Thursday, Feb. 04, 2010

High court hears Myrtle Beach helmet law cases

Justices grill attorneys, hold off on decisions

The five South Carolina Supreme Court justices had questions for all sides of the Myrtle Beach helmet lawsuits heard Wednesday, but so far have offered no opinion on whether the controversial law will stand.

During two hearings related to the issue Wednesday, they questioned attorneys supporting and opposing the city's right to pass a local motorcycle helmet law, as Myrtle Beach did in 2008. The law was one in a series of ordinances designed to push the May motorcycle rallies outside city limits after years of complaints from residents about traffic, noise and lewd behavior.

The justices appeared to interrogate all the attorneys equally, though Justice Donald Beatty took to task lawyer Mike Battle, who represented the city, when he asserted the city only passed the helmet law because of safety concerns.

"I realize the issue is narrow here, but don't pretend like we don't know what's going on," Beatty said. "We read. We all know why the city [passed the rally ordinances]."

Attorney Thad Viers - representing his brother Bart, who was given a helmet ticket, and the group Business Owners Organized to Support Tourism - was up first. He presented a short version of the extensive legal arguments he already has filed in writing.

Justice Costa Pleicones told Viers the city has a legitimate interest in regulating noise, lewd acts and controlling nuisances.

"You're not trying to say that's not legitimate, right?" the justice asked.

Viers said he was only trying to say that the city can't pass a law regarding helmets because there is already a state law that says people younger than 21 must wear them, but says nothing about people 21 or older.

Viers argued this meant the legislature had wanted adults to have the freedom to choose, though Battle argued it's that very silence on the matter that allows the city to make its own law. The city's law requires all riders to wear helmets.

The justices appeared interested in the argument that letting the helmet law stand could mean a hodgepodge of different laws across the state - a situation the state's Uniform Traffic Act is meant to prevent, Viers said.

Pleicones asked Viers if he was trying to say that travel throughout the state could be impacted by "a morass of little pockets of local law." Viers responded that that was exactly his argument.

Battle argued the benefits of the helmet law outweigh the inconvenience, and pointed out that people coming into S.C. on motorcycles have to wear them in the surrounding states.

"What is the burden on the person wearing the helmet? I think everyone agrees it's safer for them, just like when you have to strap on a safety belt," Battle said.

The justices were late starting the scheduled 3 p.m. hearing, saying they had been tied up with other matters. They heard Viers' and Battle's arguments and rebuttals and adjourned without issuing a decision, only to return a few minutes later to hear arguments in the second Myrtle Beach case argued Wednesday.

In Aakjer et al vs. City of Myrtle Beach, attorney Tom McGrath is representing nearly 50 people ticketed for helmet infractions. He is arguing against the helmet law, as well, but the focus of the discussion with the justices Wednesday was that the city's municipal court should have no jurisdiction over the helmet ordinance violations because they are civil infractions and the municipal court is for criminal matters only.

Chief Justice Jean Toal asked attorneys about the individual city smoking bans the high court upheld in 2007. They all wondered aloud if those cases should be heard in municipal court, too, but the justices gave no indication which way they saw the question.

The city originally tried to begin an administrative hearing court to deal with the helmet and noise violations, but the high court issued an opinion that shot down that plan, saying administrative law courts were unconstitutional.

Battle argued that the statute that sets up municipal court gives the right for the court to try all cases that arise under city ordinances.

In fact, seat belt violations are civil infractions, and they are adjudicated in municipal court in Myrtle Beach.

But which court can hear the infractions will be moot if the court rules the city cannot implement a local helmet law, which McGrath says it cannot.

City attorney Tom Ellenburg attended the hearings but did not speak. The city doesn't typically comment on pending lawsuits.

Some wondered Wednesday whether the justices had already made up their minds.

Carol and William O'Day of Myrtle Beach, two of McGrath's clients, were there Wednesday, among about two dozen other rally supporters. Carol O'Day said she felt the hearings went well, and her husband agreed. He said he felt the opinion could come back soon because "I think they already knew what they wanted to do," he said.

Others speculated the ruling won't matter anyway, because the city already accomplished its goal, which was quell the rallies. Last year's attendance fell far short of the peak years' half a million people between both rallies.