Milwaukee’s criminal justice system still relies on facial recognition technology in active prosecutions despite the police department’s moratorium announced in February. The Milwaukee Police Department banned its own use of the technology, but cases developed with facial recognition assistance continue moving through the courts, raising persistent questions about disclosure, accuracy, and whether defendants fully understand the evidence used against them.
The technology compares an unknown face in surveillance footage to databases of known faces using artificial intelligence. Federal research has documented higher false-positive rates for Black, Asian, and American Indian individuals, making misidentification a documented risk. Yet the scope of Milwaukee’s use remains unclear. The American Civil Liberties Union of Wisconsin reviewed police reports from more than a dozen cases MPD identified as examples of facial recognition use and found that many contained no mention of the technology at all.
Amanda Merkwae, policy and advocacy director for the ACLU of Wisconsin, said the total number of cases involving facial recognition, past or present, and whether defendants received that information during discovery remains unknown. “I think that’s still a big unknown,” Merkwae said.
How Milwaukee Police Used Facial Recognition Without Written Policy
In April 2025, the Milwaukee Police Department disclosed it had used other agencies’ licenses to obtain facial recognition search results for two to three years without a written department policy governing the practice. The department was simultaneously considering expanding access through an agreement with the private company Biometrica.
Public opposition mounted quickly. Residents and civil rights groups raised concerns about misidentification, racial bias, expanded surveillance, and damage to public trust. Milwaukee Police Chief Jeffrey Norman responded in February 2026 by prohibiting officers from using facial recognition technology. The department will not pursue additional access until it develops a comprehensive policy with the Fire and Police Commission.
The moratorium stopped new facial recognition searches by MPD. It did not, however, eliminate the technology from cases already in the criminal justice pipeline. Prosecutors in Milwaukee County continue handling cases in which facial recognition played some investigative role.
Disclosure Gaps Between Police and Prosecutors
Milwaukee County District Attorney Kent Lovern stated his office treats facial recognition results as investigative leads, not probable cause or the sole basis for search warrants. He said his office turns over information about facial recognition use to the defense as part of routine case discovery.
Deputy District Attorney Matthew Torbenson described a 2021 home invasion and sexual assault case in which another law enforcement agency used facial recognition to identify about five potential suspects from surveillance footage. Investigators pursued those leads and focused on one suspect using additional evidence, including an identification by his former spouse. All five potential matches went to the defense, Torbenson said.
Connor Romenesko, a forensic science practice coordinator with the Wisconsin State Public Defenders Office, said the practical reality is more complicated. Defense attorneys can obtain the image submitted for the facial recognition search and some technical information about the software, but they may not have enough detail to evaluate the entire system.
“The biggest concern I have with these services is that they’re provided by private companies who don’t necessarily provide information about how these systems are trained,” Romenesko said. This opacity makes challenging a facial recognition result extremely difficult, he added.
Romenesko said facial recognition disclosures sometimes appear in initial discovery but sometimes must be requested separately from police or prosecutors. Public defenders are trained to spot vague language such as “investigative lead” that may signal undisclosed facial recognition use, he said.
“Our lawyers are all trained, so that if they see that language, they’re going to go up to kind of alert to the fact that maybe this hasn’t been disclosed up front, which we also see in some cases,” Romenesko said.
Unresolved Questions About Transparency
Milwaukee County’s chief deputy district attorney Jeffrey Altenburg said early investigative leads sometimes are not initially shared with prosecutors. However, once those leads are corroborated using standard investigative techniques, details are included in reports provided to prosecutors and turned over to defendants if they face criminal charges.
The distinction between an initial undisclosed lead and a corroborated fact matters in practice. A facial recognition match by itself may be unreliable, especially for non-white faces. Federal research has confirmed higher false-positive rates for some racial and ethnic groups, yet a defendant may not know that their initial identification came from an algorithm rather than independent investigative work.
The Milwaukee Police Department did not respond to questions about its policies for disclosing facial recognition use to the District Attorney’s office. That silence leaves a critical gap. Without clear rules governing when and how facial recognition results must be documented and shared, defendants and their lawyers face difficulty determining whether the technology influenced their case.
Legal advocates argue the issue extends beyond Milwaukee. The absence of detailed procedures governing how different investigative and prosecution agencies cooperate can create confusion on the front lines, particularly when one agency’s investigation reveals significant gaps in another’s work.
Merkwae said the real question now is whether defendants charged in cases involving facial recognition received fair notice and adequate opportunity to challenge the technology. Until police, prosecutors, and courts establish clear, consistent rules for disclosure and evaluation, that question will remain unresolved for each case.
