SUPREME COURT TO HEAR MYRTLE BEACH HELMET CASE

The lawsuits resulting from the City of Myrtle Beach, South Carolina attempting to implement its own helmet law and other ordinances in an attempt to put an end to the long-running motorcycle rallies there Will be heard by the South Carolina Supreme Court on February 3, 2010.

Lawsuits against the city and its helmet ordinance are on the docket for 10 and 10:30 a.m. February 3, 2010. The lawsuit filed by Business Owners Organized to Support Tourism and Bart Viers, and the one filed by a group of motorcyclists who were ticketed during a protest ride on the day the city's helmet law went into effect, will both be heard.

Because the court has already received - and presumably read - extensive briefs from all sides explaining their arguments, the hearings are expected to be very short.
"A lot of appellate decisions are based on briefs, but oral arguments are a tradition," attorney Thad Viers, who's representing his brother, Bart Viers, and BOOST, told a South Carolina newspaper. "We will probably make a small presentation, and the justices will ask us some questions. I don't know if they already know which way they think they are going to go, or if they are going to go into this with an open mind."

The proceedings are being carefully watched across the county by both cities and motorcycle rights organizations. Myrtle Beach enacted more than a dozen new ordinances aimed at putting an end to the popular spring motorcycle rallies in and around the city. MROs are concerned that the laws, particularly the helmet law, sets a bad precedent of allowing cities to enact their own laws that supercede state laws. Politicians and local governments nationwide are anxious to see what happens before possibly taking similar approaches in the hopes of running off motorcyclists or as a cash generating mechanisms.

Last winter, South Carolina State Supreme Court Chief Justice Jean Toal questioned whether some of the ordinances are constitutional. Several of the ordinances - including the helmet law - are considered administrative infractions, not criminal. Those administrative infractions are what concerned Chief Justice Toal. Violating one of them will get you a citation, and your case is then heard through an administrative hearing process, not in court. Toal suggested this creates a tiered court system, which would be unconstitutional.

The plaintiffs are suing the city to stop it from enforcing the motorcycle helmet law it imposed in 2008 as part of a package of ordinances designed to deflect the May motorcycle rallies from the city.

But Viers said the case would have a much farther reach than just whether people have to wear helmets.

Residents had complained for years about the noise, traffic, garbage and other effects of the rallies, which drew nearly half a million people to the Grand Strand at their peak. In 2008, the council took steps to quell the rallies, enacting more than a dozen new rules and ordinance amendments.

"The central question here is whether local governments can make their own laws when the state hasn't been clear or hasn't specifically prohibited it," he said. "This is either going to really broaden municipal power or the state is going to say cities absolutely cannot do things like this. This could revolutionize what local governments can do."

Critics of the Myrtle Beach ordinances like Don Emery, owner of The Dog House Restaurant and Bar in Myrtle Beach are excited for the court date. Emery, is an outspoken critic of the ordinances, and was actually one of the first violators of the helmet law, receiving a ticket during a protest ride the first weekend the law was in place.

"It (the helmet ordinance and other new laws) is not out of trying to protect people by wearing a helmet or not wearing a helmet,” Emery said. “It's clearly to discriminate and harass people.”