A South Carolina judge has upheld SLED’s usage of Automated License Plate Readers (ALPRs) in South Carolina. ALPRs have been placed throughout the state and indiscriminately capture the license plates of all those who drive through their field of view. After tracking the license plates, that information would be retained in a database for up to a year. As of June 2023, 431 million data entries pinpointing the precise timestamped location of drivers across South Carolina were stored in that database. More than 99.8% of those location observations had no connection to any vehicle of interest to law enforcement at the time that data was captured.
Due to the use of ALPRs and the database, SCPIF filed a complaint against the State Law Enforcement Division (SLED) in April 2023 arguing SLED use these systems without legislative permission. On May 12, 2025, Judge Thomas W. McGee III of the Richland County Court of Common Pleas granted SLEDs motion for summary judgment, allowing SLED to use the ALPRs and the database.
The Legal Challenge
SCPIF and SLED both filed motions for summary judgment, which means the parties are arguing that since everyone agrees that SLED is using the ALPRs and storing the information they gather in the database, the law clearly states one party’s arguments should win without needing a trial. SCPIF made three main arguments in their motion: SLED did not have statutory authority to operate the ALPRs and the database, if they did have that authority then it violates constitutional non-delegation principles, and SLED’s internal policy governing the use of the ALPRs and the database violated the Administrative Procedure Act.
The Court’s Decision
The Richland County Court of Common Pleas ruled in favor of SLED on all the arguments. The court found that existing statutes provided adequate authority for SLED to operate ALPRs and the database. They interpreted SLED’s mission of providing “technical assistance to law enforcement agencies” to include the storage and search functions of the ALPRs and the database.
The court also rejected the argument that the statutes gave SLED unlimited discretion, thus violating the non-delegation doctrine. The non-delegation doctrine states the legislature cannot give its power to make laws to agencies without a guiding principle. The court found the legal requirements to limit activities to purposes involving criminal justice and the language of the statute being consistent with SLED’s mission statement was enough to be a sufficient guideline.
SCPIF’s argument that SLED’s internal policy governing the use of ALPRs and the database violated the Administrative Procedure Act was also rejected. The court determined their policy did not require public review as required by the APA because the policy only applies to certified law enforcement officers rather than establishing rules for the general public.
Broader Implications and What is Being Done Now
This decision by the Richland County of Common Pleas reflects reluctance from the judiciary to stop law enforcement from using surveillance technologies without explicit limits on them by the State legislature. But what if those limitations never come? This ruling allows SLED to continue operating this expansive surveillance of South Carolina citizens, but SCPIF is not going to stop trying to prevent that. On May 22, SCPIF filed a motion to Alter or Amend Judgment. This motion appears to be unopposed, but the Court has yet to rule on it. SCPIF expects the decision may not be favorable but plans to appeal if that is the case and continue this legal challenge.