Tuesday, Jun. 16, 2009

Myrtle Beach helmet law gets airing in top court

Ticketed rider's challenge merges with 50 others

The S.C. Supreme Court will hear arguments against Myrtle Beach's motorcycle helmet law, though no date has been set for a court appearance.

Bart Viers, who received a ticket for violating the city's helmet law, and Business Owners Organized to Support Tourism filed a complaint against the city calling the local helmet law invalid. The high court also is allowing the nearly 50 riders first ticketed under the city's ordinance during a protest ride to consolidate with the Viers case for the court appearance.

J. Todd Kincannon, an attorney representing BOOST and Bart Viers, said he anticipates a fall hearing and hopes the court will issue a ruling by January at the latest - well before next year's May motorcycle rallies.

State Rep. Thad Viers, R-Horry County, the other attorney representing BOOST and his brother Bart Viers, said it's possible the high court's ruling could come even before the Harley-Davidson fall rally.

"They just heard the governor's case about taking the federal stimulus money about three weeks ago, and they issued a decision within two weeks," he said. "I'm glad they feel this is important enough to hear now."

Ron Andrews, deputy city manager, said the city does not comment on pending litigation. The city has 30 days to respond to the complaint Kincannon and Thad Viers submitted on their clients' behalf.

They contend the city overstepped bounds when it created a local helmet law last fall as part of more than a dozen ordinances and amendments geared toward curbing the effects of the Harley-Davidson Spring Cruising the Coast and Atlantic Beach Bikefest motorcycle rallies.

The city has said the rallies had grown too big and lasted too long - nearly three consecutive weeks - chasing away a more diverse tourist base that refused to patronize the Grand Strand as long as the roads and hotels were packed with bikers, and making life hard for full-time city residents.

But area businesses geared toward the riders and their gatherings are furious because, they say, their patrons are being discriminated against and the city's actions are killing their livelihoods.

Thad Viers said the argument is much bigger than whether people have to wear motorcycle helmets, though.

"Helmets are a good thing - people should wear them," he said. "But state law says people 21 and older have a choice, and if the city is allowed to do this, it paves the way for a hodgepodge of traffic laws all over the state."

Once the city's response has been filed, both sides will have 15 days to agree on the boundaries for the issues that will be presented to the panel of five Supreme Court justices during the oral arguments. After that agreement has been reached, each side has 30 more days to file its memorandum of understanding with the court, and then the court will schedule oral arguments.

Virginia attorney Tom McGrath, who is representing the almost 50 protest riders ticketed on the day the ordinance took effect in February, said getting the Supreme Court to hear the arguments saves time and the process of going through circuit and appeals courts.

He said the justices likely agreed to consolidate his arguments with BOOST's because both are presenting issues about the constitutionality of the city's helmet law.

Get The State newspaper delivered to your home. Click here to subscribe.