Kenosha Policy Tracker

# Local Courts and Cities Quietly Rewrite Surveillance Rules and Expand Enforcement Amid Growing Transparency Concerns In recent months, a concerning pattern has intensified across Wisconsin and nationwide: local governments and judicial institutions are stealthily enacting reforms that expand surveillance, tighten enforcement, and reduce transparency—often without meaningful public oversight or debate. These developments threaten foundational democratic principles, civil liberties, and community trust, revealing a deliberate effort to increase control under the guise of security and efficiency. ## Eroding Transparency and Entrenching Surveillance: The Local Landscape ### Kenosha: Judicial Policy Reforms Curtail Courtroom Transparency Kenosha County illustrates how judicial discretion is being consolidated behind closed doors. Traditionally, policies governing courtroom photography and recordings aimed to balance transparency with judicial integrity, with oversight managed transparently by an **independent intake commissioner**. This role provided an essential layer of accountability, ensuring media and citizen access was fair and subject to review. However, following a **lawsuit involving State Representative Samantha Kerkman**, the judiciary **revised its policies with little public notice**. These changes **shifted decision-making authority directly into the judiciary**, effectively **diminishing the role of the intake commissioner**. As a result, **access for media and the public to courtroom recordings and photographs has become more restrictive**, significantly reducing oversight and hampering the public’s ability to scrutinize judicial proceedings. Critics warn that these reforms **undermine transparency**, **limit accountability**, and **risk unchecked judicial discretion**. Such moves threaten to **foster more opaque courtroom proceedings**, diminish the public’s right to oversight, and erode trust in the judicial system’s fairness. ### Verona: Surveillance Infrastructure Remains Post-Contract Termination In Verona, controversy persists over the continued operation of surveillance infrastructure despite the city’s **formal termination of a contract with Flock Safety**, a private firm specializing in **license plate reader (LPR)** cameras. Residents and civil liberties advocates have observed that **the cameras remain installed and operational months after** the city officially withdrew from the agreement. This persistence **raises alarms about ongoing surveillance activities**, data collection practices, and the lack of transparent policies for **removing or decommissioning** such systems. Civil liberties groups warn that **once installed**, these surveillance tools **can become de facto permanent fixtures**, transforming from safety measures into mechanisms for **pervasive monitoring**. The case underscores how **surveillance infrastructure, once entrenched**, can **become difficult to dismantle**, leading to **erosion of privacy rights** without community input or oversight. The absence of clear protocols for **data retention and infrastructure removal** damages **public trust** and fuels fears of **unchecked surveillance expansion**. Key concerns include: - Continued operation of surveillance cameras **despite official contract termination** - Lack of transparent policies on **data retention** and **removal procedures** - Risks of surveillance systems becoming **permanent fixtures** without community consent ### Madison: Visible Policing to Foster Transparency In a positive development, Madison officials have **begun adding clear placards to unmarked police vehicles**. This initiative aims to **distinguish local law enforcement from federal agencies like ICE**, especially amid heightened scrutiny of immigration enforcement tactics. Madison Police Chief stated: _"Adding these placards is a step toward greater transparency. We want residents to know who is policing their streets and to prevent any confusion with federal agencies."_ This effort reflects **growing local awareness** of immigration-related concerns and underscores **clarity and accountability** in policing. It seeks to **build community trust** and **reduce misunderstandings**, particularly when unmarked vehicles are involved, which can sometimes evoke suspicion or fear. ## Broader National Context: Enforcement Escalates and Oversight Challenges Mount These local developments are part of a **broader national trend** involving federal investigations, court rulings, and enforcement actions that threaten civil liberties and transparency: - **Federal Investigations and Court Rulings**: A **federal perjury probe** is targeting **two ICE officers** over discrepancies related to the **Minneapolis migrant shooting case**. Furthermore, a **federal court ruling** recently confirmed that **over 4,400 ICE detainees** since October were **illegally detained**, exposing systemic issues within immigration detention practices. These cases highlight the **urgent need for robust oversight** of immigration enforcement agencies. - **Mass Arrests and Suppression of Dissent**: Recent reports detail **dozens of arrests during ongoing unrest in Minneapolis**, where authorities detained protesters and activists suspected of being “agitators.” These operations, often involving **massive sweeps**, raise serious concerns about the **suppression of dissent** and the **potential use of enforcement to silence political activism**. - **Government Monitoring Critics**: