition software.
MPD has reviewed procedures for the technology's use nationwide, and stated that 'oversight of the system will consist of an audit report showing information requested, accessed, searched, or disseminated.' All requests for facial recognition must be approved by a supervisor, and the department will keep a log of each search and the type of crime involved. Biometrica is the chosen facial recognition vendor. The PowerPoint states that the company has worked with the NAACP and the ACLU to provide anti-bias training for users of the software.
The reassurances, however, do little to quell the concerns of privacy advocates. In their letter to the MPD and common council, the ACLU of Wisconsin highlighted ongoing immigrant roundups by the Trump administration, and the deportation of Milwaukee residents to a notorious maximum security terrorism prison in El Salvador. 'It is being used to monitor and prosecute political protesters, people seeking reproductive health care, LGBTQ+ individuals, and doctors trying to provide care,' the letter states. 'These are not projections — these are present-day realities carried out by bad actors within the federal government and local jurisdictions.'
The ACLU letter warns, 'while we trust that our local leaders and police officers have good intentions, history reminds us how quickly larger systems can override those intentions.'
In recent years MPD has expanded its network of surveillance cameras and other activities such as its phone surveillance operations remain shrouded in secrecy. MPD has also built up its social media surveillance footprint using AI-powered software, after downplaying the very existence of those activities in years past.
'Data collected in Milwaukee does not stay in Milwaukee,' the ACLU states. 'Once it enters a federal pipeline, it can be accessed, shared, and used in ways we cannot predict — or stop. That's why now, more than ever, we must choose restraint. The rule of law at the federal level is unraveling before our eyes.'
The same set of concerns came up during a March 20 FPC meeting, where commissioners discussed the MPD's use of drones and facial recognition technology. Police officials claimed that complaints about law enforcement using drones lagged behind the rate of agencies acquiring the technology, suggesting that the public approves. Police officials said that MPD's 'Airborne Assessment Team,' which is attached to the department's Specialized Patrol Division, would help increase situational awareness, de-escalate dangerous situations, aid search-and-rescue, help manage major events and offer unique opportunities to 'positively engage' with the community. In protest situations, drones would allow MPD to monitor an area while not physically placing officers nearby, whose presence could trigger an escalation among the protest crowd.
MPD said that its drones do not have facial recognition capabilities. Still, the growth of MPD's surveillance powers have worried some community members. Commissioner Bri Spencer said during the meeting that it would be nice for a community-based tech advisory board to be established to help review MPD's surveillance requests. Spencer said that nationwide and historically, it's not unheard-of for law enforcement surveillance programs to get out of hand.
'I get it for water rescue, I'm very worried about things like protests,' said Spencer. 'I think for very good reason. Our federal government is doing some very funky things right now with protesters. So I get what you're saying, and I see in the SOP that you're like, 'We're not going to do that.' I don't know if that's sufficient in terms of a protection, particularly for people who are skeptical about the use of these technologies.'
Police officials said that drones are a crowd management tool, and that during the Republican National Convention (RNC) they helped monitor protest movements to ensure opposing groups didn't come into contact with one another. Spencer reiterated, 'I think I just worry about the cost to individual civil rights and, like, how that's going to just keep growing in our society…I wish the public had more input into whether or not the use of this type of technology is happening here. Talking to the community is not the same as letting them have a decision about whether or not they want drones in their city being run by police.'
MPD spokespeople said the department based its drone usage procedures on best practice guidance from the ACLU, and that the department is 'very late' to the drone game. The Milwaukee County Sheriff's Office, for example, officially announced its drone program in 2021.
Ahead of the DNC nearly five years ago, the MPD acquired large white vans called 'critical response vehicles', which are also attached to the Specialized Patrol Division and came equipped with their own tethered aerial drones. Wisconsin Examiner found that the sheriff's drones were used to monitor police accountability protests, with the number of flights dropping significantly once the protests subsided.
In its letter Thursday, the ACLU stressed that police abuse of surveillance 'is not ancient history' but rather 'it's living memory for many in our city.' Some may remember the reign of police chief Harold Breier, who surveilled civil rights activists, LGBTQ+ communities, and Black Milwaukeeans. 'And those who carried out that surveillance often believed they were 'just doing their jobs.'' The ACLU's letter questions what a personality like Chief Breier would do with today's surveillance powers.
'We're not calling for a ban,' the letter states. Instead, the ACLU calls for a two-year pause on acquiring new surveillance technologies, especially facial recognition technology, 'while we assess the potential risks.' In the meantime, the letter urges city leaders to 'pass a framework for regulating existing surveillance technology, such as adopting a Community Control Over Police Surveillance (CCOPS) Ordinance to bring accountability to these decisions before it's too late.'