Kenosha Policy Tracker

# Local Courts and Cities Quietly Rewrite Surveillance Rules and Expand Enforcement Amid Growing Transparency Concerns In recent months, a troubling pattern has emerged across Wisconsin and nationwide: local governments and judicial institutions are quietly enacting reforms that expand surveillance, tighten enforcement, and diminish transparency — often without meaningful public oversight or debate. These subtle yet impactful shifts threaten core democratic principles, civil liberties, and community trust, revealing a concerted effort to increase control under the guise of security and efficiency. ## Local Developments: Eroding Transparency and Entrenching Surveillance ### Kenosha: Judicial Policy Reforms Curtail Courtroom Transparency Kenosha County exemplifies how judicial discretion is being consolidated behind closed doors. Historically, policies governing courtroom photography and recordings aimed to strike a balance between transparency and judicial integrity, with oversight managed transparently by an **independent intake commissioner**. This role provided public 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**, reducing oversight and limiting 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 **create more opaque courtroom proceedings**, diminishing the public’s right to oversight and eroding 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 highlights 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**. Additionally, 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 underscore 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. ## Latest 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 case highlights **systemic issues related to surveillance and enforcement misconduct**, with ongoing judicial scrutiny that could influence policy reforms. - **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, raising concerns over **illegal data collection**, **lack of transparency**, and **potential violations of privacy rights**. The ACLU's statement underscores 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**: Local officials are **actively preparing for potential increases in ICE enforcement operations**, amid community protests and concerns about immigration raids. The **public outcry in January 2026** exemplifies ongoing resistance to federal immigration enforcement strategies seen by many as harmful to immigrant communities. - **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: Safeguarding Civil Liberties As surveillance infrastructure becomes more pervasive and enforcement practices more opaque, the risks to civil liberties intensify. The **erosion of transparency**, **lack of public oversight**, and **entrenchment of surveillance systems** threaten to normalize unchecked authority. To counter these 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 are heard. - **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, substantial challenges remain. Surveillance systems, once installed, tend to **become deeply embedded**, making their removal or reform difficult. Similarly, **judicial policy shifts restricting 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 fight to uphold democratic freedoms in the face of expanding surveillance and enforcement continues. Communities, legal advocates, and policymakers must work together to **ensure transparency**, **protect privacy rights**, and **prevent the normalization of unchecked authority**. The recent legal rulings, advocacy efforts, and policy reforms highlight both the vulnerabilities and opportunities to steer toward a more accountable and rights-respecting future. **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 debate over Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detainers in Wisconsin has entered a new phase, marked by intensified federal scrutiny, legal confrontations, and spirited community resistance. As federal agencies pursue aggressive enforcement tactics, local governments and residents grapple with the implications for civil liberties, public safety, and community trust. The evolving landscape underscores a fundamental clash: federal authority versus local sovereignty, with profound consequences for immigrant communities and civil rights advocates alike. --- ## Federal Oversight and Legal Battles Reach New Heights In recent weeks, federal agencies have ramped up their efforts to challenge state and local policies related to ICE enforcement in Wisconsin, leading to a series of high-profile legal actions and investigations that threaten to reshape enforcement practices: - **Federal Lawsuit Against State Policies**: Building upon broader federal efforts, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) recently **filed a lawsuit against New Jersey** over its executive order restricting cooperation with federal immigration authorities. The DOJ argues that such restrictions **violate federal law** and **compromise public safety**, seeking to **invalidate these state measures**. This move signals a more aggressive federal stance that could influence Wisconsin’s policies, especially as similar efforts are underway locally. - **Federal Investigations into ICE Officers**: Federal authorities have launched **a perjury investigation into two ICE officers** tied to conflicting testimonies during a case involving a migrant shooting in Minneapolis. This probe exposes concerns over **enforcement integrity**, **officer credibility**, and **transparency**, raising questions about **accountability within ICE** and whether misconduct or deception is undermining enforcement legitimacy. - **Civil Rights and Oversight Advocacy**: Civil rights organizations sent a **letter on February 12, 2026**, to the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, urging **enhanced oversight of ICE detainer policies**. Advocates cite issues such as **racial profiling**, **unlawful detention practices**, and **civil liberties infringements**, demanding **clear guidelines** and **accountability measures** to prevent unconstitutional abuses. - **Surveillance and Free Speech Risks**: The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has requested social media platforms **to identify users criticizing ICE**, a controversial move civil liberties groups warn