## Facts

- South Carolina statutes set a limited trapping season for furbearing animals for commercial purposes, running from January 1 to March 1, and capped the season at sixty days each year.
- Outside that season, trapping was unlawful unless authorized by the South Carolina Department of Natural Resources.
- A separate statute authorized the Department to issue special depredation permits at no cost for taking or capturing a furbearing animal (or other game animal) that was destroying or damaging private or public property, timber, or crops, or was a nuisance.
- The statutes also created a permit-free exception: a property owner or the owner’s designee could capture furbearing animals or squirrels within 100 yards of the owner’s home when the animal was causing damage to the home or the owner’s property.
- Jeffrey M. Thompson placed beaver traps on his mother’s property outside the trapping season.
- Thompson previously had a depredation permit, but it expired in January 2001 and was not renewed by the time of the offense.
- On March 11, 2001, Thompson was found inspecting beaver traps and was charged with trapping beaver out of season under S.C. Code Ann. § 50-11-2540 (Supp. 2001).
- Thompson’s trapping activity did not fall within the 100-yard “owner’s home” exception, and he lacked a valid depredation permit.
- A magistrate found Thompson guilty; the circuit court affirmed on appeal; Thompson then appealed to the South Carolina Supreme Court.
- Thompson argued the statutes were unconstitutional because they (1) infringed a fundamental right to protect private property from destructive wildlife and (2) denied equal protection by treating owners with homes differently from owners of vacant land or land with nonresidential structures.

## Issues

1. Do S.C. Code Ann. §§ 50-11-2540 and 50-11-2570 unconstitutionally infringe a fundamental right to protect private property by restricting out-of-season trapping to permit holders and a limited “within 100 yards of the owner’s home” exception?
2. Do those statutes violate equal protection under the United States and South Carolina constitutions by allowing permit-free trapping within 100 yards of an owner’s home while requiring other landowners to obtain a depredation permit to trap out of season?

## Decision

- The South Carolina Supreme Court affirmed Thompson’s conviction.
- The court held the statutory scheme did not burden a fundamental right in a manner requiring strict scrutiny.
- Applying rational-basis review, the court upheld the out-of-season permit requirement and the 100-yard “owner’s home” exception against the equal-protection challenge.

## Legal Principles

- Regulation of taking and trapping wildlife is a valid exercise of the state’s police power and is generally reviewed deferentially unless a suspect classification or a recognized fundamental right is involved.
- A claimed right to protect property from nuisance wildlife does not create a constitutional entitlement to trap out of season without state authorization; the legislature may channel such activity through permits and narrow exceptions.
- When no suspect class or fundamental right is at stake, equal-protection challenges are evaluated under rational-basis review, and a classification stands if it is reasonably related to a legitimate governmental purpose.
- The state may rationally distinguish between trapping near a dwelling (where immediate property damage and safety concerns may be greater) and trapping elsewhere, while still allowing relief through a free depredation-permit process.
- A defendant who traps out of season without a valid permit and outside the statutory dwelling-area exception can be convicted consistent with the constitutions where the underlying regulatory scheme is valid.

## Conclusion

State v. Thompson upheld South Carolina’s statutory limits on out-of-season trapping of beaver and other furbearing animals, including the requirement of a no-cost depredation permit and the narrow permit-free zone within 100 yards of an owner’s home, rejecting claims that the scheme infringed a fundamental property-protection right or denied equal protection, and affirming Thompson’s out-of-season trapping conviction because his permit had expired and the home-area exception did not apply.


State v. Thompson, 563 S.E.2d 325 (2002)