How Cities Take Control of Police Surveillance

Twenty-six jurisdictions have a CCOPS law. Here is the playbook, what it changes, and what it does not.

State of Surveillance

TL;DR: CCOPS stands for Community Control Over Police Surveillance. It is a local ordinance that requires a public city council approval process before the police department can fund, acquire, or use surveillance technology. The national CCOPS campaign launched in 2016, and the ACLU's current model bill is dated April 1, 2024 [1][2]. According to the ACLU, CCOPS laws have been adopted in 26 jurisdictions, protecting nearly 18 million people [2]. In Milwaukee, a 45-organization coalition led by the ACLU of Wisconsin and Milwaukee Turners is asking city officials to demand an end to the use of Flock license plate readers in the city and to adopt a CCOPS ordinance, according to the Wisconsin Justice Initiative, a coalition member [3]. A council ordinance is harder to undo than a police chief's directive, because the council, not the department, decides. Here is what the law requires, where it exists, and how residents push for one.

What a CCOPS Ordinance Actually Is

CCOPS is short for Community Control Over Police Surveillance. It is a local ordinance, adopted at the city or county level, that requires a municipal agency to get city council approval at a public hearing before seeking funds for, acquiring or using surveillance technology, and to report on that technology every year [1]. Earlier in 2016, Santa Clara County, California passed what EFF called "a groundbreaking ordinance limiting how and when law enforcement can adopt new surveillance technologies" [4]. On September 21, 2016, the ACLU launched the national CCOPS campaign, with EFF and a coalition of civil liberties groups joining it to pass similar ordinances elsewhere [2][4].

The ACLU's framing of the problem is direct. In most cities, the ACLU says, decisions to acquire and use spying technologies "are made by police departments, in secret, without any knowledge or input from the public or their elected officials" [2]. CCOPS laws are meant to "ensure local residents, through their city council representatives, are empowered to decide if and how surveillance technologies are used" [2].

The ACLU's other framing is just as direct: "Governments and police forces should not be able to use surveillance technologies for any purpose without informing and securing the permission of the people they serve" [2].

What the Ordinance Requires

When EFF joined the campaign in 2016, it said every ordinance would be tailored to its municipality but grounded in eight principles [4]. The ACLU's model bill, dated April 1, 2024, turns them into a process: a Surveillance Impact Report and a Surveillance Use Policy for each technology, a public council hearing, approval only if the council finds the benefits outweigh the costs and civil liberties are safeguarded, and an Annual Surveillance Report [1].

The eight principles, as EFF listed them [4]:

  1. No surveillance without express city council approval. Surveillance technologies should not be funded, acquired, or used without prior express city council approval.
  2. A meaningful role for the community. Local communities should play a significant and meaningful role in determining if and how surveillance technologies are funded, acquired, or used.
  3. A transparent, well-informed process. The process for considering a surveillance technology should be transparent and well-informed. Under the model bill, approval follows a public council hearing at which the public can give online, written and oral testimony [1].
  4. Approvals are technology-specific and use-specific. Surveillance technologies should not be approved generally; any approval should cover a specific technology and specific, limited uses.
  5. Civil-rights and civil-liberties impact. No surveillance technology should be funded, acquired, or used without addressing its potential impact on civil rights and civil liberties.
  6. Financial impact. No surveillance technology should be funded, acquired, or used without considering its financial impact. The model bill's annual report includes total annual costs, personnel and other ongoing costs, and the source of funding [1].
  7. Annual public reporting. To verify legal compliance, use and deployment data should be reported publicly every year.
  8. No grandfathering. Council approval should be required for all surveillance technologies and uses, including technologies already in use.

None of this is a ban by itself. The ACLU of Missouri notes that CCOPS "does not prevent a city from using surveillance technology"; it creates a process for approving or denying its use that is transparent and open to public input [5].

Where CCOPS Already Exists

According to the ACLU's national CCOPS page, 26 jurisdictions have adopted CCOPS laws, protecting nearly 18 million people [2]. The ACLU of Wisconsin names Madison, Wisconsin and St. Louis, Missouri among those 26 jurisdictions [6]. The Wisconsin Justice Initiative lists Madison, St. Louis and Detroit as cities that have adopted CCOPS ordinances [3].

