Milwaukee Police Still Lack Facial Recognition Rules as Officials Weigh Biometrica Deal and Oversight Demands

Milwaukee’s facial recognition debate returns to oversight board without a draft rulebook

Milwaukee officials are again confronting a central unresolved question in the city’s push toward facial recognition technology: what enforceable rules would govern its use. At a Milwaukee Fire and Police Commission meeting on Thursday, Feb. 5, 2026, commissioners heard hours of public testimony as the Milwaukee Police Department (MPD) discussed plans for facial recognition in criminal investigations while acknowledging it still does not have a draft Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) available for review.

MPD leaders said the department has not signed a contract for facial recognition services. The department has discussed using a vendor called Biometrica as part of a proposal that would trade access to a large archive of local booking photos and jail records for use of the company’s technology. The scale of that data-sharing concept — and the absence of a finalized policy describing who can run searches, under what conditions, and with what auditing — has become a focal point of public concern.

What MPD has said it wants to do — and what remains missing

Facial recognition in this context generally refers to taking a still image — such as a single frame from surveillance video — and comparing it to a database of known images to generate potential matches. In Milwaukee’s case, the discussion has centered on retrospective investigative use rather than continuous, real-time scanning of crowds. However, speakers at public meetings have raised concerns that data collected or shared locally could be accessed or repurposed beyond the city’s intended scope.

MPD representatives have previously acknowledged that the department has sought assistance from neighboring jurisdictions that already have facial recognition capabilities, even though Milwaukee itself lacked a local policy governing such use. That admission has intensified calls for clear written limits before any expanded adoption proceeds.

Oversight structure: who can set policy, and who can block it

In Milwaukee, the police chief has authority to issue departmental policy, while the Milwaukee Common Council has the ability to modify or reject that policy by a two-thirds vote. The Fire and Police Commission does not write police policy, but it can hold public hearings and make recommendations that shape the political and procedural pathway for adoption.

Council members have already signaled concerns about the risks of misidentification and the effect on public trust. Separately, the Milwaukee Equal Rights Commission has taken a formal position opposing implementation of facial recognition by MPD, citing the potential for disproportionate impacts and a lack of publicly available evidence of positive outcomes in comparable cities.

Key issues raised: accuracy, civil liberties, and accountability mechanisms

Public testimony has repeatedly emphasized three practical questions that any future SOP would be expected to answer:

• Training and access: which personnel may conduct searches, and what required training and supervision would apply.

• Decision limits: whether searches can be used only as investigative leads — and whether arrests, warrants, or stops would be prohibited from relying solely on a facial recognition result.

• Audits and records: what logs are kept, who can review them, and what consequences follow misuse or policy violations.

At the Feb. 5 meeting, commissioners and residents repeatedly framed the absence of a written SOP as a core governance gap: the technology is being discussed in detail, but the operational guardrails remain undefined.

With no signed contract and no published draft policy, the next steps hinge on when MPD produces a written SOP and whether the Common Council and oversight bodies accept it as sufficiently specific, enforceable, and transparent.