NAACP Response To MB With Chief Prock Deposition and GSMC Stats, 4.25.19

4:18-cv-00554-MGL Date Filed 04/25/19 Entry Number 114 Page 1 of 7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
FLORENCE DIVISION
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE

ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE,
INC., et al.,
Plaintiffs,
Civil Action No. 4:18-cv-00554-MGL
v.
CITY OF MYRTLE BEACH, et al.,
Defendants.
PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND

THEIR RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION
Plaintiffs hereby respond to Defendants’ Motion to Amend Their Response to Plaintiffs’
Second Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 112).
INTRODUCTION
Defendants seek to add two pieces of evidence to the record in response to Plaintiffs’
Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Neither evidentiary submission provides any support for
denying Plaintiffs’ motion. 1 In their Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Plaintiffs seek to enjoin
one aspect of the City’s operational plan for the 2019 Black Bike Week: the 23-mile traffic loop
that is scheduled to be in place from 10 p.m. to 2 a.m. on Friday, Saturday, and Sunday nights of
the event. The fundamental bases of Plaintiffs’ motion are that the loop has demonstrably
discriminatory underpinnings, no articulable justification, and causes substantial harm to the
1
As an initial matter, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction has been fully briefed since
March 15, 2019. Attempts to amend or supplement the record only make it more difficult for the
Court to rule with sufficient time to allow the parties to prepare for the event prior to May 24,
2019 (when the 2019 Black Bike Week begins).
1
predominantly African-American attendees of the event. The new evidence Defendants seek to
submit does not undermine any of the showings Plaintiffs have made, demonstrating entitlement
to relief.
ARGUMENT
A. Grand Strand Hospital Data
Defendants assert that charts based on data produced recently by the Grand Strand
Hospital show that “trauma admissions for Memorial Day Weekend dramatically decreased from
2014 to 2015, the year Defendant’s [sic] implemented the traffic management plan.” Defs.’ Mot.
at 1. That assertion is incorrect and misleading on multiple levels. First, the data show no
particular trends related to trauma admissions before and after the implementation of the traffic
plan in 2014. For example, there were fewer admissions during Black Bike Week 2013 (when
there was no traffic plan in place) than there were in Black Bike Weeks 2015 and 2017 (when the
traffic plan was in place). 2 See Ex. 1 (Excel spreadsheet with total trauma numbers produced by
Grand Strand Hospital and Bates-stamped GSH0008, with the total traumas over Memorial Day
Weekend highlighted and summed).
Second, even if there were an identifiable change before and after the implementation of
the traffic plan, there would be no basis to attribute that change to the traffic plan. As even
Defendants’ experts acknowledge, they cannot determine the exact cause of changes in public
safety issues that they claim to perceive. See Ex. 2 (Alpert/McClean Rep.) at 23. There are an
inordinate number of factors that contribute to the number of traumatic injuries during an event,
2
Defendants’ charts appear to only include data regarding admissions from Friday and Saturday
nights, but there is no explanation why Sunday and Monday are excluded when the traffic loop
remains in place until Monday at 2 a.m. Plaintiffs’ calculations are based on all relevant nights,
Friday through Monday.
2
including weather and the level of participation. For example, there is broad agreement that
participation in Black Bike Week has generally been declining since the implementation of the
traffic plan and attendance during the 2016 Black Bike Week was significantly suppressed by the
arrival of Tropical Storm Bonnie. Ex. 3 (Pedersen Dep.) at 139:5-40:6 (acknowledging
“significant reduction in the number of individuals attending”); Ex. 4 (Webster Dep.) at 96:18-
97:5 (noting decrease in crowd size due to Tropical Storm Bonnie). With fewer participants in
the event, it would be expected that there would be fewer trauma admissions.
Third, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction solely relates to the 23-mile loop.
Defendants cannot link any decline in traumatic injuries to the loop that is the subject of
Plaintiffs’ motion (much less the traffic plan in general). In fact, other documents produced by
the Grand Strand Hospital show that the traffic loop itself actually increases the number of
serious injuries during Black Bike Week because it routes traffic to larger roads with higher
speeds. See Ex. 5 (GHS0006 (The Vicious Cycle of Motorcycle Rally Casualties: A Single
Center’s Experience, Aaron Pinnola, M.D., et al., Vol 84, No. 1 at 117, American Surgeon,
January 2018)) (“[D]uring Myrtle Beach’s most recent rally, a 23-mile traffic loop was put into
effect from 10 pm until 2 am which routed all traffic away from the city center. However, traffic
was diverted to higher speed roadways and a statistically significant increase in presenting ISS
[Injury Severity Score] was found.”). In other words, from the hospital’s perspective, the traffic
loop actually leads to worse injuries, evidence that supports Plaintiffs’ motion.
B. Joseph Hill Testimony
Defendants submit Joseph Hill’s testimony to suggest that traffic was gridlocked prior to
the traffic plan and “orderly” after implementation of the traffic plan. Chief Hill’s cited
testimony is of limited value for several reasons.
3
First, Chief Hill has no firsthand knowledge of post-loop traffic given that he has not
observed traffic on Ocean Boulevard or in the loop since its inception. 3 Indeed, Mr. Hill has been
in the City limits only once while the loop has been in place and in that instance only observed
traffic around the entrance of the loop. Chief Hill has not observed the loop more closely or
entered the loop because of the serious traffic issues caused by the loop:
15 I never went anywhere -- didn’t

16 want to go anywhere near that place as far as
17 the -- the traffic management plan because once
18 you’re in there, you’re -- you’re trapped for the
19 most part. I mean, I -- I could have turned my
20 lights on and got out, but I just didn’t want to
21 be stuck in that if something went on in Horry
22 County.
Defs.’ Mot. Ex. 3 (Hill Dep.) at 87:15-22; see also id. at 89:8-18 (Q: Is there any other time that
you have gone and -- and -- and observed the loop -- … while it’s been in place? A: I -- I -- I
make a point to stay away from it. … I don’t want to be stuck in a traffic jam, especially if -- if
I’m working.”).
Second, the pre-loop traffic that Hill observed was in 2008 when the City maintained a
one-way traffic plan on Ocean Boulevard. Ex. 6 (Prock Dep.) at 32:2-6. The circumstances in
2008, therefore, are similar to when the loop is in place and traffic is forced to travel southbound
on Ocean Boulevard. Hill’s cited testimony, therefore, is not a comparison of the pre- (2010-
2014) and post- (2015-2018) loop traffic management plans.
Third, Chief Hill confirms that there is no legitimate explanation for the City’s
differential treatment of Black Bike Week as compared to other busy weekends in Myrtle Beach
that experience traffic and emergency access issues similar to Black Bike Week. Chief Hill has
3
Mr. Hill also has not been involved in the planning for the event. Hill Dep. at 92:10-14 (“Q
Have you -- did you participate at all in the sort of planning and -- and decision to put in place
the traffic loop? A: No, that’s all the City of Myrtle Beach.”).
4
visited Ocean Boulevard during the July 4th holiday and notes that it is very crowded, creating
the same concerns about emergency access that exist for Black Bike Week. Hill Dep. at 140:15-
141:10. Nonetheless, the City implements no traffic management plan for July 4th.
CONCLUSION
The evidence Defendants seek to add to the record does not support their arguments
regarding the need for, or legitimacy of, the loop. Instead, a complete examination of this new
evidence establishes that the loop causes greater harm and is not any more necessary for Black
Bike Week than other busy Myrtle Beach weekends.
DATED: April 25, 2019 /s/ Peter Wilborn

