By admin 
As the debate over law enforcement use of Flock cameras spreads across South Carolina, three York County teens have been charged with damaging two of the cameras in neighboring Chester County.
Read more ICE sends second deportation flight to Haiti in a week. There are kids aboard
Arrest warrants in the case obtained by The Herald allege the three 19-year-old suspects cut down the cameras and hit them with a hammer “with the intent to intimidate or coerce a civilian population to influence government policy.”
James MacMillan Ryerson of Catawba, Samuel Jonathan Carlisle, of McConnells, and Blaze Lawrence Fuller, of Rock Hill, allegedly admitted to the crimes that happened between 1 a.m and 3 a.m. on Aug. 15, the warrants claim. They face charges of malicious damage to property and conspiracy, according to warrants and court records.
All three were released on bail following their arrests after deputies found the damaged cameras and started an investigation, according to court records and a Chester County Sheriff’s Office incident report.
Ryerson’s lawyer, Craig Pisarik of Rock Hill, declined comment when reached by The Herald about the case and charges.
Court records do not show defense attorneys for the other two teens. William Frick, Public Defender for the 6th Judicial Circuit that includes Chester County, said he is not aware that his office represents either of the other two.
No trial dates have been set.
Chester Sheriff: Dissent is legal; criminal damage is not
The Chester County Sheriff’s Office, like York County’s sheriff, owns Flock cameras that are supposed to be used by law enforcement to read license plates and get visual information for legitimate public safety purposes. However, groups locally and nationwide have called for ending the use of Flock cameras after alleged abuse by police that includes tracking people illegally, mistakes by the cameras, and civil rights objections.
Chester County Sheriff Max Dorsey told The Herald Thursday that disagreements about the cameras is a legitimate American right to dissent. But damaging the cameras is a crime, not a protest, Dorsey said.
“Citizens have every right to hold personal convictions, question public policy, and disagree with their government through open debate and civic engagement,” Dorsey said in a statement. “However, no one has the right to take up tools in the middle of the night and destroy public safety infrastructure because they disagree with how our community protects its citizens. Criminal destruction to make a political statement does not advance an argument. It is a crime. These cameras exist to find abducted kids, solve violent crimes, and protect neighborhoods. Destroying them puts everyone at risk.”
The Herald reported in July that Pageland police in Chesterfield County were investigating damage to two cameras.
York, Chester have ongoing Flock controversies
There is a pending lawsuit in York County against the sheriff’s office that alleges an incorrect Flock hit led to a Lake Wylie man being held at gunpoint for five minutes before deputies realized the plate reader’s hit was incorrect, documents show. The sheriff’s office said in documents an illegal tinted license plate cover caused the mistake.
After The Herald exclusively reported that lawsuit, coverage of the York County incident spread across the country.
Read more This booming area of Lexington County just debuted a new Planet Fitness
Shortly afterward, York County Sheriff Tony Breeden posted a video on the sheriff’s office social media defending the cameras and saying his office would be transparent about their use. That Facebook video had almost 12,000 comments.
Both York County and Chester County have online groups pushing to get politicians to end police use of Flock and other surveillance cameras. For example, online petitions to end Flock use in both counties have more than 2,000 signatures, according to the Deflock York County SC Facebook page and the Chester County Privacy Coalition Facebook page.
The Charlotte Observer has reported instances where police officers have been fired and arrested for misusing the cameras.
The county council in Oconee County in South Carolina last week passed a first reading to a measure that would ban Flock cameras there, The State reported.
The city of Rock Hill, city of Tega Cay, and Town of Fort Mill in York County also have Flock cameras.
Is Big Brother worth sacrificing American freedoms?
After Breeden posted his video, The Herald asked B.J. Barrowclough, 16th Circuit Public Defender, for his views on Flock. His office handles the majority of all criminal cases in York County.
Barrowclough said there are legitimate concerns about overreach, and suggested South Carolina politicians change the law to require police to have a warrant to access accumulated Flock camera data, among other concerns about freedom of the citizenry from government overreach and AI.
“The proliferation of Flock cameras in York County is just another sign of the times,” Barrowclough said. “When this country was founded, the citizens valued freedom over safety. That is why four of the first Ten Amendments (the Bill of Rights) limited government overreach into the lives of the citizenry and protected individuals’ freedoms and rights to privacy.
“Fast forward 250 years and the quality of life in America, especially for those with political power, has become so comfortable that it must be protected at all costs – even the cost of individual liberties. Whereas we used to value freedom over security now we value security over freedom.
“With flock cameras, there are really two issues to address. The first is the broader philosophical question: “Are we willing to allow the government to track and record our movements all over York County in the name of safety?” Do we accept Big Brother watching us everywhere we go because we trust Big Brother to keep us safe? The second issue raises the question: “Are we willing to tolerate the inevitable unlawful stops, illegal detentions, and false arrests that will continue to occur when Artificial Intelligence is used to analyze all of the tracking data recorded and stored by the Flock cameras?”
“Reasonable minds can disagree on the use of flock cameras and the larger freedom versus safety debate. A compromise position that I would propose would be to allow flock cameras to collect their data but to limit law enforcement access to the data absent the issuance of a warrant by a judicial officer upon a showing of probable cause. Further I would require human confirmation of any “hits” or matches generated by AI before allowing law enforcement to act upon the “hit” and stop or detain a citizen. These proposals represent an attempt to strike a balance between the competing interests of freedom and safety.”
Read more Plea bargain for accused killers? Lexington mom sues charged father and son