Even as the Milwaukee Police Department backed away from facial recognition technology earlier this year after strong public criticism, records obtained by NNS show the department’s overall surveillance infrastructure continues to grow.
The number of cameras, license plate readers and other surveillance technologies available to the department has increased in recent years, along with the amount of money spent on these systems.
As was the case with facial recognition technology, MPD leaders say the tools help solve crimes and can make investigations more efficient
Critics, however, warn that an expanding surveillance infrastructure could make future monitoring technologies more powerful and raise concerns about privacy, oversight and civil rights violations – the same concerns raised over facial recognition technology.
Vaun Mayes, community activist and violence interrupter for the city’s Department of Community Wellness and Safety, says the cameras are a problem.
“People don’t want their rights or privacy threatened or infringed on,” Mayes said.
Critics are also questioning whether the department has produced evidence showing the surveillance expansion has led to measurable improvements in crime-solving or public safety.
More cameras, more systems
As of June 2026, MPD had access to 1,749 cameras, according to department records. Included are 1,200 body-worn cameras, 390 squad-car cameras and 159 fixed cameras.
While many of the cameras serve general surveillance purposes, a growing number are part of automatic license plate reader, or ALPR, systems.
MPD risk manager James Lewis said the department currently uses three separate ALPR platforms operated by different vendors: Flock Safety, Genetec and Axon.
The Genetec system includes 39 fixed ALPR cameras.
Officers can also access a cloud-based Flock Safety network consisting of 35 ALPR cameras.
Axon ALPR technology is also installed on 80 MPD patrol vehicles, allowing officers to capture and compare license plate data while on patrol.
Records show MPD’s surveillance infrastructure – and the amount spent on it – continues to grow.
MPD’s first Flock contract, approved in 2022, authorized up to $25,000 in spending.
By 2025, the department had entered into a new Flock contract worth up to $52,500, which grew to $182,900 through three amendments that added cameras, extended the contract term and expanded services.
Similarly, MPD added Axon ALPR technology in patrol cars in 2025 through a contract amendment that increased the contract by roughly $136,000.
How the technology helps police
The systems can notify officers when they detect a vehicle being sought by law enforcement.
ALPR systems can alert officers when a scanned plate matches a vehicle on a “be on the lookout” list, according to MPD policy,
Department policy also allows officers to conduct searches of stored ALPR data collected around the time and location of a reported crime.
Lewis said the systems are used in a range of investigations, which can include shootings, homicides, child abductions and sexual assaults.
In time-sensitive cases, like the abduction of a child, this technology can make crucial contributions to the investigation, said MPD Inspector Paul Lough, who has provided public testimony about the investigative value of facial recognition technology.
Lewis cited a homicide case in which surveillance footage showed a suspect getting into a vehicle after a shooting.
“We entered that plate into Flock, and were able to locate and apprehend that suspect,” Lewis said.
But Lewis repeatedly emphasized that surveillance technology is only one part of larger investigations.
“You can’t boil it down to simple, ‘Hey, Flock is the only reason why this happened,’” he said.
He described the systems as tools that complement traditional investigative work.
“We don’t have to stop every red car in the vicinity,” Lewis said. “We can stop the exact make, model and description of the vehicle that we’re looking for.”
He added that the technology can provide pinpoint locations of vehicles they’re searching.
Ongoing concerns about misuse of technology
When asked whether more cameras had resulted in more solved crimes, Lewis said the relationship was difficult to quantify.
“I don’t know that I’m able to correlate it exactly like that,” he said.
Emilio De Torre, executive director of the nonpartisan civic engagement organization Milwaukee Turners, advised careful consideration about the connection between increased surveillance resulting in increased safety.
He said there is no indication of the safety benefits of systemwide surveillance.
“That’s rhetoric without any data to back it up,” De Torre said.
Other concerns about MPD’s camera systems follow well-worn lines about privacy, over-policing and unjust surveillance practices – concerns also raised about facial recognition technology.
A network initially built to collect images can later be paired with software capable of identifying people, analyzing behavior, searching databases or sharing information across agencies, De Torre said.
“The public is only just learning how Flock and ALPRs are part of a much larger, more insidious web of nonstop surveillance,” De Torre said. “They can too readily determine where any of us are going at all times and what we’re doing.”
Mayes voiced similar concerns.
He said many residents view surveillance through the lens of previous experiences with policing and government monitoring.
“We see things like the multiple stories of officers being investigated for abusing those tools against people,” Mayes said.
Concerns about surveillance oversight intensified this year after a Milwaukee police officer was charged with misconduct for allegedly using the department’s Flock system to track a person he was dating and that person’s former partner.
In response, MPD reduced the number of employees with access to the system, required additional training and user agreements and expanded auditing procedures intended to detect misuse.
Safeguards exist, police say
Lewis rejected the notion that the department is building a surveillance state and emphasized that ALPR systems may only be used for legitimate law-enforcement purposes.
“The balance that we do is making sure that those reads and those queries can only be accessed when connected to a case or an investigation,” Lewis said.
He said officers cannot simply browse the systems without a criminal investigation or lawful purpose.
“If somebody does misuse it, there’s accountability for it,” Lewis said.
MPD policy states that employees who knowingly violate the directive are subject to discipline, and violations are investigated through the department’s internal affairs process.
Up next
Contracts can be amended after they are approved, allowing agencies to add equipment, services or funding.
The records reviewed by NNS show MPD’s surveillance technology contracts have been expanded through multiple amendments. This possibility is still present.
Since 2025, the department has amended its Flock and Axon agreements to add cameras, deploy license plate reader technology in patrol vehicles and increase spending.
De Torre said he thinks MPD is following a fundamentally flawed path that does not make us safer.
“I think they’re spending too much time looking for an easy solution to address wrongdoings and crime, and they’re moving away from the real answers,” he said.
Jonathan Aguilar is a visual journalist at Milwaukee Neighborhood News Service who is supported through a partnership between CatchLight Local and Report for America.
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