D. Peters Wilborn, Jr. (ID #7609)
Law Office of Peter Wilborn
57 Cannon Street
Charleston, SC 29403
(843) 416-9060
peter@bikelaw.com
Reed N. Colfax
Tara K. Ramchandani
Laura Gaztambide-Arandes
Angela A. Groves
Relman, Dane & Colfax, PLLC
1225 19th Street, N.W., Suite 600
Washington, D.C. 20036
(202) 728-1888
rcolfax@relmanlaw.com
tramchandani@relmanlaw.com
larandes@relmanlaw.com
agroves@relmanlaw.com
Khyla D. Craine
National Association for the Advancement of
Colored People, Inc.
4805 Mt. Hope Drive
Baltimore, MD 21215
(410) 580-5777
kcraine@naacpnet.org
5
Dorian L. Spence
Maryum Jordan
Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law
1401 New York Avenue, NW, Suite 400
Washington, DC 20005
(202) 662-8600
dspence@lawyerscommittee.org
mjordan@lawyerscommittee.org
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
6
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on April 25, 2019, a copy of the foregoing was filed and served on all
counsel of record using the Court’s CM/ECF system.
/s/ Peter Wilborn

Peter Wilborn
7
4:18-cv-00554-MGL Date Filed 04/25/19 Entry Number 114-1 Page 1 of 2
EXHIBIT
1
Before the Loop Went Into Effect
Date Day Total Date Day Total Date Day Total

trauma trauma trauma
5/25/2012 Friday 24 5/24/2013 Friday 17 5/23/2014 Friday 17
5/26/2012 Saturday 29 5/25/2013 Sat 29 5/24/2014 Sat 42
5/27/2012 Sunday 17 5/26/2013 Sunday 14 5/25/2014 Sunday 38
5/28/2012 Monday 7 5/27/2013 Monday‐Mem 9 5/26/2014 Monday‐Mem 15
MDW 2012 77 MDW 2013 69 MDW 2014 112
After the Loop Went Into Effect
Date Day Total Date Day Total Date Day Total Date Day Total
trauma trauma trauma trauma
5/22/2015 Friday 22 5/27/2016 Friday 14 5/26/2017 Friday 17 5/25/2018 Friday 12
5/23/2015 Sat 18 5/28/2016 Sat 17 5/27/2017 Sat 30 5/26/2018 Sat 17
5/24/2015 Sunday 22 5/29/2016 Sunday 8 5/28/2017 Sunday 17 5/27/2018 Sunday 9
5/25/2015 Monday‐Mem 10 5/30/2016 Monday‐Mem 20 5/29/2017 Monday‐Mem 12 5/28/2018 Monday‐Mem 9
MDW 2015 72 MDW 2016 59 MDW 2017 76 MDW 2018 47

EXHIBIT
2
4:18-cv-00554-MGL
4:18-cv-00554-MGL Date
DateFiled
Filed04/25/19
02/22/19 Entry
EntryNumber
Number114-2
94-1 Page
Page12of
of29
30
Report
National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, Inc., et al. v. City of Myrtle
Beach, et al.
Geoffrey Alpert, Ph.D.

And
Kyle McClean, Ph.D.
February 20, 2019
Scope of Assignment
We were retained by attorney James Battle to assess the impact of Memorial Day
Weekend activities in Myrtle Beach on public safety personnel. A specific assignment was to
compare Memorial Day Weekend activities with other busy summer weekends. As part of our
assessment, one of us attended Harley weekend in Myrtle Beach and both of us attended
Memorial Day Weekend (Hereafter, MDW) activities as well as July 4th activities in Myrtle
Beach in 2018. Additionally, we reviewed action plans from the City of Myrtle Beach and spoke
with officers at various levels of the City of Myrtle Beach Police Department (Hereafter,
MBPD), including the Chief of Police, Deputy Chief of Police and various patrol officers,
sergeants, and lieutenants in the course of their duty. Finally, and most importantly, we reviewed
Computer-Aided Dispatch data provided by the City of Myrtle Beach (see exhibits listed at the
end of the report), as well as Emergency Response Data provided by Horry County Fire/Rescue.
We also reviewed the expert reports of Mitchell Brown and Willie Williams, David Clarke,
Charles Gallagher and Allan Parnell.
1
4:18-cv-00554-MGL
DateFiled
Filed04/25/19
02/22/19 Entry
EntryNumber
Number114-2
94-1 Page
Page23of
of29
30
Background
Discussions with command staff and officers at MBPD, as well as reviews of action plans
for MDW showed important details about the recent history of MDW. It is important to consider
that from 2011 to 2014, traffic on Ocean Boulevard flowed in both directions and was
considerably less restricted than it was in 2018. Additionally, though there was a heavy presence
of law enforcement officers, their visibility was relatively low as officers were mainly stationed
off Ocean Boulevard and around beach access points.
Following several high-profile incidents in 2014, Myrtle Beach and a number of other
public safety agencies in the Grand Strand region created the Bike Week Task Force. The Task
Force developed a new plan for MDW that involved greater traffic restrictions (including
limiting Ocean Boulevard to one-way and instituting a “traffic loop” for four hours each night of
MDW) and greater officer visibility – stationing officers every few blocks along Ocean
Boulevard.
Methodology
To examine the comparative impact of Memorial Day Weekend on public safety
resources and understand how this impact has changed over time, data from two primary sources
were analyzed. The first source was the Computer-Aided Dispatch (Hereafter, CAD) data
provided by MBPD from 2011 to 2018. The second primary source was the Fire/EMS Response
Time (hereafter, “Fire/EMS”) data provided by Horry County. The Fire/EMS data included
responses into the city limits of Myrtle Beach.
For both datasets, a number of comparison weekends were identified as a reference for
understanding the impact of MDW. In order to be consistent with expert reports from the
plaintiffs, the reference weekends identified by Clarke in his report, “Comparison of Traffic
2
4:18-cv-00554-MGL
DateFiled
Filed04/25/19
02/22/19 Entry
EntryNumber
Number114-2
94-1 Page
Page34of
of29
30
Control for Motorcycle Rallies in Myrtle Beach, SC” were utilized here. However, data from
both datasets were limited to the Friday and Saturday of the comparison weekends. This
approach was taken in order to standardize events that vary in length. For example, “Harley”
week is a full week while MDW is a weekend event that stretches into Monday. On the one
hand, including data from Thursday in the analyses would bias estimates from Harley week
upwards as Thursday is part of the event for Harley week but not for MDW. This would also be
true for most other weeks during the summer where visitors typically spend the entire week at
the beach instead of a long weekend. On the other hand, including data from Sunday in the
analyses would unfairly bias estimates for MDW upward as it is the last day of the Harley event
(a time when visitors are likely driving home), but is a busy day for MDW as the event does not
end until Monday. Furthermore, crime trends indicate that levels of criminal activity increase on
the weekend. Thus, truncating the data to include only Friday and Saturday standardizes the
holidays to two days without ignoring potential variation due to increased activity on the
weekend. A list of the exact dates utilized for each weekend is presented in Appendix A.
Using the data sets noted above, a number of analyses were identified as relevant to a
comparison of MDW’s impact on public safety resources. The first set of analyses examined the
CAD database. Specifically, analyses were conducted to examine calls for service, self-initiated
activity, response time, motor vehicle accidents, motor vehicle accidents with injury, serious
violent crime, serious property crime, weapons violations, and narcotics activity as reported in
the CAD database. The police are not the only individuals to respond to calls for service, so the
second set of analyses examined response time and call volume using the Fire/EMS data.
Analytical Strategies
3
4:18-cv-00554-MGL
DateFiled
Filed04/25/19
02/22/19 Entry
EntryNumber
Number114-2
94-1 Page
Page45of
of29
30
Calls for Service and Self-Initiated Activity
Calls for service and self-initiated activity were identified by examining the “How Call was
Received” column in the CAD database. All activities that were identified as being received via
“PHONE” or “E911” were considered to be a call for service or a response. In other words, these
activities were conducted as a result of a citizen placing a call to dispatch requesting MBPD’s
presence, rather than MBPD seeking out activity or pro-active policing. All activities that were
identified as being received via “SELF” were considered self-initiated activity. In other words,
these activities were more discretionary in nature and subject to an officer’s decision to engage
in an encounter with a citizen.
4
4:18-cv-00554-MGL
DateFiled
Filed04/25/19
02/22/19 Entry
EntryNumber
Number114-2
94-1 Page
Page56of
of29
30
Table 1. CAD Calls for Service

