In his July 15, 2026, Facebook Video, Oconee County Councilman Matt Durham informed constituents about Flock Safety ALPR cameras deployed by the Sheriff without county council involvement, public hearing, or ordinance. He noted that South Carolina sheriffs (as in North Carolina) operate as independently elected constitutional officers, limiting council oversight, but stated he would have opposed the cameras had they come before the body.
Durham evaluates decisions using three criteria:
Does it raise taxes? (Minimal impact here, ~$2,500/year per camera.)
Does it grow government? (Yes, by expanding reach.)
Does it infringe personal liberty? (Yes, decisively.) He highlighted how the cameras capture vehicle data, store it in a searchable nationwide database, and enable reconstruction of travel histories without warrants, probable cause, or judicial oversight—bypassing traditional Fourth Amendment protections.
He balanced this by recognizing real benefits: crime-solving, stolen vehicle recovery, identification of suspects, and locating missing vulnerable individuals. Sheriff Crenshaw supports the technology, has testified in its favor, and has implemented local safeguards like audits and required justifications for searches. Durham expressed support for deputies and the goal of public safety but insisted the issue transcends utility to become a core freedom question.
Constitutional Concerns and Historical Parallels
Durham argued that the system sidesteps the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures and requires warrants based on probable cause supported by oath or affirmation. He drew a direct parallel to colonial-era general warrants (writs of assistance), which allowed broad, suspicionless searches by British officials. These were fiercely opposed by James Otis in his 1761 speech, where he famously declared that such instruments annihilated liberty and that "a man's house is his castle." Otis's arguments profoundly influenced the Founders and the inclusion of the Fourth Amendment.
The Tenth Amendment Center and privacy advocates have similarly critiqued modern mass surveillance tools like ALPR networks for enabling "general warrant"-style tracking through technology, eroding expectations of privacy in public movements (echoing Carpenter v. United States principles on long-term location data).
Durham distinguished phone tracking (opt-out possible; requires judicial warrant) from passive camera surveillance (inescapable on public roads; no prior judicial check). He rejected the "nothing to hide" argument, asserting that in a free society, the government must justify its actions to the people, not vice versa. He raised practical risks: potential abuse (citing recent Greer, SC firings), private company data storage and hacking vulnerabilities, and limited local control over a national network.
He called for transparency, encouraged attendance at the upcoming County Council committee meeting with Sheriff Crenshaw, and invited public questions. Durham stressed ongoing dialogue with the county attorney and sheriff while committing not to erode liberties incrementally for security gains—a theme resonant with Founding-era warnings against trading essential liberty for temporary safety.
Historical and Constitutional Background
General warrants were broad legal instruments used by the British government that authorized officials to search any property or arrest any person without specifying the location, items, or individuals involved. In the American colonies, these were primarily implemented as Writs of Assistance, which gave customs officers unlimited power to search for smuggled goods, effectively placing the liberty of every colonist in the hands of petty officers.
The controversy peaked in 1761 when lawyer James Otis challenged the writs in the Massachusetts Superior Court, arguing they violated fundamental English rights and the principle that "a man's home is his castle." Although Otis lost the case, his arguments galvanized colonial resistance; John Adams later described the event as the "spark in which originated the American Revolution." This widespread outrage directly motivated the Founding Fathers to prohibit general warrants in the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, ensuring that future searches required specific warrants based on probable cause.
Sources Used
"General Warrants: From Colonial British to the NSA and FBI Today" | Tenth Amendment Center https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2014/10/15/general-warrants-from-colonial-british-to-the-nsa-and-fbi-today/
"Against Writs of Assistance (1761) by James Otis"
https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/historic-document-library/detail/james-otis-against-writs-of-assistance-february-24-1761
"Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution" | Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
Verbatim Transcript (Cleaned and Readable Format)
Speaker: Matt Durham, Oconee County Councilman, District 2
Date: July 15, 2026
Hey, folks, Matt Durham here. So let's talk about Flock cameras. And to be honest, until people started reaching out to me several months ago, I had never heard of Flock. The issue never came before county council, and there was never a vote. There was no ordinance and no public hearing on this installation of these cameras.
And that's because in South Carolina, the sheriffs, they're constitutional officers elected directly by you, the people. He runs his office the way he sees fit. County council does not run it for him. But I can tell you this, that if it did come before county council, I would have voted no. And here's why.
It's because I run every decision through three simple questions. And if the answer is yes to any one of them, I vote no. And the first is, does it raise taxes? These cameras probably would not have raised taxes to about $2,500 a year a piece. Sheriff has five.
Now. There's others in the county from the municipalities in the state, but it would not raise taxes. The second is, does it grow government? I'd say at the very least, these cameras expand government's reach. And the third is, does it infringe on personal liberty?
And in my opinion, it blows right past this one. These cameras, they record vehicles that pass them and store that information in a searchable database that's connected together all the cameras throughout the whole country, not just in Oconee County, South Carolina, but the whole country is connected together. And they can help reconstruct where a vehicle has traveled. So there's no warrant that's required before this information is collected or used. And there's no jurors that stand between you and the government when that data is gathered or used.
