Court Opinion

ID: 9853028
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 05:41:27.184239+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:22:40.041113
License: Public Domain

TOAL, Justice,
concurring in result with the majority opinion.
Specifically, I agree with the majority that Barnes v. Glen Theatre, 501 U.S. 560, 111 S.Ct. 2456, 115 L.Ed.2d 504 (1991), and Connor v. Town of Hilton Head, 314 S.C. 251, 442 S.E.2d 608 (1994), control the result of this case: Where the General Assembly has “occupied the field” in an area of criminal law by describing what conduct is permissible or what is proscribed, localities are not free to alter those standards.1 Furthermore, under Barnes, special examination of a local law is warranted where, as here, the law implicates important First Amendment concerns.
I write separately simply to note that I do not read the majority opinion in this case as being inconsistent with my position in Martin v. Condon, 324 S.C. 183, 478 S.E.2d 272 (1996) (Toal, J., dissenting). Martin v. Condon concerned the *160authority of the General Assembly to allow localities to choose whether cash payouts on video poker games should be legal. In that case, the General Assembly wanted to allow counties to hold local option elections so that each county could make its own determination about the legality of video poker. Our Court held that the General Assembly’s local option legislation constituted special legislation violative of the South Carolina Constitution. I dissented, arguing local option legislation concerning alcohol and gambling has long been considered permissible general legislation and should continue to be treated as such.
This case is entirely different from Martin, however. Here, the General Assembly’s legislation evinced a plain intent that the question of public nudity be treated uniformly throughout South Carolina. Under these circumstances, localities cannot step in and criminalize activity that is permissible under the statewide statutory scheme. Accordingly, I concur.

. The authority of the General Assembly to enact local option legislation that gives cities or counties choices about the legality of alcohol or gambling is a separate question which involves state constitutional issues but does not implicate the First Amendment as does a law governing public nudity.