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Weekend Avg.
Easter 406 368 317 359 392 368 537 332 384.9
First of May 274 321 250 340 329 343 382 358 324.6
Harley 306 399 341 341 357 359 374 329 350.8
MDW 625 1028 773 782 780 650 596 499 716.6
First of June 323 316 337 374 464 430 416 386 380.8
Last of June 326 358 352 376 398 449 429 381 383.6
First of July 364 429 477 579 539 428 362 384 444.5
Last of July 294 384 394 399 370 351 375 414 385.1
First of August 332 362 399 390 398 384 359 355 372.4
Labor Day 314 310 326 380 353 423 337 340 347.9
Yearly Avg. 356.4 427.5 396.6 431.4 438.0 428.5 416.7 377.8 409.1
Table 2. CAD Self-Initiated Activity

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Weekend Avg.
Easter 425 359 316 471 457 410 502 810 468.8
First of May 184 248 252 545 415 445 382 410 360.1
Harley 566 461 505 593 565 405 524 467 510.8
MDW 862 1226 1185 1224 971 941 1186 1277 1109.0
First of June 251 311 430 583 643 667 749 482 514.5
Last of June 287 339 417 353 451 544 551 491 429.1
First of July 313 338 494 480 463 654 672 850 533.0
Last of July 370 228 431 360 356 373 592 587 412.1
First of August 243 319 346 273 500 401 520 497 387.4
Labor Day 256 290 210 349 570 508 677 774 454.3
Yearly Avg. 375.7 411.9 458.6 523.1 539.1 534.8 635.5 664.5 517.9
5
4:18-cv-00554-MGL
DateFiled
Filed04/25/19
02/22/19 Entry
EntryNumber
Number114-2
94-1 Page
Page67of
of29
30
Data in Tables 1 and 2 show the number of calls for service and self-initiated activity,
during the targeted weekends from 2011 to 2018. As indicated in the far-right column of Table 1,
across these years, MDW had the highest average number of calls for service. Furthermore, in
examining each year individually, MDW had the highest number of calls for service in each year
from 2011 to 2018. Figure 1 further contextualizes this finding by showing how the number of
calls for service have changed over the years with a vertical line placed between 2014 and 2015
to show the changes implemented from the Bike Week Task Force. While MDW definitely has
the highest call volume of the targeted weekends, the figure shows that calls on MDW peaked in
2012, stabilized until 2015, when calls for service began to trend downwards. As a result, the
difference between MDW and the target weekends has narrowed since the formation of the Bike
Week Task Force and changes to the operational plan for MDW.
Returning to Table 2, MDW can be seen as once again having the highest average
number of self-initiated activities from 2011 to 2018 (see the far-right column). Once again,
examining each individual year shows that the number of self-initiated activities was highest on
MDW in each of these years. Figure 2 presents these numbers graphically and shows a different
trend from Figure 1. Specifically, while calls for service have been trending downwards in recent
years, self-initiated activity has trended upwards. Furthermore, the gap between MDW and other
target weekends was at its narrowest in 2016 and has expanded since that year.
6
4:18-cv-00554-MGL
DateFiled
Filed04/25/19
02/22/19 Entry
EntryNumber
Number114-2
94-1 Page
Page78of
of29
30
Figure 1. CAD Calls for Service
Figure 2. CAD Self-Initiated Activity
It is important to note that these two figures cannot be examined independently. Proactive
police activities are aimed at crime prevention. Thus, self-initiated activity is intended to
7
4:18-cv-00554-MGL
DateFiled
Filed04/25/19
02/22/19 Entry
EntryNumber
Number114-2
94-1 Page
Page89of
of29
30
decrease calls for service. At the same time, self-initiated activity is also a function of
criminal/suspicious activity. Increases in these types of activity should increase both calls for
service and self-initiated activity. In short, it is unclear how self-initiated activity impacts call
volume, however, it is more likely than not that changes to the operational plan that increased
officer visibility along Ocean Boulevard had an impact on both the number of self-initiated
activities and the number of calls for service.
Response Time
The CAD database also contains information on the average response time for MBPD
officers on the target weekends. Average response time was estimated using the “Seconds from
First Dispatch to First Arrival” column. This column contains the elapsed time between the
dispatcher issuing an assignment to the officer and the officer arriving on scene. The time
indicates how long it takes for an officer to arrive on a scene after being dispatched. Incidents
that are self-initiated are unlikely to have a meaningful response time as the officer is not
dispatched or assigned the activity. Thus, the average response time was estimated for each
weekend using only the activities designated as calls for service in the previous analyses. These
average response times are produced in Table 3.
Unlike the calls for service and self-initiated activity, average response time has no clear
trend that can be found in the data. MDW has the lowest average response time across every year
included in the analysis. However, examining the years individually MDW does not have the
lowest average response time consistently. In fact, in 2013, MDW approaches the highest
average response time. It does appear, however, that since the formation of the Bike Week Task
Force, MDW has had a consistently low average response time (see Figure 3).
8
4:18-cv-00554-MGL
DateFiled
Filed04/25/19
02/22/19 Entry
EntryNumber
Number114-2
94-1 Page 9
10ofof29
30
Table 3. CAD Average Response Time

