SC approves state funding for Flock cameras despite growing privacy concerns

COLUMBIA — Some South Carolina law enforcement are doubling down on the use of Flock cameras, even as scrutiny over the AI-powered surveillance devices has mounted nationwide.

State legislators approved $365,000 in the state budget for four police and sheriff’s departments seeking to add automated license plate readers to their crime fighting arsenals or expand their existing fleet of Flock cameras.

The funds will go to law enforcement in Cameron and Florence, as well as McCormick and Marlboro counties.

The money is part of a larger $350 million list of legislator-sponsored spending that includes parks, building renovations, water and sewer upgrades, and equipment for first responders. Earmarks, or what legislators call community investments, designate state taxpayers’ money to local projects at legislators’ request.

In addition to the funding for local law enforcement, the state public safety agency, which includes the state Highway Patrol and Statehouse security officers, is in the process of renewing an existing contract for readers near two of the agency’s buildings.

Controversy surrounding Flock

Flock cameras are a brand of license plate readers that utilizes artificial intelligence to track and store detailed data on vehicles. The cameras photograph passing vehicles and record information, including the make, model and color as well as details like bumper stickers and dents.

Departments that use Flock cameras also can allow other agencies to access their devices, creating a massive nationwide network of more than 120,000 cameras across 49 states and thousands of law enforcement agencies.

There are some 1,650 Flock cameras across the Palmetto State, according to DeFlock, a grassroots group that tracks license plate reader deployments.

“We should not deprive law enforcement of tools that have the potential to prevent and solve crimes,” Gov. Henry McMaster said in a statement. “If and when those tools are misused, those responsible must be held accountable.”

Flock came under fire following reports of police officers accused of using the camera network to track friends, relatives and romantic partners, adding to concerns about how the data can be accessed and shared.

Opponents also criticized the technology after inaccurate license plate information contributed to wrongful police stops and arrests.

In response, more than 100 communities have canceled, suspended or rejected a Flock contract or deactivated their cameras since the beginning of 2026, according to DeFlock.

And Texas’ Republican Gov. Greg Abbott last month ordered all state agencies to pause funding for Flock cameras.

People have also vandalized cameras around the country. In South Carolina, police reported vandalism to the devices in Irmo, Bluffton, Traveler’s Rest and Ridge Spring, as well as Chesterfield, Union, Chester and York counties.

In Oconee County, elected officials are considering an ordinance barring the use of county funds to pay for Flock cameras and other mass surveillance systems.

What legislators are saying

One state House member pulled his support for a $375,000 request from Irmo police for a “Flock Drone Responder.”

“I was able to help the Town of Irmo with its fire department, but I had some additional questions about the drone request and Flock camera, particularly about how the data they collect will ultimately be used and protected,” Rep. Nathan Ballentine told the SC Daily Gazette.

“I’m fully supportive of law enforcement and public safety, but we also have to protect people’s privacy,” the Irmo Republican added. “I have some legitimate concerns that need to be addressed before I can support another request like that one.”

In the Pee Dee, Rep. Jason Luck said he was surprised that a request from the Marlboro County Sheriff’s Department for various equipment included more than $300,000 for 30 Flock cameras.

The Bennettsville Democrat said the technology is impressive but he has yet to see it used in a way that “complies with the U.S. Constitution.”

The cameras were part of a larger $1.2 million request, which in addition to the cameras included money for radios, TASERs, body armor, a training facility and software for officers to write up their reports while in the field. The Legislature ultimately agreed to send the department $500,000 for its needs.

“We are currently experiencing a staffing shortage, which includes investigators,” Sheriff Larry McNeil wrote in his request. “(License plate reader) technology is a tool that allows for real-time use by supervisors to obtain crucial information to bring dangerous incidents to a safe resolution.”

McNeil also said the technology has helped police in surrounding jurisdictions make “critical” arrests but did not go into further detail.

The sheriff did not respond to messages left by the Daily Gazette.

Luck said while he supported the larger request, he hopes the sheriff will reconsider the license plate readers.

As ‘smart cities’ tools grow nationwide, so do privacy and ethical concerns

Behind Marlboro County, the second largest request for the cameras came from Clarendon County, but at the request of the state legislator sponsoring it, the sheriff promised to divert the funding to pay for dash cameras instead.

“I think a lot of of people want to live their lives without the encroachment of the government,” said Rep. Fawn Pedalino, the Turbeville Republican who sponsored the request. “People feel like, if they’re not doing anything wrong, why should they be watched.”

Sheriff Tim Baxley, in his request, said his office already has 15 Flock cameras and would like $160,000 to add more “to aid in many of our problem areas where drive-by shootings, robberies and property thefts occur.”

He said the existing cameras were “instrumental” in solving past cases, as well as locating missing people.

The cameras were part of a larger, $1 million request approved by the legislature, which also included renovations to the sheriff’s department and new reporting software.

Rep. Jerry Govan, who sponsored the $35,000 request from the rural town of Cameron, said that application came before the national debate around the technology heated up. But it was what the town’s leaders said they needed.

The Orangeburg Democrat acknowledged users can abuse the technology, as well as cameras in general, particularly as artificial intelligence advances.

“This technology is moving so rapidly it’s mind boggling,” he said, and legislation governing it is not keeping pace.

“We certainly have a lot of catching up to do,” Govan added, in terms of safeguards.

A state contract

Outside of local law enforcement, the state Department of Public Safety has had Flock cameras near its main headquarters building and near its support services building for several years and is in the process of potentially renewing its contract, according to spokesman Kyle McGahee.

McGahee said the readers only photograph the plates of cars entering and exiting the headquarters campus. They’re not aimed at traffic on nearby roads. At the support building, cameras might pick up some non-law enforcement vehicles traveling on the access road, but coverage doesn’t reach the much busier street of Shop Road.

Authorized staff has access to the Flock network for investigative purposes, but the agency “takes extensive measures to maintain accountability on how the information is accessed and used,” McGahee added.

Despite widespread interest, only 3 states passed license plate reader laws this year

Changes announced

Flock recently announced changes amid the blowback against its technology.

The company said it’s recommending police agencies only retain license plate reader data for seven days, down from 30, while adding tools to restrict data sharing between agencies and detect potentially abusive searches. Flock also plans to require law enforcement attach case codes to searches and will automatically suspend users whose activity is flagged as abnormal.

“These changes, like I said, are the next chapter of a long book I hope to write on how we build a better version of America that’s both safer, protects our privacy and holds those who have power accountable,” Flock Safety co-founder and CEO Garrett Langley said in a video statement.

Still, advocates from the American Civil Liberties Union say some of the safeguards have been tried before and question whether the company’s changes address broader concerns about a system that can create a record of people’s movements, even when they are not suspected of a crime.