License plate reader system
S. 447 would add a new section to the South Carolina Code regulating automatic license plate reader (ALPR) systems and a separate section directing the Department of Transportation to create a permitting process for cameras on non-interstate highway rights-of-way. The bill defines key terms such as “alert,” “hot list,” “license plate reader data,” and “secured area,” and generally makes it unlawful for any person or governmental body to use an ALPR system unless the use falls within specified exceptions.
The bill allows ALPR use by state, county, and municipal law enforcement agencies for criminal justice purposes, by agencies for parking enforcement and access control, for public safety and crime deterrence efforts coordinated with law enforcement, and by the Department of Public Safety and Department of Transportation for toll collection and traffic movement on state highways. It also permits SLED to operate and maintain an ALPR database. Law enforcement agencies using ALPRs would have to adopt public written policies covering oversight, training, data security, retention, destruction, and audits, and officers would have to visually confirm a plate match before making a traffic stop based on an alert.
If enacted, the bill would create a new statutory framework governing ALPR use in South Carolina, including restrictions on who may use the systems, how data may be used, and how long law enforcement may retain it. It would also impose criminal penalties for obtaining law enforcement license plate data under false pretenses or for unauthorized purposes, and it would prohibit the sale of license plate reader data by authorized governmental entities. Separately, it would require the Department of Transportation to establish a permitting process for cameras, including ALPR systems, on non-interstate highway rights-of-way, affecting state and local agencies that install or operate roadway surveillance equipment.
The available record suggests generally favorable treatment of the bill in committee, as the Senate Judiciary Committee recommended that it “do pass.” No floor votes or recorded opposition are included in the provided materials, and there are no committee transcript excerpts to show debate. On its face, the bill appears designed to support law enforcement and transportation uses of camera technology while adding privacy, oversight, and accountability safeguards.
The main points of potential contention are privacy, surveillance authority, and data retention versus law enforcement utility. Supporters are likely to emphasize the bill’s limits on use, mandatory policies, audit logs, and the 90-day retention cap as safeguards against misuse. Critics may focus on the broad authorization for ALPR use by governmental entities, the inclusion of public safety and crime deterrence purposes, and the ability to use data for tolling and traffic management, which could raise concerns about expanded camera surveillance and data sharing. The misdemeanor penalty for unauthorized access also suggests concern about misuse of police data, while the DOT permitting provision may be viewed as a way to regulate, but also facilitate, more roadway camera installations.