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Weekend Avg.
Easter 312 272 365 332 381 394 419 301 347.0
First of May 293 274 367 671 338 360 379 392 346.8
Harley 319 198 318 338 368 373 395 361 333.8
MDW 281 186 378 389 309 335 358 338 321.8
First of June 342 230 385 330 338 337 393 347 337.8
Last of June 344 242 388 421 377 419 385 369 368.1
First of July 334 216 368 376 352 366 377 338 340.9
Last of July 404 243 360 391 388 452 441 413 386.5
First of August 326 294 381 509 411 426 376 343 383.3
Labor Day 356 355 379 442 385 347 376 375 376.9
Yearly Avg. 331.1 251.0 368.9 389.9 364.7 380.9 383.1 357.7 354.3
9
4:18-cv-00554-MGL
DateFiled
Filed04/25/19
02/22/19 Entry
EntryNumber
Number114-2
94-1 Page
Page10
11of
of29
30
Figure 3. CAD Response Time
Motor Vehicle Collisions
Motor vehicle collisions were examined by looking at the “Nature Code” column in the
CAD database. The Nature Codes “MVAI,” “MVAN,” “MVAPP,” “LSI,” and “LSNI” all refer
to calls involving motor vehicle collisions. Nature Codes “MVAI” and “LSI” refer specifically to
motor vehicle collisions with injuries. Tables 4 and 5 show the numbers of motor vehicle
collisions and motor vehicle collisions with injury, respectively, for each of the targeted
weekends from 2011 to 2018.
As can be seen in Table 4, MDW had the highest average number of motor vehicle
collisions from 2011 to 2018. Additionally, MDW had the highest number of motor vehicle
collisions in seven of the eight years examined, with Easter weekend of 2017 being the sole
exception. Figure 4 shows this information as a series of trend lines. Two interesting conclusions
can be drawn from the figure. First, as with calls for service, while MDW has the highest number
10
4:18-cv-00554-MGL
DateFiled
Filed04/25/19
02/22/19 Entry
EntryNumber
Number114-2
94-1 Page
Page11
12of
of29
30
Table 4. CAD – Motor Vehicle Accidents

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Weekend Avg.
Easter 50 66 36 38 33 60 77 39 49.9
First of May 21 28 16 34 30 28 42 41 30.0
Harley 32 18 30 39 35 38 47 45 35.5
MDW 90 133 135 171 116 88 75 57 108.1
First of June 46 41 37 44 59 53 37 34 43.9
Last of June 44 40 31 33 50 49 45 33 40.6
First of July 54 43 43 62 62 34 40 43 47.6
Last of July 38 46 43 40 40 66 40 33 43.3
First of August 39 50 41 46 56 44 45 31 44.0
Labor Day 27 28 29 32 29 22 38 39 30.5
Yearly Avg. 44.1 49.3 44.1 53.9 51.0 48.2 48.6 39.5 47.3
Table 5. CAD – Motor Vehicle Accidents with Injury

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Weekend Avg.
Easter 8 13 6 2 4 10 6 5 6.8
First of May 3 5 1 7 7 5 6 3 4.6
Harley 3 4 9 10 5 11 12 11 8.1
MDW 30 43 40 60 28 18 26 12 31.1
First of June 3 8 4 7 10 5 7 10 6.8
Last of June 6 5 7 2 9 7 9 7 6.5
First of July 10 8 12 7 11 8 5 9 8.8
Last of July 7 6 4 7 5 8 7 6 6.3
First of August 6 9 8 15 8 6 10 8 8.8
Labor Day 6 1 7 4 6 2 7 1 4.3
Yearly Avg. 8.2 10.2 9.8 12.1 9.3 8.0 9.5 7.2 9.3
11
4:18-cv-00554-MGL
DateFiled
Filed04/25/19
02/22/19 Entry
EntryNumber
Number114-2
94-1 Page
Page12
13of
of29
30
of motor vehicle collisions, the gap between MDW and other target weekends has narrowed
considerably since the formation of the Bike Week Task Force. Second, the trend line shows a
general increase in the number of motor vehicle collisions during MDW from 2011 to 2014,
followed by a sharp decrease from 2014 to 2018. This is especially remarkable because the trend
lines for other weekends appear remarkably steady with no clear increases or decreases.
Figure 4. CAD Motor Vehicle Collisions
The data in Table 5 shows that MDW has the highest average number of motor vehicle
collisions with injury from 2011 to 2018 (M = 31.1). Additionally, MDW has the highest number
of motor vehicle collisions with injury in each of these years individually. Figure 5 presents this
information as a trend line. The results mimic the examination of motor vehicle collisions,
broadly. Collisions with injuries on MDW trended upward from 2011 to 2014. Since 2014,
motor vehicle collisions with injury on MDW have trended steeply downward, narrowing the
12
4:18-cv-00554-MGL
DateFiled
Filed04/25/19
02/22/19 Entry
EntryNumber
Number114-2
94-1 Page
Page13
14of
of29
30
gap between MDW and other target weekends. The trends for motor vehicle collisions with
injury during other weekends is remarkably steady.
Figure 5. CAD Motor Vehicle Collisions w/ Injury
Criminal Activity
Finally, the last set of analyses examined differences in the volume of different types
activities conducted by MBPD related to suspected criminal activities. The first type of activity
was serious violent crime, as indicated by Nature Codes related to armed robbery (“ARMED”),
assault (“ASSAUL”), carjacking (“CARJ”), criminal domestic violence (“CDV”), fights
(“FIGHT”), homicides (“HOMICI”), kidnappings (“KIDNAP”), shootings (“SHOOT”), and
strong armed robberies (“STRONG”). Admittedly, a number of these activities are extremely
rare, if they occurred at all, during any of the target weekends including MDW. However, an
inclusive definition allows for an examination of any potentially serious violent crimes during
any of the weekends (Table 6). The second type of activity was serious property crime, as
13
4:18-cv-00554-MGL
DateFiled
Filed04/25/19
02/22/19 Entry
EntryNumber
Number114-2
94-1 Page
Page14
15of
of29
30
indicated by Nature Codes related to auto burglaries (“BURGA”), business burglaries
(“BURGB”), burglaries from motels (“BURGB”), burglaries from residences (“BURGR”),
14
4:18-cv-00554-MGL
DateFiled
Filed04/25/19
02/22/19 Entry
EntryNumber
Number114-2
94-1 Page
Page15
16of
of29
30
Table 6. CAD – Serious Violent Crime