could **chill free speech** and **enable unwarranted government surveillance**. Civil rights advocates argue that such tactics **threaten First Amendment rights** and **undermine community trust**, raising alarms about **potential misuse of surveillance tools**. - **Judicial Rulings on Enforcement Tactics**: A recent federal judge **declared masked ICE arrests unconstitutional**, emphasizing that **"a mask does not stop a bullet"** and **provides no physical protection**. The ruling criticizes enforcement practices that **conceal officers’ identities**, which many see as **undermining transparency** and **accountability**, and could influence future enforcement protocols. --- ## State and Local Responses: Divided, Partisan, and Community-Focused Within Wisconsin, local governments and officials are sharply divided over how to approach ICE cooperation, reflecting broader partisan tensions and community priorities: - **Sanctuary Policies and Ordinances**: Several jurisdictions have **enacted measures to limit or prohibit local agencies from honoring ICE detainer requests**. These sanctuary 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 policies **hinder public safety** and **cooperation with federal authorities**. - **Pro-Enforcement Initiatives**: Conversely, some officials promote **expanded enforcement efforts**, including **E-Verify employment verification laws** and initiatives aimed at **securing voter rolls**. These measures are framed as **necessary for public safety** and **election integrity**, highlighting the ongoing partisan divide. - **Madison’s Trust-Building Measures**: In a notable move, Madison police **added placards to unmarked patrol vehicles** to **reduce fears among immigrant residents** and **increase transparency** about law enforcement activities. Such efforts aim to **build community trust** amid heightened tensions and signal a commitment to **civil liberties**. - **Governor Tony Evers’ Defense of Immigration’s Economic Role**: Governor Evers publicly **highlighted the vital role of immigrant labor**, 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 Wisconsin. --- ## Community Impact and Active Resistance The increasing federal enforcement push 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**, raising fears of **dissent suppression** and **intimidation of vulnerable populations**. - **Milwaukee’s Preparedness**: As tensions mount, Milwaukee officials are **preparing for a potential ICE enforcement surge**. Community organizations and local authorities are **strategizing to protect residents** and **uphold civil liberties**, emphasizing **community resilience**. - **Prolonged Demonstrations and Civil Liberties Litigation**: Anti-ICE protests continue across Wisconsin and neighboring states, including Minneapolis. 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**. - **Surveillance Concerns**: The **ACLU of Wisconsin** recently **responded to accusations of Milwaukee police misusing Flock surveillance cameras**, raising alarms about **privacy violations** and **racial profiling**. These tools, meant for public safety, are increasingly scrutinized for **overreach** and **potential abuse**. --- ## Legal and Procedural Challenges: Navigating a Complex Legal Terrain Legal battles over ICE cooperation face procedural hurdles, but recent developments offer cautious optimism: - **Wilke v. Spanske**: The case **filed February 18, 2026**, challenges **local law enforcement’s cooperation with ICE** and alleges **civil rights violations**. The court recently **dismissed a related case without prejudice**, requiring the plaintiff to **refile under his real name**—a reminder of the procedural complexities involved in civil rights litigation. - **Legislative Proposals for Oversight**: States like Oregon are **proposing bills** that would **permit lawsuits against ICE and Customs and Border Protection (CBP)**, seeking to **increase oversight and accountability**. While facing constitutional challenges, such legislation signals a **growing movement** to **counter federal overreach** and **protect civil liberties**. - **Federal Lawsuit Against Wisconsin**: The federal government has **filed a lawsuit against Wisconsin** over policies limiting ICE cooperation, echoing recent actions against New Jersey. This case **sets a precedent** that could **pressure Wisconsin to alter its policies** or face **federal intervention**, intensifying the legal conflict. --- ## Current Status and Broader Implications Wisconsin remains **a battleground of conflicting forces**: - Federal investigations, lawsuits, and enforcement actions are **intensifying**, often clashing with **local sanctuary measures** and **community resistance**. - The state exhibits **deep partisan divides**, with some officials advocating for **strict enforcement** and others pushing for **protective sanctuary policies**. - Community trust remains **fragile**, with ongoing protests, legal challenges, and strategic initiatives aimed at **preserving civil liberties**. - The **federal lawsuit against New Jersey** signals a broader federal push to **reassert control**, which could **further escalate tensions** in Wisconsin and beyond. **The future trajectory depends on the interplay between federal initiatives, state and local policies, and grassroots resistance.** Civil liberties advocates continue to **fight overreach**, emphasizing constitutional protections and **community trust**, while federal agencies appear inclined to **expand enforcement efforts**—making Wisconsin a critical front in the national debate over immigration enforcement, civil rights, and local sovereignty. --- **In summary**, Wisconsin stands at a pivotal juncture: balancing **public safety**, **civil liberties**, and **community resilience** amid an increasingly polarized environment. The ongoing federal push for stricter enforcement, coupled with vigorous local resistance, underscores the profound stakes in shaping the state's approach to immigration—an issue with ramifications that resonate far beyond state borders. As tensions mount, the coming months will likely determine whether Wisconsin can forge a path toward greater protection of civil rights and community trust or become further embroiled in federal enforcement conflicts.