The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has reportedly **requested social media platforms** to **identify users critical of ICE activities**, prompting alarm over **government efforts to surveil and potentially suppress dissent**. Such actions threaten **free speech** and **privacy rights**. - **Expansion of Enforcement Programs**: Initiatives like **287(g)** continue to facilitate **federal-state enforcement partnerships** along the northern border, often operating with limited public oversight. A recent video, *"The Other Border: 287(g) and Enforcement on the Northern Front,"* highlights these expanding surveillance and enforcement techniques, emphasizing their reach beyond traditional borders. - **Use-of-Force and Police Accountability**: A recent **federal ruling** acknowledged that **Wisconsin police used excessive force with a Taser**, marking a significant step toward **policing accountability**. - **Bipartisan Condemnation**: U.S. senators from both parties have **publicly condemned aggressive enforcement tactics**, especially following incidents involving immigration agents that resulted in fatalities. This bipartisan stance signals increasing recognition of the need for oversight and restraint. ## Recent Developments: Legal Challenges and Community Advocacy Adding to these concerns, recent legal actions and advocacy efforts are shaping the landscape: - **Wilke v. Spanske (Case No: 2:26-cv-00269)**: Filed on **February 18, 2026**, this federal lawsuit highlights **systemic issues related to surveillance and enforcement misconduct**, with ongoing judicial scrutiny that could influence future policy reforms. - **Civil Rights Lawsuit Challenging Immigration Immunity**: A notable development involves a **civil rights lawsuit filed by George Retes**, which challenges the **Trump administration’s claims of immunity for immigration enforcement officers**. The case tests whether federal officers can evade accountability despite allegations of misconduct, excessive force, or violations of constitutional rights. Legal experts suggest this case could set a precedent for **more rigorous oversight** of immigration enforcement practices. - **ACLU of Wisconsin Responds to Flock Surveillance Misuse**: The **American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Wisconsin** has **publicly rebuked the misuse of Flock Safety surveillance technology** by Milwaukee police. Concerns include **illegal data collection**, **lack of transparency**, and **potential violations of privacy rights**. The ACLU emphasizes the importance of **accountability** and **strict oversight** for surveillance tools that can **impact civil liberties** if misused or left unchecked. - **Milwaukee’s Preparations for ICE Activity**: Community protests and advocacy continue as local officials **prepare for potential increases in ICE enforcement operations**, following protests in January 2026. Many residents oppose such measures, fearing they threaten immigrant communities and contribute to **community distrust**. - **Legal Ruling on Masked ICE Arrests**: A significant judicial decision declared that **ICE agents conducting arrests while masked** **violate constitutional rights**, emphasizing that **transparency and accountability** are essential. The judge stated: > “A mask does not stop a bullet. It does not deflect a blow. It provides no physical protection that the Constitution guarantees. Masked arrests undermine transparency and accountability.” This ruling marks an important legal victory, reinforcing the principle that **law enforcement must operate openly** whenever possible. ## Implications and Recommendations: Protecting Civil Liberties As surveillance infrastructure becomes more pervasive and enforcement practices more opaque, the risks to civil liberties escalate. The **erosion of transparency**, **lack of public oversight**, and **entrenched surveillance systems** threaten to normalize unchecked authority. To counter these dangerous trends, advocates recommend: - **Establishing transparent protocols** for **data management**, including **clear policies for data retention, access, and removal** of surveillance infrastructure. - **Hosting public hearings and community engagement** to scrutinize policies related to surveillance and enforcement, ensuring community voices influence decision-making. - **Legal challenges** to unconstitutional practices, such as **masked arrests** and **illegal detentions**. - **Strengthening oversight mechanisms** to prevent misuse of surveillance technology and enforce accountability at all levels of government. ## Current Status and Future Outlook While some victories—such as **federal rulings on detention abuses** and **local initiatives promoting transparency**—offer hope, significant challenges remain. Surveillance systems, once installed, tend to **become deeply embedded**, complicating efforts to remove or reform them. Similarly, **judicial policy shifts that restrict public access** threaten to further diminish transparency and accountability. **Federal investigations**, **ongoing court cases**, and **local policy shifts** underscore the importance of **public vigilance**. Civic organizations like the **ACLU of Wisconsin** continue to advocate for **stronger oversight**, **policy reforms**, and **community education** to safeguard civil liberties. The struggle to uphold democratic freedoms amid expanding surveillance and enforcement is ongoing. Communities, legal advocates, and policymakers must work collaboratively to **ensure transparency**, **protect privacy rights**, and **prevent the normalization of unchecked authority**. **In an era where surveillance and enforcement are expanding behind closed doors, civic vigilance, transparency, and legal accountability are more vital than ever to uphold individual rights and democratic integrity.