Copyright 2010
BUSINESS OWNERS
ORGANIZED TO SUPPORT
TOURISM
All rights reserved
BUSINESS OWNERS ORGANIZED TO SUPPORT TOURISM
1413 Highway 17 South ♦ Suite 211 ♦ Surfside Beach, South Carolina 29575-
Hundreds of Biker-
The Spring Rally! May 7 ~ 16 . Myrtle Beach
The Latest Skinny on the 70th Annual Grand Strand Bike Week
Supreme Court Hears Helmet Law Case; Decision Imminent
(Myrtle Beach, SC – February 3, 2010)
The briefs have been filed, the cases have been made and now its up to the South Carolina Supreme Court to issue a final decision on BOOST’s Helmet Law suit against the City of Myrtle Beach. The moment that decision is announced, we’ll post the result right here! Meanwhile, YOU can help BOOST offset its important investment in legal fees to fight this important constitutional battle! Please join and donate whatever you can! Thank you!
Supreme Court hears MB helmet case
By Michael Smith / Editor -
A decision as to whether Myrtle Beach’s mandatory motorcycle helmet law is constitutional
could come within 30 days.
The controversial issue was debated at length before the S.C. Supreme Court on Wednesday,
with attorneys from both sides facing tough questions from the justices.
Justices quizzed Myrtle Beach attorney Mike Battle at length regarding the motivations
behind the city’s helmet ordinance.
Battle initially argued the law requiring all motorcycle riders to wear helmets and
protective eyewear was to protect bikers and ease the burden faced by police, firefighters
and paramedics in responding to accidents.
“We have not had any problems enforcing this ordinance,” he said. “What is the burden
on the person wearing a motorcycle helmet?”
Battle also argued that noise created by the rallies created a public nuisance, suggesting
that families and their children couldn’t sleep on school nights during the motorcycle
rallies.
State law gives cities the right to pass laws to curb nuisances, he said.
“We have kids staying up all night because of the bikes,” Battle said. “Our children’s
education is more important than somebody roaring their motorcycle.”
During his arguments, Battle also faced intense questioning from justices who said
the real reason for the helmet law seemed to be to discourage bikers.
“What was Myrtle Beach trying to target?” asked Chief Justice Jean Toal.
“The number one source of nuisance for the city of Myrtle Beach was the month of
May,” Battle responded.
“So it was targeted to the two bike weeks?” Toal responded. “If it was targeted toward
the bikers, what was the reason that the helmet law was passed? Would that be because
[bikers] would be so mad with wearing goggles and helmets that they wouldn’t come?”
Other justices were more direct.
“Come on Mr. Battle, we all live in South Carolina” Justice Donald Beatty said. “You’re
not talking to people unfamiliar with what’s going on down there. Give us a little
credit.”
Battle acknowledged the helmet law was designed to discourage bikers, but noted the
number of serious injuries stemming from motorcycle wrecks fell dramatically with
the new helmet law.
“This rally did not take up police time and you didn’t have the problems we had been
dealing with,” he said.
Wednesday’s case is one of several filed challenging a series of ordinances the city
passed in an effort to eliminate May motorcycle rallies.
Multiple cases have already been argued in Circuit Court and federal court. Wednesday’s
case was the first to reach the state’s highest court.
Justices didn’t rule on the case. Any decision will likely take 30 days to three
weeks, court officials said.
Attorney and S.C. Rep. Thad Viers, R-
Joining the suit was Business Owners Organized to Save Tourism (BOOST), who say the
city’s ordinances have crippled Myrtle Beach’s businesses.
Although the city faced more intense questioning, justices also pressed Viers to
prove the city’s helmet law is unconstitutional.
At least two justices likened the city’s helmet law to smoking bans passed in other
South Carolina municipalities.
Justice Costa Pleicones cited “Dillon’s Rule,” which grants all powers not expressly
spelled out in state law to local governments.
“What you’re asking for is reinstitution of Dillon’s Rule, which we specifically
says does not apply in the state,” Pleicones said.
Viers argued the city’s helmet law is unconstitutional because helmets are covered
under the state’s uniform traffic code, which doesn’t require helmets for riders
over the age of 21.
“It would virtually make travel through the state impossible,” Viers said. “The city
didn’t try to limit the rallies. They tried to ban them because they didn’t like
the people who came here, and government can’t do that.”
Chief Justice Jean Toal cited provisions of state law prohibit local governments
from passing laws that are “arbitrary and capricious,” a description she suggested
applies to the city’s helmet law.
“When the University of South Carolina plays football, you can’t get an ambulance through Five Points,” Toal said. “What can the city of Columbia do to chase all those people out? The city couldn’t adopt an ordinance to rid us of enormous crowds during football.”