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Weekend Avg.
Easter 22 13 22 13 24 13 28 15 18.8
First of May 14 11 13 10 16 21 11 13 13.6
Harley 8 14 14 14 16 12 10 15 12.9
MDW 30 40 44 45 30 18 21 20 31.0
First of June 14 14 15 13 19 17 18 20 16.3
Last of June 17 12 10 15 17 20 16 14 15.1
First of July 22 20 9 22 16 17 9 16 16.4
Last of July 13 7 18 23 18 17 12 18 15.8
First of August 9 14 21 10 21 16 13 19 15.4
Labor Day 7 13 15 12 14 13 9 11 11.8
Yearly Avg. 15.6 15.8 18.1 17.7 19.1 16.4 14.7 16.1 16.7
Table 7. CAD – Serious Property Crime

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Weekend Avg.
Easter 39 28 19 34 29 40 41 30 32.5
First of May 33 31 22 33 30 15 50 24 29.8
Harley 32 40 34 33 37 35 28 23 32.8
MDW 48 55 55 71 50 34 45 41 49.9
First of June 38 21 37 32 26 31 40 22 30.9
Last of June 28 44 37 40 50 39 50 29 39.6
First of July 32 44 47 50 40 42 42 31 41.0
Last of July 33 36 41 57 38 34 26 36 37.6
First of August 42 50 45 42 31 47 27 37 40.1
Labor Day 45 30 40 43 28 34 36 28 35.5
Yearly Avg. 37.0 37.9 37.7 43.5 35.9 35.1 38.5 30.1 37.0
15
4:18-cv-00554-MGL
DateFiled
Filed04/25/19
02/22/19 Entry
EntryNumber
Number114-2
94-1 Page
Page16
17of
of29
30
larceny (“larceny”), and shoplifting (“SHOPLI”). The number of police activities related to these
crimes is displayed in Table 7.
MDW has the highest average number of serious violent crime dispatch activities
between 2011 and 2018 of any of the targeted weekends. However, examining the years
individually shows that MDW’s outsized impact in terms of serious violent crime is limited to
the years 2011 to 2014. In these years, MDW had a considerably higher number of serious
violent crime dispatch activities than the other target weekends, including nearly double the next
highest activity weekend in 2012, 2013, and 2014. MDW remained the highest activity weekend
in 2015 – though only by 6 CAD activities – before falling from the top spot in 2016 and 2017.
In 2018, MDW was tied for the highest number of dispatch activities related to serious violent
crime with the first weekend of June.
This trend is further illustrated in Figure 6. CAD activities related to serious violent crime
increased from 2011 to 2014, then sharply decreased from 2014 to 2016, and stabilized between
2016 and 2018. Furthermore, the decrease between 2014 and 2016 erases a sizeable gap that
existed between MDW and the other target weekends, such that MDW becomes nearly
indistinguishable from the comparison weekends in terms of CAD activities related to serious
violent crime from 2016 to 2018. Again, it appears that since the formation of the Bike Week
Task Force and the major changes to the operational plan for MDW, CAD activities related to
serious violent crime have decreased and MDW has become indistinguishable from other busy
weekends in the City of Myrtle Beach.
The data in Table 7 shows a similar, but less severe trend. Though MDW has the highest
average number of CAD activities related to serious property crime, the gap between MDW and
other weekends is much less distinct. Though the trend line follows a similar shape to Figure 6 –
16
4:18-cv-00554-MGL
DateFiled
Filed04/25/19
02/22/19 Entry
EntryNumber
Number114-2
94-1 Page
Page17
18of
of29
30
increase from 2011 to 2014, decrease to 2016, stabilization until 2018 – the line is much closer to
the target weekends than the serious violent crime trend line.
Figure 6. CAD Activities – Serious Violent Crime
Figure 7. CAD Activities – Serious Property Crime
17
4:18-cv-00554-MGL
DateFiled
Filed04/25/19
02/22/19 Entry
EntryNumber
Number114-2
94-1 Page
Page18
19of
of29
30
Weapons Violations and Narcotics Activities
Tables 8 and 9 contain the number of CAD activities related to weapons violations and
narcotics activities from 2011 to 2018 for each of the target weekends. These tables provide
several notable conclusions. First, MDW has the highest average number of CAD activities in
both categories. Second, the specific number of CAD activities for each individual weekend is
too low for meaningful trends to be discerned. Thus, it is impossible to say whether these
activities follow the same trend as the previous examinations of motor vehicle collisions, motor
vehicle collisions with injury, serious violent crime, or serious property crime. Finally, MBPD
has substantially increased their CAD activities related to narcotics since 2011. This finding
could partially explain the increase in self-initiated activity seen across all target weekends in
Figure 2, as narcotics activities are more likely to be self-initiated rather than a call for service.
18
4:18-cv-00554-MGL
DateFiled
Filed04/25/19
02/22/19 Entry
EntryNumber
Number114-2
94-1 Page
Page19
20of
of29
30
Table 8. CAD – Weapons Violations

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Weekend Avg.
Easter 1 1 0 2 2 2 5 4 2.1
First of May 1 1 0 2 4 1 0 3 1.5
Harley 2 2 1 1 1 1 0 1 1.1
MDW 0 7 5 12 7 13 3 9 7.0
First of June 0 0 2 1 5 2 5 4 2.4
Last of June 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0.4
First of July 0 2 1 0 0 2 2 1 1.0
Last of July 0 3 0 2 1 0 1 2 1.1
First of August 1 6 0 0 1 2 1 2 1.6
Labor Day 2 1 3 2 2 0 2 2 1.8
Yearly Avg. 0.7 2.3 1.3 2.2 2.3 2.3 2.0 2.9 2.0
Table 9. CAD – Narcotics Activity

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Weekend Avg.
Easter 14 12 9 11 11 14 20 40 16.4
First of May 5 7 10 5 14 11 9 20 10.1
Harley 10 6 17 7 10 6 11 14 10.1
MDW 16 29 51 52 33 43 40 67 41.4
First of June 2 7 10 14 9 24 17 16 12.4
Last of June 7 8 12 7 9 10 23 27 12.9
First of July 3 7 9 6 14 14 20 20 11.6
Last of July 7 7 11 9 9 14 16 19 11.5
First of August 5 5 7 10 4 8 16 19 9.3
Labor Day 4 7 10 10 12 13 19 28 12.9
Yearly Avg. 7.3 9.5 14.6 13.1 12.5 15.7 19.1 27.0 14.9
19
4:18-cv-00554-MGL
DateFiled
Filed04/25/19
02/22/19 Entry
EntryNumber
Number114-2
94-1 Page
Page20
21of
of29
30
Fire/EMS
As noted above, Horry County Fire/Rescue provided data on response times in the city
limits of Myrtle Beach for the target weekends and years. All calls for which a response time was
not able to be calculated due to missing data was excluded from the analyses. Table 10 provides
information on the number of calls for which a valid response time could be calculated across
each target weekend from 2011 to 2018. Table 11 provides the average response time to these
calls by weekend. From these tables, it can be seen that MDW generally has the most calls with a
recorded response, though the last weekend of July had more calls in 2016 and 2018.
Additionally, while response times have varied considerably, MDW went from the highest
average response time in 2014 to the second lowest in 2015 and finally, the lowest in every year
from 2016 to 2018. These findings are further illustrated in Figures 8 and 9, respectively.
Figure 8. Fire/EMS Call Volume
Figure 9. Fire/EMS Response Time
20
4:18-cv-00554-MGL
DateFiled
Filed04/25/19
02/22/19 Entry
EntryNumber
Number114-2
94-1 Page
Page21
22of
of29
30
Figure 8 shows a similar, though slightly different, pattern to the calls for service
examination from the CAD data. MDW has a slightly higher call volume from 2011 to 2013,
with a peak substantially higher than the target weekends in 2014, before becoming much more
similar to other target weekends from 2016 to 2018. This similarity is very important as the data
comes from a different source than the CAD data. While similarities in types of calls examined
using the CAD data could be attributed to the common dataset, this cannot explain the similarity
between the Horry County data and the CAD data.
Figure 9 also contains some notable similarities to Figure 3, the examination of response
time from the CAD data. Specifically, the response time is similar to other weekends throughout
the 8 year period, but remains consistently low from 2015 to 2018.
21
4:18-cv-00554-MGL
DateFiled
Filed04/25/19
02/22/19 Entry
EntryNumber
Number114-2
94-1 Page
Page22
23of
of29
30
Table 10. Fire/EMS Call Response Volume

