|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
by WILL FOLKS
***
At least one South Carolina state lawmaker was reportedly caught on a police body-worn camera in flagrante delicto – i.e. in the “blazing offense” of having sexual intercourse – in the rear of a parked vehicle on the streets of the Palmetto State’s capital city a little over a year ago.
The lawmaker in question – who was unmarried at the time – was allegedly joined in these risqué exploits by another unmarried member of the S.C. General Assembly. For the time being, FITSNews is withholding the identities of both individuals.
According to our sources, one of the lawmakers involved in the alleged vehicular frolicking is expected to face a credible challenger in the upcoming 2026 partisan primary elections – making this the second salacious report in as many weeks to draw a bead on a vulnerable incumbent member of the results-challenged S.C. General Assembly.
Earlier this month, FITSNews reported on the dissemination of “a series of racy nude and semi-nude images purportedly depicting the wife of a South Carolina lawmaker engaged in various intimate activities… with another woman.”
That report set tongues a-wagging within the S.C. General Assembly, which gaveled to order last Tuesday (January 13, 2026) for the second year of a two-year session. It also reportedly set the lawmaker whose wife was depicted in the racy photos down a vengeful warpath against his political rivals.
***
While the electoral ramifications of both of these prurient stories are no doubt of interest to our audience, in this case the potential for police misconduct related to the handling (or alleged mishandling) of this incident must also be considered.
In fact, that is the primary focus of our investigation given the frequency with which the Columbia Police Department (CPD) is alleged to look the other way as it relates to indiscretions involving powerful state government officials.
According to our sources, this alleged vehicular sex romp – portions of which were reportedly captured on the body-worn camera of a CPD police officer – took place in October 2024. Redacted footage of the incident was initially slated for release prior to the 2024 election, but the city allegedly reversed course just ahead of a key disclosure deadline – opting against any disclosure of redacted materials.
One source familiar with the situation blamed the aborted release of the video on “a promise that fell through.”
Politics, in other words…
“If it had been anybody else, they would have been arrested and charged with indecent exposure,” a source familiar with the situation confirmed to FITSNews. “And if it had been anybody else, those arrests would’ve been all over the news.”
To clarify: it is not illegal in the Palmetto State to have sex in the back of a vehicle. However, indecent exposure charges could apply if sex acts performed within a vehicle were visible from public vantage points.
South Carolina’s code of laws (§ 16-15-130) prohibits an individual from “wilfully, maliciously, and indecently expos(ing) his person in a public place, on property of others, or to the view of any person on a street or highway.” In this case, “person” refers specifically to exposure of one’s genitals, buttocks or nipples.
***
RELATED | A PLAN TO FIX S.C. ROADS
***
Those found guilty of this crime – a misdemeanor – can be fined “at the discretion of the court or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.”
FITSNews has submitted a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to CPD seeking all relevant records related to this alleged incident. Unfortunately, thanks to legislation signed in 2015 by former S.C. governor Nikki Haley (who is no stranger to vehicular extracurriculars) body-cam footage is explicitly exempt from disclosure.
For years, our media outlet has steadfastly called for the preservation and release of body-worn camera footage – arguing anything short of the full disclosure of public records is “transparency in name only.”
Curiously, legislation was introduced in December 2024 – just weeks after this alleged incident – aimed at expanding body-worn camera disclosure requirements to include “a person who is the subject of data recorded.”
Under the proposed law (H. 3288), subjects of body-worn camera footage “may request and must receive the data.”
Count on FITSNews to provide our audience with any pertinent updates as our investigation into this incident continues.
***
ABOUT THE AUTHOR…
Will Folks is the founding editor of the news outlet you are currently reading. Prior to founding FITSNews, he served as press secretary to the governor of South Carolina. He lives in the Midlands region of the state with his wife and eight children.
***
WANNA SOUND OFF?
Got something you’d like to say in response to one of our articles? Or an issue you’d like to address proactively? We have an open microphone policy! Submit your letter to the editor (or guest column) via email HERE. Got a tip for a story? CLICK HERE. Got a technical question or a glitch to report? CLICK HERE.
2 comments
Will, you know a little something about getting busy with a legislator in a parked vehicle, right?
hqxs5p