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.