Myrtle Beach helmet restrictions unconstitutional

Myrtle Beach's helmet ordinance, passed as part of a series of motorcycle restrictions designed to move biker rallies out of the city, is null and void because the restriction is pre-empted by state law allowing riders to go hatless.

The South Carolina Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that the city rule conflicted with the state law and, therefore, was null and void. 

 "The statutes generally require all riders under age twenty-one to wear a protective helmet and utilize protective goggles or a face shield.  The Helmet Ordinance, in contrast, requires all riders, regardless of age, to wear a helmet and eyewear," the court ruled. "We find that the ordinance may not stand as the need for uniformity is plainly evident in the regulation of motorcycle helmets and eyewear."

The court recounted the tiff between riders and the city, which had brewed for several years. Harley-Davidson dealers used to rally in the city for a weekend back in the 1980s, but it grew to a week. It was later followed by a week-long rally with other bikers, giving the city two consecutive weeks of tourists, money, noise and trouble.

"For years, large motorcycle rallies were held in Myrtle Beach.  A number of objections were had to the rallies based on, among other things, loud noise and rowdy behavior.  Additionally, there was evidence the rallies placed a heavy burden on the local medical community, police, and other emergency responders," the court recounted.

"In response, the city passed a number of ordinances and amendments dealing with rallies and motorcycles.  Included among them was the Helmet Ordinance, an ordinance requiring all persons riding on motorcycles to wear approved helmets and eyewear.  Under the language of the helmet ordinance, a violation was deemed an "administrative infraction."  The city passed an ordinance establishing an administrative hearing system to conduct hearings on citations charging violations of certain municipal ordinances, including certain motorcycle ordinances.  The administrative hearing ordinance was subsequently repealed." 

SC Supreme Court overturns restrictive helmet law

The court ruled that, were local authorities allowed to enforce individual helmet ordinances, "riders would need to familiarize themselves with the various ordinances in advance of a trip, so as to ensure compliance.  Riders opting not to wear helmets or eyewear in other areas of the state would be obliged to carry the equipment with them if they intended to pass through a city with a helmet ordinance.  Moreover, local authorities might enact ordinances imposing additional and even conflicting equipment requirements."

The court ruled that "sSuch burdens would unduly limit a citizen's freedom of movement throughout the State.  Consequently, the [ordinance] must fail under the doctrine of implied preemption."

The court noted that the city had created an administrative hearing process to review citations for helmet violations and that the city had repealed that process. Because the helmet rule remained an administrative citation but the process had been repealed, the court found that the helmet ordinance had been "impliedly repealed."

Other rules were not repealed when overturning the administrative hearing process, the court said. Among those were regulations on accommodations, consumption and open possession of alcohol in parking areas, use of parking lots for non-parking activities, parking of trailers on public streets or unlicensed private lots, convenience store and premises security, and minor or juvenile curfews.

"The City amended ordinances to designate those violations as "misdemeanors" rather than "administrative infractions."  Consequently, these ordinances are not impliedly repealed and remain in effect," the court said.