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Weekend Avg.
Easter 62 65 58 68 78 68 82 81 70.3
First of May 44 52 44 82 75 75 86 71 66.1
Harley 63 70 79 82 66 73 83 84 75.0
MDW 114 106 108 163 112 98 112 88 112.6
First of June 49 72 57 70 94 76 84 97 74.9
Last of June 59 69 84 63 74 79 93 75 74.5
First of July 79 91 90 98 89 96 95 74 89.0
Last of July 84 77 85 70 70 110 85 102 85.4
First of August 74 87 90 78 77 91 89 86 84.0
Labor Day 74 70 64 72 60 63 73 75 68.9
Yearly Avg. 70.2 75.9 75.9 84.6 79.5 82.9 88.2 83.3 80.1
Table 11. Fire/EMS Average Response Time

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Weekend Avg.
Easter 445 431 393 335 364 441 397 510 414.5
First of May 410 361 427 392 336 439 427 456 406.0
Harley 350 446 346 417 393 465 408 477 412.8
MDW 381 419 336 454 343 351 365 365 376.8
First of June 339 409 416 363 389 393 484 498 411.4
Last of June 382 328 409 440 402 366 451 424 400.3
First of July 390 415 358 389 418 482 481 531 433.0
Last of July 453 411 423 493 428 442 447 534 453.9
First of August 485 420 455 398 432 471 416 443 440.0
Labor Day 452 384 368 364 433 450 402 496 418.7
Yearly Avg. 408.7 402.4 393.1 4045 393.8 430.0 427.8 473.4 416.7
22
4:18-cv-00554-MGL
DateFiled
Filed04/25/19
02/22/19 Entry
EntryNumber
Number114-2
94-1 Page
Page23
24of
of29
30
Conclusions
Two very important conclusions are drawn from the data analyses. First, from 2011 to
2018, MDW has had an outsized impact on public safety resources compared to other busy
weekends in Myrtle Beach. Whether measured through calls for service, motor vehicle
collisions, motor vehicle collisions with injury, serious violent crime, serious property crime, or
Fire/Rescue responses, MDW had a greater number of public safety activities than the
comparison weekends. Second, trend lines for each of these categories of activities suggest that
the public safety burden on MDW has been reduced in recent years. Specifically, since the
formation of the Bike Week Task Force, MDW has seen decreases in calls for service, motor
vehicle collisions, motor vehicle collisions with injury, serious violent crime, and serious
property crime. The exact cause of this reduction cannot be determined, as the Bike Week Task
Force implemented a number of major changes to the operational plan for MDW, including a
restrictive traffic pattern that funnels traffic on Ocean Boulevard past a number of points with a
considerable number of law enforcement officers observing vehicular and pedestrian traffic and
people. This is a critical point because research has demonstrated that increasing policing
activities in specific areas during specific times can reduce crime and improve public safety
(often called “hot spots” interventions). While the operational plan for MDW is a lot broader
than traditional hot spots interventions, the principle of increasing officer visibility along Ocean
Boulevard and funneling traffic past these visible posts is consistent with the idea of directed
patrols.
23
4:18-cv-00554-MGL
DateFiled
Filed04/25/19
02/22/19 Entry
EntryNumber
Number114-2
94-1 Page
Page24
25of
of29
30
Additional Concerns
In addition to our consideration of CAD activities, response times, and Fire/EMS calls,
we also evaluated two additional issues regarding MDW: overall traffic volume and zero-
tolerance policing.
Overall Traffic Volume
To examine overall traffic volume in the city of Myrtle Beach, we examined data from
MBPD’s automatic license plate readers (ALPRs). Unlike the SC DOT traffic counters examined
by Clarke in his expert report which are distributed throughout the Grand Strand region, the
ALPRs are located at every major entrance and exit to the city limits of Myrtle Beach (see
Appendix B for a list of ALPR locations). The data from Friday through Sunday of the second
weekend of Harley week 2018 compared to MDW 2018 demonstrated a large difference in the
number of vehicles in the city of Myrtle Beach. ALPRs at the city limits counted 131,604 license
plates during the second weekend of Harley Week. The same ALPRs counted 193,238 license
plates during MDW.1 Thus, the number of vehicles in the city limits increased roughly 50%
(46.8%) from Harley week to MDW. These numbers are substantially different from the
numbers reported by Clarke. One potential explanation for this large discrepancy is the location
of the counters. Specifically, one of the SC DOT counters used by Clarke is located near Garden
City, SC. Garden City is not part of the City of Myrtle Beach and not included in the lawsuit,
however, a substantial number of motorcycles travel through the area during Harley week, which
is primarily concentrated south of Myrtle Beach. In fact, when Dr. McLean was observing

1
The counter at Hwy 501 Bypass EB was excluded from both the Harley week and MDW numbers because it was
broken and repaired during MDW. However, given the large difference in the total number of vehicles it is
extremely unlikely that this would have changed the conclusions presented here. In fact, to believe that this decision
impacted the conclusions, one would have to argue that over 60,000 more cars entered the city on 501 Bypass EB
during Harley week than during MDW. At no point during Harley Week or MDW did a single entry point register
40,000 license plates.
24
4:18-cv-00554-MGL
DateFiled
Filed04/25/19
02/22/19 Entry
EntryNumber
Number114-2
94-1 Page
Page25
26of
of29
30
Harley Week activities there were many traffic problems experienced south of Myrtle Beach in
the Garden City area. These same problems were not present when Drs. McLean and Alpert
observed traffic patterns during MDW which is concentrated in the City of Myrtle Beach, as well
as north of the city limits.
Zero-Tolerance Policing
To evaluate the claim that MBPD engages in zero-tolerance policing during MDW, we
had observers count the number of enforcement activities MBPD officers engaged in during
MDW that did not result in a citation or arrest. That is, the observers counted the number of
encounters where officers exercised discretion and did not use “zero-tolerance.” This approach
was taken because most of these types of incidents do not generate CAD data. Instead of traffic
stops, citations, or arrests, these encounters involve officers telling citizens to turn their music
down, turn their lights on, stop revving their engines or other orders without taking legal action.
While the strategy employed was not perfect, and did not achieve consistent results among
observers as many were unable to keep up with officers as they moved throughout their area of
responsibility and were even issued warnings for loitering on the sidewalk. Still, their data are
important and shown in Table 12. These numbers should be considered underestimates, but are
nevertheless proof that enforcement actions that do not result in citations or arrests occur and a
zero-tolerance approach is not taken.
Table 12. Enforcement Actions without Ticket or Arrest