Milestones named in the sources:

  • Santa Clara County, California, 2016. Passed the ordinance that EFF's 2016 call to action asked other cities to match [4].
  • San Francisco, California, 2019. Passed the nation's first municipal ban on the use of facial recognition technology as part of a CCOPS law [2].
  • New York City, 2020. Adopted a CCOPS law, according to the ACLU [2].
  • Madison, Wisconsin. Has a CCOPS law, according to the ACLU of Wisconsin and the Wisconsin Justice Initiative [3][6].
  • St. Louis, Missouri. Has a CCOPS law, according to the same two sources [3][6].
  • Detroit, Michigan. Has a CCOPS ordinance, according to the Wisconsin Justice Initiative's October 2026 report [3].

EFF's 2016 call to action named 11 municipalities where the campaign would seek ordinances similar to Santa Clara's: New York City; Washington, D.C.; Richmond, Virginia; Miami Beach and Pensacola, Florida; Hattiesburg, Mississippi; Muskegon, Michigan; Madison and Milwaukee, Wisconsin; Seattle, Washington; and Palo Alto, California [4]. Milwaukee was on that list a decade ago.

The 2026 Test Case: Milwaukee's CCOPS Push

Milwaukee shows why the difference matters. On February 5, 2026, the Milwaukee Fire and Police Commission expected to hear the Milwaukee Police Department's draft policy on facial recognition. FOX6 reported that the discussion centred on a proposed agreement with the data company Biometrica, under which MPD would provide 2.5 million mug shots in exchange for two free licenses to the company's facial recognition software [8]. WUWM reported that during the five-hour meeting, Commissioner Krissie Fung asked MPD Inspector Paul Lao whether the practice was still continuing, and he answered: "As needed right now, we are still using [FRT]." Asked whether that use was without a standard operating procedure in place, Lao said: "As we said that's correct and we're trying to work on getting an SOP." MPD said it had only used the technology in criminal investigations [7]. The next day, February 6, MPD said in a statement that "effective immediately, Chief Norman will issue a department directive banning the use of facial recognition for all members," and that it "will not proceed with the acquisition of any facial recognition technology at this time." The statement said the department still regarded the technology as useful but recognised that "the public trust is far more valuable" [8].

That ended MPD's use of the technology for now. It is also a directive. A later directive can undo it; an ordinance has to go back through the council.

On October 8, 2026, the Wisconsin Justice Initiative reported that it had joined a 45-organization coalition led by the ACLU of Wisconsin and Milwaukee Turners. According to WJI, the coalition's open letter calls on city officials to demand an end to the use of the Flock Safety automated license plate reader system within the city, and asks again that they adopt a CCOPS ordinance [3]. Spectrum News reported on September 1, 2026 that Mayor Cavalier Johnson had put forward new rules for MPD's Flock use: under the proposed guidelines, only supervisors would have access, and use would be limited to Part I crimes, critical missing persons cases, drug trafficking organization investigations and abductions. "I think it's very important for law enforcement to have access to technology in order to do their job, as a force multiplier," Johnson said, adding that officers with those powers "should be held to account" [10]. According to WJI, MPD's Flock contract is set to sunset in January [3].

Coalition members want the contract ended instead. Emilio De Torre, executive director of Milwaukee Turners, told WJI by email: "It is incredibly disappointing that Mayor Johnson would double down on a mass surveillance technology like Flock when hundreds of residents have been speaking against it for over a year" [3]. He also told WJI: "Easily exploited, warrantless mass surveillance is never the solution," pointing to what he described as side-door access to Milwaukee data by agencies that work with immigration enforcement [3].

In June 2025, according to Urban Milwaukee, the Milwaukee County Board unanimously passed a resolution, sponsored by Supervisor Juan Miguel Martinez, that asks the county's attorneys to work with the Information Management Services Division and the Milwaukee County Sheriff's Office to develop a facial recognition policy that would preserve civil liberties and protect First Amendment rights [9]. Martinez said: "The reason that putting this forward is necessary is that we do not suppress first amendment rights and civil liberties" [9]. The resolution is a request because state law does not give the county board authority to direct sheriff's office policy. The sheriff's office told supervisors it does not want the technology to scan random people in public, and wants to use it to identify crime suspects from an image [9].

