What's Happening?
Despite the Milwaukee Police Department (MPD) implementing a ban on facial recognition technology in February, its use continues to surface in criminal prosecutions within Milwaukee County. This situation raises ongoing concerns among community members
regarding the technology's potential for errors, particularly its disproportionate inaccuracy in identifying non-white individuals, as highlighted by Amanda Merkwae of the American Civil Liberties Union of Wisconsin. The MPD had previously used other agencies' licenses to access facial recognition search results for two to three years without a formal departmental policy. Although Chief Jeffrey Norman prohibited MPD members from using the technology and stated it would not be acquired until a policy is developed with the Fire and Police Commission, this moratorium does not retroactively eliminate its use from cases where it was already employed. Milwaukee County District Attorney Kent Lovern clarified that his office treats facial recognition as an investigative lead, not as probable cause or the sole basis for a search warrant, and information regarding its use is provided to the defense.
Why It's Important?
The continued presence of facial recognition technology in Milwaukee's criminal justice system, even after a police department ban, has significant implications for civil liberties and due process. The technology's documented higher false-positive rates for certain racial and ethnic groups, including Black, Asian, and American Indian people, introduces a risk of wrongful accusations and exacerbates existing biases within the justice system. The lack of transparency from private companies providing these services regarding their training methodologies makes it challenging for defense attorneys to contest the results, potentially hindering a fair trial. Furthermore, the revelation that the MPD previously used the technology without a written policy and that its use was often not disclosed in police reports raises serious questions about accountability, oversight, and the rights of defendants to be fully informed about the evidence against them. This situation underscores a broader national debate about the ethical and legal boundaries of surveillance technologies in law enforcement.
What's Next?
The Milwaukee County District Attorney's office will continue to treat facial recognition technology as an investigative lead, ensuring that information about its use is turned over to the defense as part of the case file. However, the challenge remains for defense attorneys to effectively challenge these results, given the proprietary nature of the technology and the limited information available about its training and accuracy. Public defenders are being trained to identify vague language in reports that might indicate the use of facial recognition. The ACLU of Wisconsin's review of past cases suggests a significant unknown regarding the total number of instances where MPD used the technology and whether this information was consistently disclosed to defendants. Future developments will likely involve ongoing efforts by civil rights groups to push for greater transparency and stricter regulations on the use of facial recognition, potentially leading to legislative action or further legal challenges to ensure that its application aligns with constitutional rights and minimizes bias.
Beyond the Headlines
The Milwaukee situation highlights a critical tension between technological advancement in law enforcement and fundamental civil liberties. The lingering use of facial recognition, despite a departmental ban, exposes a loophole where technology can persist in the legal process even when its direct application by a specific agency is curtailed. This raises deeper questions about the interconnectedness of various law enforcement agencies and the sharing of investigative tools and data. The ethical dimension is particularly pronounced given the documented racial biases of these systems, which can perpetuate and amplify systemic inequalities within the criminal justice system. The lack of transparency from private vendors also points to a broader issue of corporate accountability in the development and deployment of powerful surveillance tools. Ultimately, this scenario underscores the need for comprehensive, legally binding frameworks that govern the acquisition, use, and disclosure of facial recognition technology across all levels of law enforcement to safeguard individual rights and ensure equitable justice.