So here's what I do believe. I believe that something with this much impact on privacy ought to face the public before it goes up, not have to get explained after the fact. So I want to be fair, because the cameras, they do do real good. In my research, I found in conversation with the sheriff that they do solve crimes. And right here in Oconee county, they've solved crimes.
They've recovered stolen vehicles to help identify suspects. They help locate missing children and missing elderly citizens. And Sheriff Crenshaw, he supports this technology, and he's testified before the South Carolina Senate in favor of it. He has said that lives have been saved, and I take him at his word on that. Listen, I support our deputies, and that's not changing.
And if you want criminals caught and children found, you're not wrong. And I want that, too. But let me tell you what I believe it costs because this technology does come with a cost beyond the $2,500 per year. Because this isn't a technology debate, this is a freedom debate. And here's what I believe it does.
I believe it side steps the Fourth Amendment. So the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution says that the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated. And no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause supported by oath or affirmation. So we have probable cause under oath. So why did our founders put that in the constitution? It was because the crown used what was called general warrants.
There was no named suspect, there was no specific crime. There was a piece of paper that let the King's men search whoever they please and go looking for a reason afterwards. Our founders bled to end that. Now look at what we built on our roads. There's no named suspect, no specific crime.
A system that watches everyone, records everyone, and then the government can go looking for a reason afterwards. And when you combine these camera systems with artificial intelligence, folks, you're looking at the digital equivalent of a general warrant. The Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution was not repealed, but what we now have is a system of cameras that can work around many of the protections the Fourth Amendment was designed to protect. So somebody I know, somebody saying, well Matt, your phone tracks you. What's the difference?
Well here's the difference. One, you can choose to leave your phone at the house. But two, if law enforcement wants the location history off your phone, they have to go before a judge. They swear an affidavit under oath and they show probable cause. So there's a jury that's standing between the government and your private data.
That's how the Constitution was designed. But these cameras, they skip that step. There's no judge, there's no oath, there's no probable cause before the data is collected or used. You're alive because you exist and you drove down the road. And if somebody tells you, well, if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear.
Well to that I say no sir. Because a free man doesn't justify his innocence to his government. The government justifies itself to him. And when we start getting that turned around, we no longer have a free country. So listen, there's been documented cases of this system being abused throughout the country.
In just this week it was reported that two officers in Greer were fired for abusing the Flock system. Now that's Greer an hour down the road. That's not Oconee County. And listen, I have no reports, no reason to believe anything like that has happened here. And I'm not suggesting it has or that it is happening.
But my concern is not with the people who wear the Oconee County Sheriff's Office uniform. It's with the design of the system itself. The data stored on a service operated by a private company. How many times has data been hacked by private companies? A company that does not answer to you on election day like I do.
And the data does not stay here in Oconee County. I've spoken with Sheriff Crenshaw and he's put safeguards in place. He conducts regular audits and he requires a specific reason every time someone searches the system. And I appreciate that. But Sheriff Crenshaw, he can audit his people.
He cannot audit every other agency that has access to this nationwide network. He can control his people. He cannot control theirs. So hear me plainly. This is not about lack of trust of a sheriff's office in Oconee County.
It's a lack of trust in every other agency that may have access to this network. So put it plainly. In general, I do not trust the government. I don't trust big data and I don't trust big tech. But this Tuesday at 4:30 in the afternoon, the County Council Law Enforcement, Public Health and Public Safety Committee will be meeting.
And Sheriff Crenshaw will be there because he's offered to be there. So he's going to answer questions about these cameras for the committee. So I want you to come hear him out. He knows his technology better than I do, and he's going to bring answers that I don't have. I don't serve on that committee.
So I'll be sitting in the audience just like you, listening. Because here's the thing. You and I have both been talking about these cameras in text messages, emails, Facebook comments, in the grocery store for months. But Tuesday we get a chance to hear directly from Sheriff Crenshaw himself. And listen, I don't know where this discussion ends.
I honestly don't know. I'm working with a county attorney to look at solutions that county council has as well as communicating with the sheriff. And I'm thankful that he's coming on Tuesday. And it's part of us working through this together. But I do know that I'm not [going to] sacrifice my children's freedom.
Listen, we never lose freedom all at once. It's chipped away piece by piece. And there's always a good excuse to give up that piece each time. But listen, none of us can make informed decisions until we understand exactly how this system works. That's what I've been trying to do for the last few months.
That's what we're continuing to do as a council. Now coming Tuesday night, and that's why Tuesday matters. So if you're available 4:30pm Tuesday, come on out to the County Council chambers on Pine Street in Walhalla and listen to the sheriff. If you have questions for the committee, send them to me. Hey, comment on this video directly and I'll try to gather them.
If it's shared, come back to the main video and leave them. And I'll send those to the committee members so they can gather them, ask questions about this system. So listen, I appreciate and thank you for allowing me to serve, and I hope everyone has a blessed night. And God bless.
Posts
