High Court hears arguments in Myrtle Beach helmet lawsuits

COLUMBIA - The South Carolina Supreme Court heard two cases Wednesday concerning the City of Myrtle Beach’s motorcycle helmet law.

The law is more restrictive than state law, which only requires all riders under age 21 wear a helmet. The Myrtle Beach ordinance requires all riders to wear helmets.

The first lawsuit the justices discussed was one brought against the city by the group Business Owners Organized to Save Tourism, or BOOST and Bart Viers.

Viers’ brother and State Representative Thad Viers spoke on behalf of the plaintiffs. Viers told the court that the Myrtle Beach helmet law “unconditionally infringes on the freedom of those 21 and over.”

Viers referenced Article 8, section 14 of the South Carolina Constitution, which states that General Law provisions in the state can not be set aside. Viers argued that if Myrtle Beach’s helmet law is allowed to stand, other municipalities could adopt their own individual laws also, for such issues as like Driving under the Influence. Viers told the court allowing the law to stand would open a “Pandora’s box. “ Viers said, "I believe strongly that this is about more than the helmet ordinance, this is about the ability of local governments to create a hodgepodge of rules and regulations throughout the state and for that to happen we would go through from a uniformity to loading up on every municipal code there could be as you travel through the state and that's just not the South Carolina way."

Mike Battle, attorney for the City of Myrtle Beach said in response to Viers’ argument, “O.K, if they repeal the statute, then that means that gives people over the age of 21 the right to wear a motorcycle helmets, well first of all, that’s not a right, it’s a privilege.” Battle went on to tell the Chief Justice Jean Toal, and Justices Costa Pleicones, Donald Beatty, John Kittredge, and Kaye Hearn that there is no statue saying people over 21 can or cannot wear helmets.

Toal asked Battle to explain why the city passed the helmet law. Battle said the local medical community and law enforcement told city council that they were overwhelmed by injuries during the bike rallies, particularly head injuries. Battle said, “It was targeted towards the overwhelming of the city’s resources by a concentration of several hundred thousand bikers.”

Toal asked, "So if it was targeted towards the bikers, what was the reason that the helmet wearing and the goggle wearing was the solution, was that just so they would get so mad with wearing goggles and helmets that they all wouldn't come?

Battle said, “No if we could solve the problem that way, that might be a good way to do it, because human nature is such that it is.”

Toal said, “I know you had to dress it up in more neutral language or it surely wouldn’t pass the standard of being arbitrary and capricious, but it looks to me like that really was the target, that what you wanted to do was make it so uncomfortable for the bikers that they’d get mad about not being able to go down there and ride without their helmets so they wouldn’t come to Myrtle Beach. If that is the reason, is that a legitimate reason?

Pleicones said, “Why don’t you admit that it’s part of the reason Mr. Battle and say, so what? Gives us a so what, tell us why as the Chief Justice asked why that’s a legitimate reason.”

And in what turned out to be a light moment during what Toal said was a serious case, Battle paused, stuttered and said, “O.k., so what” and then smiled. The Justices and people in the gallery laughed. Toal said in reference to Pleicones’ statement, “I wouldn’t bite on everything he says.” Toal response also got a lot of laughter.

Battle got serious again and said, “This is a case of original jurisdiction, and you have to base your decision, it would seem to me, on what’s in the record. Our point is, we are having to deal with a nuisance, the nuisance is the overwhelming of the resources of the city, you have the children having to stay up late because you have the bikes coming through, you have all these things combined to create a problem that the voters of the city of Myrtle Beach and the city council…”

Battle was interrupted by Beatty who said, “You need to give us a so what.”

Toal said, “That’s the worry, is that is does sound like a good deal of the motivation for the ordinance is, we don’t like these people coming to town in their motorcycles, in great numbers and if that it is the motivation, is that a legitimate basis upon which to pass a law, if the conduct is otherwise legal. It is legal to have 10,000 or 15,000 or 100,000 people drive the streets in a licensed, equipped properly motorcycle, then can a local municipality, setting aside for a moment any concerns about public health and safety, simply try to run these people out of town by passing a helmet law.”

Battle said, “I don’t think they could pass a helmet law for the soul purpose of running somebody out of town. I think there has to be a rational connection between the ordinance that was passed and the affect that it’s had.”

Battle restated the point that medical and law enforcement personnel were overwhelmed.

Battle went on to say, "We're not trying to rid the city of Myrtle Beach of these enormous crowds.

Battle was interrupted by Beatty who said, “Come on Mr. Battle, we all live in South Carolina, you're not talking to people unfamiliar with what goes on down there, not read about it, been there and seen it. Although I know we have to stick to this record, but give us a little credit for knowing what goes in this state.”

Battle said, “We’re not putting up barricades and saying no motorcycles may enter the city of Myrtle Beach, that’s not the point at all. We just say if you’re going to come in and you’ve got our geographic, demographic situation and you’ve got our health situation and our police officer situation, the least you can do is show the courtesy of putting on a helmet so that if you do have an accident, we don’t have to scrape your brains up off the highway.”

Battle said that in passing the ordinances, the city had to balance the adverse effects on transient citizens vs. the benefits of the ordinance.

Battle said outside of the cases in front of the court today, the city has had very little problem enforcing the helmet ordinance.

After a break, the justices heard the second lawsuit concerning the helmet law, Aakjer vs. City of Myrtle Beach

Attorney Tom McGrath, who represents George Aakjer and dozens of other motorcyclists who were ticketed under the Myrtle Beach helmet ordinance, also argued against the law.

McGrath told the court that the local helmet ordinance conflicts with the state’s uniform helmet law.

McGrath referenced a lawsuit brought last year by Myrtle Beach hotel owners Bill and Carol O’Day. In reviewing the lawsuit, a circuit court judge ruled last year that violating the helmet law was a civil, not criminal infraction.

Bill O’Day, who traveled to Columbia with his wife, said, “"We didn't think we'd ever have to come here but we were always prepared to go all the way and go right to state Supreme Court, from day one, we said we weren't stopping until we go to the Supreme Court and here we are, now we just wait."

McGrath said even if the court find the helmet law can stand, there is still a problem. "Well ok where do you try it because the Supreme Court says you can't have these administrative courts, so what happens, do they stay in limbo like your email, you know are they just floating around out there."

McGrath asked the justices to order 49 citations that were issued on Feb. 28, thrown out.

Battle said the city helmet ordinance is a reasonable and rational response to a problem everyone would have to admit exists.

The justices recessed without issuing an opinion.