Why a Council Vote Beats a Chief's Directive

A chief's directive is the quickest route, and the easiest to reverse. Chief Norman's February 2026 facial recognition ban is real, but it rests on a department directive. The CCOPS model requires council approval at a public hearing before a technology is funded, acquired or used [1].

The Milwaukee record shows the gap. MPD confirmed in a public meeting that it was using facial recognition without a standard operating procedure in place, while working on one [7]. A CCOPS process would have put that use before the council first.

The ACLU of Wisconsin frames the stakes this way: "Surveillance is being used to monitor and prosecute political protesters, people seeking and providing reproductive health care, and LGBTQ+ communities" [6]. A CCOPS ordinance forces a public record of what is used and how.

The Money Pipeline Most Cities Never Audit

CCOPS also reaches the grant money that bypasses local budgets. The ACLU of Missouri: "Nationally, over $1 billion (about $3 per person in the US) of these grants are funneled to municipalities across the country, bypassing local budget processes and local elected officials" [5].

The model bill covers this directly: council approval is required before an agency seeks funds for new surveillance technology, including applying for a grant or accepting state or federal funds or donations, and before acquiring or borrowing the technology, whether or not money changes hands [1].

How to Push a CCOPS Ordinance in Your City

The playbook below draws on the ACLU model bill, EFF's 2016 call to action and the Milwaukee campaign [1][4][3].

  1. Find your council member. Look up the alder, councillor, supervisor or county commissioner who represents your district. The ACLU of Wisconsin's campaign asks Milwaukee residents to tell their alderperson to support CCOPS [6].
  2. Ask the council member to introduce a CCOPS ordinance. The ACLU's model bill is a public download [1]. It carries notes to localities on adapting it, and EFF expected each ordinance to be tailored to its municipality [1][4].
  3. Build a coalition of local civil-liberties groups, neighbourhood associations, faith communities, and immigrant-rights organisations. The Milwaukee coalition is 45 organisations [3].
  4. Show up when the issue is heard. Public comment is the lever. Milwaukee's February 2026 commission meeting ran five hours, and the chief's facial recognition directive was announced the next day [7][8]. A CCOPS vote is the durable version of that moment.
  5. Track the federal money. Ask the police department which federal grants it has accepted, what technology came with the grant, and when that technology was deployed. If the answer is "we don't track that," the CCOPS ordinance is the answer.
  6. Hold the line on the principles. Council approval for each technology and use, public annual reporting, and no grandfathering are the parts that make the ordinance bind [4].

The Honest Takeaway

CCOPS is the durable answer to a police department that buys surveillance tech and tells the public about it later. It is not a federal law. It is a local ordinance that turns a chief's directive into a council vote, a public record, and an annual report. San Francisco's 2019 ban on facial recognition, the first by a US city, came as part of a CCOPS law [2]. Where there is no ordinance, the next chief or the next grant can change course with no public hearing.

The 26 CCOPS jurisdictions the ACLU counts protect nearly 18 million people [2]. Most of the country is not on that list. If your city is on the list, the next fight is making the ordinance stick through a chief change. If your city is not, the playbook is the one Milwaukee's coalition is running right now: a broad coalition, the ACLU model bill, an open letter to city officials, and sustained public comment.

Sources

  1. ACLU, Community Control Over Police Surveillance Model Bill (April 1, 2024)
  2. ACLU, Community Control Over Police Surveillance (campaign page, accessed October 10, 2026)
  3. Wisconsin Justice Initiative, Coalition Renews Call for Community Supervision Over Surveillance Tech (October 8, 2026)
  4. Electronic Frontier Foundation, Join the Movement for Community Control Over Police Surveillance (September 21, 2016, Dave Maass)
  5. ACLU of Missouri, Community Control Over Police Surveillance (campaign page)
  6. ACLU of Wisconsin, Community Control Over Police Surveillance (campaign page, updated March 12, 2026)
  7. WUWM 89.7, Milwaukee Commission Finds Out MPD Is Using Facial Recognition Tech Without Operating Procedures (February 6, 2026)
  8. FOX6 Milwaukee, Milwaukee Police Department Facial Recognition Technology Banned (February 6, 2026)
  9. Urban Milwaukee, MKE County: Facial Recognition Resolution Passes (June 28, 2025)
  10. Spectrum News 1, Milwaukee leaders add oversight rules for Flock camera use (September 1, 2026)

Published: October 10, 2026