Union County Deputy’s Flock Search of Journalist Raises Serious Questions of 1st Amendment Rights of a Free Press

Union County Deputy’s Flock Search of Journalist Raises Serious Questions of 1st Amendment Rights of a Free Press

Records indicate a 30-day historical search was conducted under the justification “criminal investigation.” CC News is seeking records showing what investigation, if any, authorized the search.

By CC News Network | Investigative Desk

UNION COUNTY, S.C. — CC News Network is examining the circumstances surrounding a Union County Sheriff’s Office deputy’s alleged use of the Flock Safety automated license-plate reader system to search the vehicle of CC News Network publisher and investigative journalist James Seidel.

According to information reviewed by CC News, the search was conducted on October 16, 2025, at approximately 10:12 a.m. EDT and involved a 30-day historical search of Seidel’s vehicle or license plate.

The search was reportedly associated with an identifier listed as “D. Vin,” which CC News believes is connected to Union County Sheriff’s Office Deputy Russell Vinson. He is the Lt. deputy over narcotics in Union County.

The justification entered for the search was reportedly:

“Criminal investigation.”

That description raises an obvious question:

WHAT CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION??

Seidel says he had never met Vinson, prior to October 16th, 2025, never spoke to anyone in the sheriff’s office, and was unaware of any criminal investigation involving him that would explain why a Union County deputy would search his vehicle’s historical movements.

If a legitimate criminal investigation existed, records should provide a straightforward explanation for the search with evidence to back it up.

If one did not, the circumstances raise more serious questions about the use of a powerful law-enforcement surveillance system to obtain information concerning a journalist who was actively reporting on matters involving Union County.

WHAT IS FLOCK SAFETY?

Flock Safety operates automated license-plate recognition technology used by law-enforcement agencies around the country.

Rather than simply recording whether a vehicle is present at one particular location, networks of cameras can allow authorized users to search vehicle sightings collected across participating systems.

Historical searches can therefore potentially reveal patterns concerning where a vehicle has been observed over a period of time.

That capability can be valuable when investigators are searching for vehicles connected to crimes, missing persons or other legitimate law-enforcement investigations.

It also makes access controls, legitimate-purpose requirements and audit records critically important.

The issue in this case isn’t whether police should be allowed to use license-plate-reader technology.

The issue is why this particular search was conducted.

CC NEWS WAS ONLY REPORTING ON UNION COUNTY

The timing of the search is noteworthy.

At the time of the October 16 query, CC News Network had been publishing investigative reporting involving Union County, including stories concerning law enforcement, the search for Jana Manasco, arrests and drugs, an animal-cruelty case and questions involving an informant and search warrant.

That timing does not, by itself, establish that Seidel’s journalism had anything to do with the Flock search.

But it does make determining the stated investigative purpose behind the search particularly important.

If Seidel or his vehicle was legitimately connected to an investigation, records should identify the corresponding case number, incident number or investigative justification.

If there was no such investigation, Union County officials should explain why the search was performed.

RECORDS COULD PROVIDE THE ANSWER

CC News is seeking records capable of establishing exactly what happened.

Those records include the Flock audit history associated with the search, search terms entered, stated justification, underlying case or incident number, authorization for the query and records showing whether additional searches were conducted involving Seidel or his vehicle.

CC News is also seeking information concerning whether Vinson or other Union County personnel searched Seidel through other investigative databases, including TLOxp/TransUnion, and whether information obtained from those searches was downloaded, exported, printed, photographed, shared or incorporated into investigative reports.

Preservation of relevant electronic records is also being sought.

Those records could include authentication logs, query histories, search results, images, downloads, exports, device and IP information, investigative reports, emails, text messages and other communications concerning Seidel or his vehicle.

A QUESTION THAT SHOULD HAVE A DOCUMENTED ANSWER

There may be a legitimate explanation.

Law-enforcement officers routinely use investigative databases for lawful purposes, and the existence of a database search alone does not establish misconduct.

But the designation “criminal investigation” should correspond to an actual law-enforcement purpose.

