Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Lewdness Public Nudity topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate advances substitute bill tightening public-nudity rules after heated debate
Summary
Senators advanced 1st substitute S.B. 244, a measure to expand Utah's lewdness statute to prohibit public nudity and adopt a 'bikini' standard, after extended debate over constitutional risk, fiscal exposure and local control; the bill was placed on the third-reading calendar.
Senators on the floor advanced first substitute Senate Bill 244, a measure presented by Senator Taylor that would expand Utah’s criminal lewdness laws to expressly prohibit public nudity and adopt a definition similar to one upheld in federal cases cited by the sponsor.
Taylor told colleagues the bill is modeled on an Indiana statute and framed its purpose as protecting "societal order and morality," while adding constitutional exceptions for breastfeeding, bona fide artistic or theatrical performances and works with serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value. He cited Barnes v. Glen Theatre and the O’Brien test to argue the proposed statute tracks existing constitutional precedents.
Opponents and questioners raised constitutional and fiscal concerns. Senator Hilliard, an attorney, warned that changes to standards (from a 'pasty' to a 'bikini' test) and factual differences could invite litigation and that staff guidance cannot remove all uncertainty. Senator Howell and others sought clarity on whether the statute would criminalize legitimate performances and whether local governments already had authority to address problematic events. Senator Dimitrich and other critics said the matter was primarily a local policing issue and warned of the expense of defending a statewide law in court.
Senator Taylor and sponsors pointed to work with prosecutors and outside advisers and said staff had prepared legal research; they argued the fiscal note accounts for potential litigation. Senators asked whether the attorney general had reviewed the bill; Taylor said he had not yet sought an AG opinion but was willing to do so.
After extended exchanges—ranging from hypothetical examples about plumbers and on‑the‑job exposure to procedural motions about fiscal notes—the Senate called the question and placed the first substitute of S.B. 244 on the third‑reading calendar.
What happens next: The bill was advanced for third reading; further floor action and any final votes will occur on third reading, and opponents signaled possible litigation and requests for additional fiscal and constitutional analysis.
