I believe the finding of arbitrariness is additionally supported by the South Carolina Constitution, which, unlike the United States Constitution, has an express privacy provision. See S.C. Const, art. I, § 10 (“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures and unreasonable invasions of privacy shall not be violated.... ”). While our constitution’s privacy provision does not transform a purported privacy interest into a fundamental right for purposes of applying the strict scrutiny test, I believe it does inform the analysis of whether a state law is arbitrary and lends addition al support to the conclusion that section 23-3-540(0 is unconstitutional. Cf. State v. Weaver, 374 S.C. 313, 649 S.E.2d 479 (2007) (<HOLDING>). Therefore, I concur in result to reverse and
holding that specific guarantees in the bill of rights have penumbras one of which is the right of privacy holding that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in utility records under either state or federal constitution holding that even where the underlying complaint made no mention of the right of privacy a violation of privacy  is implicit in a tcpa faxad claim holding that prisoners have no legitimate expectation of privacy and that the fourth amendments prohibition on unreasonable searches does not apply in prison cells holding that by articulating a specific prohibition against unreasonable invasions of privacy the people of south carolina have indicated a higher level of privacy protection than the federal constitution