**

# Escalating Conflict Over ICE Detainers in Wisconsin: Federal Crackdowns, Local Resistance, and Community Resilience The ongoing clash over Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detainers in Wisconsin has entered a new, more intense phase. Federal agencies are stepping up enforcement efforts and legal actions, confronting local governments and immigrant communities that seek to limit or oppose cooperation with federal immigration authorities. This confrontation highlights a fundamental struggle between federal authority and local sovereignty, with profound implications for civil liberties, public safety, and community trust across the state. --- ## Rising Federal Pressure and Oversight Initiatives In recent weeks, federal agencies have significantly increased their efforts to challenge Wisconsin’s local policies on ICE detainers, signaling a broader push to reassert federal control over immigration enforcement: - **Federal Lawsuit Against State Policies**: Building on a nationwide trend, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) recently **filed a lawsuit against New Jersey** for its executive order restricting local cooperation with ICE. The DOJ claims such restrictions **violate federal law** and **undermine public safety**, seeking to **invalidate these policies**. This move exemplifies a more aggressive federal stance that could significantly influence Wisconsin’s local policies, especially as similar legal pressures mount locally. - **Federal Investigations into ICE Officers**: Federal authorities have launched **a perjury investigation into two ICE officers** involved in a Minneapolis case concerning a migrant shooting. The probe exposes concerns about **enforcement integrity**, **officer credibility**, and **transparency**, raising questions about **misconduct and deception** within ICE ranks and whether such issues undermine enforcement legitimacy. - **Civil Rights and Oversight Advocacy**: Civil rights organizations, including the ACLU, have intensified calls for greater oversight. On **February 12, 2026**, they sent a **letter to the Senate Homeland Security Committee** urging **enhanced scrutiny of ICE detainer policies**. Advocates highlight issues like **racial profiling**, **unlawful detention practices**, and **civil liberties infringements**, demanding **clear guidelines** and **accountability measures** to prevent abuses. - **Surveillance and Free Speech Risks**: The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has requested social media platforms **to identify users criticizing ICE**—a move critics say could **chill free speech** and **enable unwarranted surveillance**. Civil liberties groups warn that such tactics **threaten First Amendment rights** and **erode community trust**, raising alarms about **potential misuse of surveillance tools**. - **Judicial Rulings on Enforcement Tactics**: A recent federal ruling declared **masked ICE arrests unconstitutional**, emphasizing that **"a mask does not stop a bullet"** and offers **no physical protection**. The judge criticized enforcement practices that **conceal officers’ identities**, calling into question **transparency and accountability**. This decision could influence future enforcement protocols, requiring greater transparency. --- ## State and Local Responses: Divided, Partisan, and Community-Focused Within Wisconsin, local governments and officials remain sharply divided over how to approach ICE cooperation, reflecting broader partisan tensions and community priorities: - **Sanctuary Policies and Ordinances**: Several municipalities have **enacted sanctuary measures** to **limit or prohibit local agencies from honoring ICE detainer requests**. These policies aim to **protect immigrant communities** from unwarranted detention and foster **trust in law enforcement**. However, they often **face resistance** from law enforcement advocates who argue such measures **hinder public safety** and **federal cooperation**. - **Pro-Enforcement Initiatives**: Conversely, some officials push for **expanded enforcement efforts**, including **E-Verify employment verification laws** and actions aimed at **securing voter rolls**. These initiatives are framed as **necessary for public safety** and **election integrity**, highlighting ongoing partisan divides over immigration enforcement. - **Madison’s Transparency and Trust Measures**: Madison police have **added placards to unmarked patrol vehicles** to **reduce fears among immigrant residents** and **increase transparency**. Such steps are designed to **build community trust** amid heightened tensions and demonstrate **civil liberties commitments**. - **Governor Tony Evers’ Public Stance**: Governor Evers publicly **emphasized the importance of immigrant labor to Wisconsin’s economy**, stating, **"They’re the ones that milk our cows, work in our factories. If we go after those folks, our economy will implode overnight."