Honorable J. E. Wlnfree, Chairman 

Committee on Criminal Juriaprudenoe 

House of Representatives 

Austin, Texas 

Opinion No. WW-611 

Re: Conetitutionallty of 

Senate B111'444, 56th 

Dear Mr. Winfree: Legislature. 

You have asked us to expedite our o inion upon 

the constitutionality of Senate Bill No. 4 E 4 which la 

now pending before the Committee on Criminal Jurlsprudenoe of the House of Representatives. 

Section 1 of the Act provides as follows: 

"Any person who partlolpatea In 

or organizes a 'nudist colony' or 

'nudist camp' or any person who dlsplays himself or herself to other 

persons In the nude as a member of a 

group of persons engaged In such activity, commonly called 'nudist camps' 

shall upon conviction, be punished by 

a fine of not more than Five Hundred 

Dollars ($500.00) or by confinement in 

the county jail for not mo??e than one 

year, or both such fine and confinement." 

Section 1 speaks of "nudist colony" and "nudist 

camp". We under&and these to be synonymous terms, according to popular usage and understanding, and we 

assume that they were 80 used In the Bill. 

The terms "nudist colony" and "nudist camp' are not 

defined by the Bill and hence, under well established rules 

of statutory construction, the ordinary signification must 

be applied thereto. Texas Bank & Trust Co. v. Austin, 280 

s.w:i61, 115 Tex. 201; Spears v. City of San Antonio, 223 

S.W. 166. 110 Tex. 618: Texas & P. S C 0. v. a ilroad Commission,- 150 S.W. 878,.17.F rex. 366. The terms, according 
Honorable J. E. Winfree, page 2 (~~-611) 

to their natural, ordinary and popular meaning, denote a 

place where the cult or practice of nudism is observed. 

(See Webster's new International Dictionary) 

In the emergency clause of the Bill the Leglslature expressly declares that the several nudist camps, alleged to be operating in Texas at the present time are having 

a damaging effect on the morals of the youth and the State 

as a whole. 

We believe that the general tenor &the Bill represents a valid exercise of the police power vested In the 

Legislature. Police power Is the power Inherent in a 

government to enact laws, within constitutional limits, to 

promote the order, safety, health, morals, and general welfare of soclets. Ex Parte White. 198 S.W. 583, 82 Tex.Cr. 

85; Marrs V. City o? vxforu, 286U.S. 573; 16-C.J.S., Constitutional Law, Section 174. It comprehends reasonable 

preventive measures no less than the punishment of perpetrated offenses; and it may act to prevent apprehended 

dangers to the safety, morals or well being of ;;eCp;b;ic 

as well as to control those already existing. 

Constitutional Law, Section 175 and cases cited. Ih the' 

object to be accomplished is conduci.re to the public lntereat, a Legislature may exercise a large liberty of choice 

in the means emoloved to enforce and exercise its police 

powers. Lawton‘v."Steele, 152 U.S. 133; City of B&mingham 

v. Monks,'v~T. 2d 859, certiorari denied, 341 U.S. 940. 

Ken the subject of legislation falls under the police 

powers of the State, activities may be prohibited altogether. limited as to place and location, or, where operation 

is'permltted, may be regulated by rules of conduct. 

v. State, 138 S.W.2d 1075, 139 Tex.Cr. 156; 

Kelly 

Bnery, 

189 N.W. 564, 178 Wis. 147. 

Statg. 

Indecent exposure of the person is a crime denounced 

by the common law. 93 A.L.R. 997. The Penal Codes of many 

states contain provisions, condemning in varying terms, the 

offense. 

Code) 

(See Articles 474 and 535~ of the Texas Penal 

In the early case of State v. Rooer, 18 N.C. (1 Dev. 

& B.L.) 208 it is said: 

"A public exposure of the naked person 

is among the most offenselve of those outrages on decency and public morality. It 
Honorable J. E. Winfree, page 3 (~~-611) 

is not necessary to the constitution of 

the Criminal Act that the disgusting 

exhibition should have been actually 

seen by the public; It is enough If the 

circumstances under which it was obtruded 

were such as to render it probable that 

It would be publicly seen, thereby endangering a shock to modest feeling, and 

manifesting a contempt for the laws of 

decency." 

In the early English case of Rex v. Cruden, 2 

Compb. 89, 170 Ehg. Reprint 1091, the Court held that 

since the necessary tendency of the Act is to outrage 

decency and corrupt the public morals, one who commits 

it is guilty whatever his intentions may have been. 