If such an investigation existed, there should be documentation capable of establishing what it was and why Seidel’s vehicle was relevant.

If Seidel wasn’t under investigation and his vehicle wasn’t legitimately connected to another investigation, the question becomes substantially different:

Why was a Union County deputy searching an investigative journalist’s historical vehicle information?

JOURNALISM MAKES THE QUESTION MORE SIGNIFICANT

The fact that the subject of the search was an investigative journalist reporting on the same county makes transparency particularly important.

That does not establish retaliation or improper surveillance.

CC News is not making that conclusion without evidence.

Instead, the available information creates a question that should be answered through records.

What legitimate law-enforcement investigation justified the October 16, 2025 search?

The answer should not require speculation.

It should be contained in the records associated with the query.

GOVERNOR MCMASTER’S POSITION: KEEP THE CAMERAS, PUNISH THE ABUSE

South Carolina Governor, Henry McMaster is therefore taking a different approach than those advocating removal of the cameras.

His position is that the technology has legitimate public-safety value and shouldn’t be taken away from law enforcement because individual users abuse it.

But his call for accountability raises an obvious question:

What exactly should “held accountable” mean?

Right now, termination and internal discipline are possible under agency policies. Existing criminal laws could potentially apply depending on the facts of a particular case, but South Carolina does not yet have a comprehensive ALPR statute specifically establishing statewide rules and penalties for unauthorized searches.

Some lawmakers now want to change that.

 CC NEWS SEEKS INDEPENDENT REVIEW

CC News has also sought review of the circumstances surrounding the search and preservation of records that could determine whether the database access complied with applicable policies and legitimate-use requirements.

The purpose is straightforward: establish who conducted the search, why it was conducted, what information was obtained and what happened to that information afterward.

If the search was legitimate, the underlying documentation should demonstrate that.

If it wasn’t, the audit trail should help establish that as well.

Until those records are produced and reviewed, CC News will distinguish between what the available records appear to show and what remains unknown.

What is known is that a historical Flock search of Seidel’s vehicle was reportedly conducted through the Union County Sheriff’s Office on October 16, 2025, with “criminal investigation” entered as its justification.

What remains unanswered is the most important question:

What was the criminal investigation?

UNION COUNTY FLOCK SEARCHES IN 2026

There are 1,072 Union County Sheriff’s Office Flock audit entries in this dataset. One important caveat: despite the filename suggesting Jan. 1–Sept. 14, the actual search timestamps in the file run only from Jan. 1 through July 27, 2026.

The biggest finding is that 370 entries — 34.5% of everything in the file — contain no stated reason at all. And not a single one of the 1,072 entries contains a case number.

Among entries where a reason/category was supplied, the top three categories are:

1. Drugs/Narcotics — 259 searches (24.2% of all entries; about 36.9% of entries that gave a reason)
2. Larceny/Theft — 108 (10.1%)
3. Stolen Property — 65 (6.1%)

Right behind those are Missing/Endangered Person/Runaway — 63, Motor Vehicle Theft/Stolen — 56, Burglary/Breaking & Entering — 48, and Wanted Person/Fugitive — 33.

There are some other stats worth highlighting. 834 of the 1,072 entries (77.8%) are classified as “lookup” searches, another 47 are mobile lookups, while only 88 are classified as “search” and eight as mobile searches. March was by far the busiest month: 426 entries, compared with 269 in January and 229 in February. Activity then falls dramatically: April 63, May 49, June 24 and July 12.

March 23 was the single busiest day in the dataset, with 126 entries. March 20 had 54, Jan. 20 had 46, March 9 had 42, and Jan. 21 and Feb. 24 each had 40.

The strongest accountability statistic may actually be this combination: 34.5% have no stated reason, and 100% have no case number. That does not establish that those searches were improper, because the system/export may not have required a case number, but it means this particular audit data provides no case-number trail connecting any of the 1,072 entries to an identifiable investigation.

CC News Network is continuing to investigate and will update this report as additional records become available.

About the Author

CC News Network Investigative Desk

Author

The CC News Network Investigative Desk

Visit Website View All Posts