Opinion ID: 1378013
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Was the regulation within the government's constitutional power?

Text: The law challenged in Barnes was a state statute and the Court found it was clearly within the State's police power to enact public indecency legislation. In the case before us the government entity is a municipality and the scope of its power is a question of state law. Under S.C.Code Ann. § 5-7-30 (Supp.1993), a municipality has the power to enact ordinances not inconsistent with the Constitution and general law of this State. Article VIII, § 14, of our State Constitution provides that criminal laws and the penalties and sanctions for the transgression thereof shall not be set aside. We recently construed this constitutional provision to hold that a municipality may not impose a greater punishment than that provided under State law for the same offense. City of No. Charleston v. Harper, 306 S.C. 153, 410 S.E.2d 569 (1991). We now construe article VIII, § 14 to prohibit a municipality from proscribing conduct that is not unlawful under State criminal laws governing the same subject. State laws governing nudity do not prohibit nude dancing per se. See S.C.Code Ann. § 16-15-305(C)(1)(b) (Supp.1993) (defining obscenity to include lewd exhibition of genitals, pubic hair, anus, vulva, female breast nipples, or covered male genitals in a discernable turgid state); S.C.Code Ann. § 16-15-130 (Supp.1993) (willful, malicious, and indecent exposure); S.C.Code Ann. § 16-15-365 (Supp.1993) (willful and knowing exposure of private parts in a lewd and lascivious manner). Since Town has criminalized conduct that is not unlawful under relevant State law, we conclude Town exceeded its power in enacting the ordinance in question. [1] Moreover, even if the ordinance were within Town's power, we find it violates the First Amendment as discussed below.