NOCAMS MUSKEGO v. Waukesha County

Case Name: NOCAMS MUSKEGO v. Waukesha County

Type of Case: Limited Government Project

Court: Waukesha County Court

Case Number:

Filed On: September 10th, 2026

Current Status: WILL filed this lawsuit in Waukesha county court.

Intrusive Cameras: Some cameras record movements near homes, like the one near WILL Plaintiff Haidinger’s backyard fence in Oconomowoc, or another one in Pewaukee Village, capturing everyone who enters or exits a trailer park. Flock cameras are installed near churches, gun stores, and Home Depots. Some cameras are installed outside of the seat of government, where citizens vote, seek licenses, and otherwise petition their government. There are over 120 cameras in Waukesha County, and over 1,500 in Wisconsin. Flock reports a network of 120,000 nationwide cameras monitored by over 6,000 law enforcement agencies.

Tracking Movements: Data from Flock cameras is dumped into an AI-powered database, allowing government officials (and even some private companies) to track an individual’s daily movements. Flock creates vehicle travel history reports that show where people have been and even predict future movements.

The Flock Location Database is searchable by almost anyone with an account. Police can search their own cameras but also perform regional or nationwide searches. For example, Elm Grove officers searched their six cameras about 250 times in June, July, and August 2026. But during that same period, outside agencies— mostly from other states—searched data from Elm Grove’s cameras about 3 million times. No Wisconsin agency requires probable cause or a warrant before searching this database. Most agencies have unrestrictive policies and WILL found one agency with no policy (Elm Grove).

Legal Argument: We argue that government searches of the Flock Location Database without a warrant or valid exception violate the Fourth Amendment under Chatrie v. United States (2026). This was a significant United States Supreme Court case that held that acquiring Google Location History requires a warrant. Our data has shown that Flock monitoring can be even more precise and invasive than “Google Location History.”

The goal of the lawsuit is to apply the Fourth Amendment to searches of the Flock Location Database, just like when the police use other similar surveillance measures like GPS monitoring, cellphone location searches, or searches of app data. As in those cases, a warrant is the default. On the other hand, multiple Fourth Amendment exceptions could apply such as the emergency exception (e.g. kidnapping, missing child or adult, active shooter, bomb threat, medical emergency, hot pursuit, suicide threat) or the consent exception (e.g. a person grants permission to search for their stolen car). If successful, Flock searches would be treated similarly to other electronic database searches where warrants or exceptions are already required.

Recent Developments: Multiple law enforcement agencies across Wisconsin have begun to cancel their contracts with Flock such as Winnebago and Fond Du Lac Counties. In Southeast Wisconsin, Milwaukee, Racine and Kenosha Counties have also decided to cancel Flock contracts or to substantially change their policies (in the case of Milwaukee).

Case Documents:

Complaint, September 2026