Weekend Actions
th th
29 -26 Ave. N 49
25th-21st Ave. N 35
19th-16th Ave. N 67
13th-9th Ave. N 139
9th-5th Ave. N 200
5th-2nd Ave. N 124
25
4:18-cv-00554-MGL
DateFiled
Filed04/25/19
02/22/19 Entry
EntryNumber
Number114-2
94-1 Page
Page26
27of
of29
30
2nd Ave. N-3rd Ave. S 31

6th-10th Ave. S 66
14th-18th Ave. S 50
18th-21st Ave. S 19
26
4:18-cv-00554-MGL
DateFiled
Filed04/25/19
02/22/19 Entry
EntryNumber
Number114-2
94-1 Page
Page27
28of
of29
30
Appendix A. Dates for Reference Weekends

Weekend 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Easter 4/22-4/23 4/6-4/7 3/29-3/30 4/18-4/19 4/3-4/4 3/25-3/26 4/14-4/15 3/30-3/31
First of May 5/6-5/7 5/4-5/5 5/3-5/4 5/2-5/3 5/1-5/2 5/6-5/7 5/5-5/6 5/4-5/5
Harley 5/20-5/21 5/18-5/19 5/17-5/18 5/16-5/17 5/15-5/16 5/20-5/21 5/19-5/20 5/18-5/19
MDW 5/27-5/28 5/25-5/26 5/24-5/25 5/23-5/24 5/22-5/23 5/27-5/28 5/26-5/27 5/25-5/26
First of June 6/3-6/4 6/1-6/2 5/31-6/1 6/6-6/7 6/5-6/6 6/3-6/4 6/2-6/3 6/1-6/2
Last of June 6/24-6/25 6/29-6/30 6/28-6/29 6/27-6/28 6/26-6/27 6/24-6/25 6/30-7/1 6/29-6/30
First of July 7/1-7/2 7/6-7/7 7/5-7/6 7/4-7/5 7/3-7/4 7/1-7/2 7/7-7/8 7/6-7/7
Last of July 7/29-7/30 7/27-7/28 7/26-7/27 7/25-7/26 7/31-8/1 7/29-7/30 7/28-7/29 7/27-7/28
First of August 8/5-8/6 8/3-8/4 8/2-8/3 8/1-8/2 8/7-8/8 8/5-8/6 8/4-8/5 8/3-8/4
Labor Day 9/2-9/3 8/31-9/1 8/30-8/31 8/29-8/30 9/4-9/5 9/2-9/3 9/1-9/2 8/31-9/1
27
4:18-cv-00554-MGL
DateFiled
Filed04/25/19
02/22/19 Entry
EntryNumber
Number114-2
94-1 Page
Page28
29of
of29
30
Exhibits Used
DEF00025052
DEF00025053
DEF00025057
DEF00025058
DEF00025060
DEF00025063
DEF00003964
DEF00003965
DEF00003969
DEF00003970
DEF00003972
DEF00008154
DEF00008158
DEF00008159
DEF00008160
DEF00008161
DEF00014774
DEF00014775
DEF00014779
DEF00014780
DEF00014782
DEF00014785
DEF00045133
DEF00045134
DEF00045138
DEF00045139
DEF00045141
DEF00045144
DEF00056233
DEF00056237
DEF00056238
DEF00056239
DEF00056240
DEF00056243
DEF00061868
DEF00061869
DEF00061873
DEF00061874
DEF00061876
DEF00061879
2018 CAD DATA 1ST 6.xls
2018 CAD DATA 2nd 6.xls
FR Average Times for MB 2011.xls
FR Average Times for MB 2012.xls
28
4:18-cv-00554-MGL
DateFiled
Filed04/25/19
02/22/19 Entry
EntryNumber
Number114-2
94-1 Page
Page29
30of
of29
30
EXHIBIT
3
Pedersen, Jr., John G. November 26, 2018
1
United States District Court
District of South Carolina
Florence Division
Colored People, Inc., by and through its Myrtle
Beach Branch, Simuel Jones, Leslie Stevenson and
Cedric Stevenson,
plaintiffs,
v. 4:18-CV-00554-MGL
City of Myrtle Beach, a municipal corporation
within the State of South Carolina, and City of
Myrtle Beach Police Department, a department of
the City of Myrtle Beach,
defendants.
Deposition of: John G. Pedersen, Junior
Location: 1200 Main Street

Conway, South Carolina
Date: Monday, November 26, 2018
Time: 9:58 a.m. - 6:34 p.m.
Court Reporter: Erica Creel
The deposition is taken pursuant to notice and/or
agreement, in the above-entitled cause pending in
the above-named court and pursuant to the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure.
Henderson Legal Services, Inc.

202-220-4158 www.hendersonlegalservices.com
138
1 that it originated decades ago as a family get-
2 together of a relatively small group of
3 African-American biking enthu--- motorcycle
4 enthusiasts. And it was primarily located in
5 Atlantic Beach. It grew over time, kind of lost
6 the idea that it was a family or a -- a event and
7 gotten much, much larger and outgrew the ability
8 of Atlantic Beach to handle it. And now it's
9 primarily concentrated in the City of Myrtle
10 Beach.
11 Q Where in the City of Myrtle Beach is
12 it concentrated?
13 A Up and down Ocean Boulevard.
14 Q Has that been true the entire time
15 you've worked at the City of Myrtle Beach?
16 A Yes.
17 Q Do you know approximately how many
18 people attend Black Bike Week?
19 A I've heard estimates of approximately
20 350,000.
21 Q Where did you hear the estimate?
22 A I can't recall the -- the source. I
23 can't recall the source of it. That's just
24 numbers that I have heard in conversation.
25 Q Conversation with who?