The consent of the witnesses has been held not to take 

away the criminal character of the Act. State v. Martin, 

125 Iowa 715, 101 N.W. 637 (1904). 

The Courts have displayed a strong tendency to 

uphold and enforce the offense as defined by statute, 

however, strict or lenient the Legislature might have 

been in defining the elements of the offense. This is 

aptly Illustrated by the annotation of cases reported 

in 93 A.L.R. 996. This constitutes compelling evidence 

that the judiciary has recognized, and continues to 

recognize, that the offense is a matter affecting the 

public morals and that the Legislature Is vested with a 

high degree of discretion in le islating upon the subject. 

People v. Ring, 255 N.W. 373, 2 2 7 Mich. 657, is the first 

case, and the only one insofar as we pm ascertain, to 

present the question whether the group beliefs or practices of the offenders will affect the criminal nature of 

the Act of exposure prohibited by a statute providing that 

any person who shall designedly make any open or indecent 

exposure of his or her person, or the person of another, 

shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. In that case the operator of a nudist camp who went about privately without 

clothing among both male and female members of the camp on 

his own property was held guilty of a violation of the statute, although the sense of decency, propriety, and morality 

of those persons were not offended. The Court said: 

"It is clearly shown that the appellant 

designedly made an open exposure of his person 

and that of others in a manner that Is offensive to the people of the State of Michigan. 
. 

Honorable J. E Winfree, page 4 (~~-611) 

Such exposure Is both open and indecent. 

"It Is not necessary that the crime 

be particularly well defined. The average 

jury, composed of members of the community, 

has an instinctive realization of what constitutes a violation of the Act. Instinctive modesty, human decency and natural 

self-respect require that the private parts 

of persons be customarily kept covered In 

the presence of others. People v. Kratz, 

230 Mlch. 334, 203 N.W. 114." 

The evidence used against the Defendant In the 

-+ 

Rln case, supra, was obtained when officers visited a 

nu ist colony operated by the Defendant In what the 

Court described as a "more or less secluded location in 

the country." The officers visited the camp without a 

search warrant, which the Court held to be unnecessary, 

and found about fifteen or twenty naked men and women 

and children, described by a neighboring property owner 

as "cavorting around", some on the bank of a creek and 

others engaged in harmless amusements such as volley 

ball. The group consisted of the Defendant, his wife, 

and two children, six other couples who were married, 

three unattached men, and two other children. 

The Court held that the acts of the Defendnat fell 

within the prohibition of the statute, since the people of 

Michigan had decreed that it shall be Illegal for anyone to 

designedly make any open or Indecent or obscene exposure of 

his or her person or the person of another. The exposure 

was still Illegal even though it occurred in a nudist colony 

in the presence of only those who belonged to the cult and 

who were also nude. 

The basic dootrine of the Rin case was reaffirmed 

by the Supreme Court of Michigan, -9 

late as September, 1958. 

y a divided Court, as 

People v. Hildabrldle, 92 N.W.2d 

6. See also People v. Burke, 276 N.Y.S. 402 (1934) wherein 

the Supreme Court of New York gives apparent recognition to 

the authority of the Legislature to enact laws prohibiting 

nudist camps. 

We believe that the reasoning of the Supreme 

Court of Michigan in the Rin_g case together with the 2xpressions from cases of other jurisdictions which we have 

cited sustain the constitutional validity of Senate Bill 
Honorable J. E. Winfree, page 5 (~-611) 

444. The Bill prohibits that conduct which the Legislature 

of Texas in the exercise of its police power for the protection of the morals and well being of the people of Texas, 

is authorized to either regulate or prohibit. 

The Attorney General's office will upon request make 

available to both the committee and the author of the Bill 

suggestions which may clarify the Bill. Such suggestions 

are the result of our examination of the statutes of other 

states. 

SUMMARY 

Senate Bill 444 constitutes 

a legitimate exercise of the 

police powers of the State 

and hence is constitutional. 

Yours very truly, 

WILL WILSON 

Attorney General of Texas 

Leonard Passmore 

Assistant 

LP:rm 

APPROVED: 

OPINION COMMITTEE 

Geo. P. Blackburn, Chairman 

Paul W. Floyd, Jr. 

Dean Davis 

James Daniel McKeithan 

REVIEWED FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 

BY: W. V. Geppert