** His comments underscore the economic stakes and political sensitivities surrounding immigration enforcement in the state. --- ## Community Impact and Active Resistance The federal push for stricter enforcement has galvanized community responses, ranging from protests to strategic preparations: - **Mass Arrests and Protests**: On **February 19, 2026**, reports emerged of ICE staging **mass arrests targeting activists and community members** documenting enforcement actions. Witnesses described **coordinated efforts to detain protesters**, fueling fears of **dissent suppression** and **intimidation of vulnerable populations**. - **Milwaukee’s Preparedness**: As tensions escalate, Milwaukee officials are **preparing for a potential ICE enforcement surge**. Community organizations and local authorities are **collaborating on strategies** to **protect residents** and **uphold civil liberties**, emphasizing **community resilience**. - **Ongoing Demonstrations and Litigation**: Anti-ICE protests continue across Wisconsin and neighboring states like Minnesota. Critics argue that police responses **undermine rights to assemble and dissent**, further polarizing communities. Civil liberties groups, notably the **ACLU of Wisconsin**, remain active, especially in **challenging surveillance practices** such as misuse of **Flock cameras** and **policing protest-related activities**. - **Surveillance and Privacy Concerns**: The **ACLU of Wisconsin** recently **criticized Milwaukee police** over allegations of **misusing Flock surveillance cameras**, raising **privacy violations** and **racial profiling concerns**. Civil rights advocates warn that such tools, while intended for safety, risk **overreach** and **abuse**. --- ## Legal and Procedural Challenges: Navigating a Complex Legal Terrain Legal battles over ICE cooperation continue to unfold, with procedural challenges shaping the landscape: - **Wilke v. Spanske**: Filed **on February 18, 2026**, this case **challenges local law enforcement’s cooperation with ICE** and alleges **civil rights violations**. The recent **dismissal without prejudice**—requiring the plaintiff to **refile under his real name**—highlights procedural hurdles in civil rights litigation, underscoring the complexities faced by advocates. - **Civil Rights Lawsuits Challenging Immunity**: A new **civil rights lawsuit titled "Civil rights lawsuit challenges immigration immunity"** has been filed, aiming to **test the Trump administration’s claim** that federal immigration enforcement officers are **immune from local prosecution**. The case **raises critical questions about accountability** and could influence **federal and state enforcement practices**. - **Legislative and Federal Actions**: States like Oregon are **proposing bills** to **permit lawsuits against ICE and CBP**, seeking **greater oversight and accountability**. Meanwhile, the federal government’s **filed lawsuit against Wisconsin** over policies limiting ICE cooperation **sets a precedent** that could **pressure Wisconsin to modify its stance** or risk **federal intervention**, further intensifying legal conflicts. --- ## Broader Implications and Current Status Wisconsin remains **a battleground of conflicting forces**: - **Federal investigations, lawsuits, and enforcement efforts** are **intensifying**, often clashing with **local sanctuary policies** and **community resistance**. - The state exemplifies **deep partisan divides**, with some officials advocating for **strict enforcement** and others emphasizing **protection of civil liberties**. - **Community trust** continues to be **fragile**, with ongoing protests, legal challenges, and strategic initiatives aimed at **preserving civil rights**. - The **federal lawsuit against New Jersey**, along with Wisconsin’s own legal challenges, signals an emerging trend of **federal attempts to override local policies**, risking further escalation. **The trajectory forward depends on the dynamic interplay between federal actions, state and local policies, and grassroots resistance.** Civil liberties advocates are steadfast in **fighting overreach and defending constitutional rights**, while federal agencies seem poised to **expand enforcement efforts**, making Wisconsin a critical front in the broader national debate over immigration enforcement, civil rights, and local sovereignty. --- ## Recent Legal Developments: Civil Rights Litigation Challenges Immigration Immunity Adding to the mounting tensions, a significant **civil rights lawsuit** titled **"Civil rights lawsuit challenges immigration immunity"** has been filed by George Retes. This case seeks to **test the Trump administration’s claims** that federal immigration enforcement officers **are immune from local prosecution** and **civil suits**. The lawsuit underscores ongoing concerns about **accountability** and **civil liberties**, particularly when enforcement actions lead to **unlawful detention or civil rights violations**. --- ## Conclusion Wisconsin stands at a pivotal crossroads, balancing **public safety**, **civil liberties**, and **community resilience** amid a rapidly evolving enforcement landscape. The federal push for stricter immigration measures, coupled with local resistance and legal battles, underscores the profound stakes involved. The coming months will determine whether Wisconsin can **forge a path that respects civil rights and community trust** or becomes further embroiled in federal enforcement conflicts with long-lasting consequences for all residents. As tensions continue to simmer, the state's response will serve as a critical indicator of how the nation navigates the complex interplay between immigration enforcement, civil liberties, and local sovereignty.