139
1 A Over the years, a number of
2 individuals. I can't think of any specific ones.
3 That's just the number that generally has been --
4 I have heard be used.
5 Q Has that number of attendees changed
6 since you've been working at the City of Myrtle
7 Beach?
8 A Yes, its ebbed and flowed a couple of
9 times.
10 Q So do you have a sense of
11 approximately how many people attended Black Bike
12 Week this year in May 2018?
13 A No, I don't have a way of estimating
14 the number.
15 Q Okay. Do you know if it's less or
16 more than the previous year?
17 A I can tell you it seems less.
18 Q Okay. When do you think the number of
19 attendees of Black Bike Week was the highest, in
20 your opinion?
21 A I would estimate that that would have
22 been 2013, 2014.
23 Q Okay. And has it gone down since
24 then?
25 A Yes. It -- it seems to have.

140
1 Q Okay. Has it gone down significantly
2 since then, in your opinion?
3 A I would estimate it probably has gone
4 down -- I -- I would say it's gone down -- it's
5 been a significant reduction in the number of
6 individuals attending.
7 Q And has the city ever gathered any
8 specific information to provide information about
9 how many attendees are coming for Black Bike Week?
10 A No, it's almost an impossible number
11 to gather. There are a number of people that
12 attend only for the day, don't get a room. You
13 don't know how many are coming in in each car that
14 are basically day tripping. So it's virtually
15 impossible to get -- to get a hard number.
16 Q Okay. And you have no basis for the
17 350,000 number that you remember?
18 A I think that is a number that
19 approximates somewhere between 350- and 400,000,
20 that approximates when all the hotel rooms are
21 full.
22 Q Okay. Were all the hotel rooms full
23 at -- when attendance was at its highest in 2013
24 or 2014?
25 A They were approx--- they were at their

141
1 peak. I could not tell you that they were --
2 every single one was full. But that certainly --
3 there was very little, if any, in the way of
4 vacancies.
5 Q Would your opinion be then that that
6 350,000 number matches up with when attendance at
7 Black Bike Week was up towards its highest?
8 A That would probably include only the
9 people that were staying in hotel rooms. It would
10 not include the day trippers. And I have no way
11 of accounting for the number of day trippers.
12 There are day trippers that even though they come
13 in with a car don't leave until the next day.
14 They simply drive around in their vehicle all day.
15 Q So do you have any idea what year this
16 350,000 number matches up with?
17 A No, I -- again, the peak -- I feel the
18 peak was -- since I have been here was probably
19 2008, 2009, but then again in 2013, 2014.
20 Q Okay.
21 A Because as I've said, it's ebbed and
22 flowed a couple of times.
23 Q Okay. So there was a peak in 2008,
24 2009, and then there was another peak in 2013,
25 2014?

374
1 CERTIFICATE OF REPORTER
2 State of South Carolina
3 County of Florence
4
5 I, Erica Creel, Court Reporter and Notary

6 Public for the State of South Carolina, do hereby
7 certify that the deponent in the foregoing
8 deposition was, by me, first duly sworn to testify
9 to the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the
10 truth; that said deposition transcript contains a
11 true record of the deposition of said deponent.
12 I further certify that I am neither attorney
13 nor Counsel for, nor related to or employed by any
14 of the parties connected to the action, nor am I
15 financially interested in the action.
16 Witness my hand at Florence, South Carolina,
17 this the 10th day of December, 2018.
18 ______________________
19 Erica Creel
20 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES:
21 March 2, 2022
22
23
24
25

EXHIBIT
4
Webster, Randall November 14, 2018
1
United States District Court
Florence Division

Cedric Stevenson,
plaintiffs,
v. 4:18-CV-00554-MGL

within the State of South Carolina, and City of
the City of Myrtle Beach,
defendants.
Deposition of: Randall Webster

Location: 1301 Second Avenue
Date: Wednesday, November 14, 2018
Time: 12:11 p.m. - 7:18 p.m.
Court Reporter: Ashley Rogers

the above-named court and pursuant to the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

95
1 anything from the state from, say, emergency
2 management, but we don't. So I don't need to
3 waste his time.
4 Q Got it.
5 A And I say -- you're more than welcome
6 to stay --
7 Q Okay.
8 A -- but I don't need you there and they
9 usually say, well, I'll take the weekend off.
10 Q And -- and that's fine. And what led
11 you to believe that they weren't needed?
12 A 'Cause they sit there and do nothing.
13 Really. I mean -- and so that's why.
14 Q And have you -- do you think that there
15 was sort of some -- some overpreparation that
16 happened in 2015?
17 MR. CAROTTI: Object to the form of the
18 question.
19 THE DEPONENT: I wouldn't say
20 overpreparation. I think, you know, we didn't
21 know what we were looking at for certain, so a
22 typical preparation.
23 By MS. RAMCHANDANI:
24 Q And then you -- you -- that typical
25 preparation was not in fact needed?

96
1 A That person.
2 Q Or that person.
3 A That -- for the 2016. You can show up
4 if you want to, but I doubt we'll do anything, so
5 don't need to waste your time.
6 Q And did they end up serving a useful
7 role in 2015?
8 A No.
9 Q Were there any other representatives
10 who also likewise didn't really end up playing a
11 role in 2015?
12 A Outside of the county staff, pretty
13 much the other agencies that came in, they came in
14 on their decision. You know, we offered it, it's
15 there and they didn't provide us a whole lot
16 except for some information flow such as highway
17 patrol and -- but that was it.
18 Q Okay. Have -- have you noticed any
19 change in crowd size attending Memorial Day
20 Weekend Bike Fest over the time period that you've
21 been operating the E.O.C.?
22 A Yes, ma'am.
23 Q And what have you noticed?
24 A Smaller numbers.
25 Q And has that been sort of each year,

97
1 it's gotten smaller?
2 A It appears to be, but I don't know why
3 except we've had rain. We -- we had Tropical
4 Storm Bonnie one year and then we've had rain
5 about every year.
6 Q And what are you basing that -- that
7 opinion on?
8 A Just from listening to information
9 flowing in and, hey, there's not near as many
10 people here as there seems to have been in the
11 past and less congestion or...
12 Q Have you done any -- have you looked at
13 any data that tells you that --
14 A No.
15 Q Any reports?
16 A No.
17 Q So it's just the sense you've gotten --
18 A Yes, ma'am.
19 Q -- from what you've been hearing?
20 A Yes -- yes, ma'am.
21 Q Do you -- do you have any -- anything
22 else you think is causing that decline in -- in
23 attendees?
24 A I really don't know why. I can only
25 contribute it to the weather from my standpoint.

98
1 Q Do you have any opinion on whether the
2 -- the traffic loop might be doing that?
3 A No.
4 MR. CAROTTI: Object to the form of the
5 question.
6 THE DEPONENT: I have no idea.
7 By MS. RAMCHANDANI:
8 Q Or the traffic restrictions that the
9 City of Myrtle Beach puts in?
10 A I have no idea.
11 Q Is the -- is the -- has -- has the task
12 force ever discussed why there might be a decline
13 in participation?
14 A Not as an official topic of discussion.
15 I mean, it comes up. Why do you think the crowd
16 was lower this past year than we anticipated? We
17 don't know. From the task force that I'm involved
18 in, discussion of what the overall group, but it's
19 not like brought up as a -- okay, why is this
20 getting smaller or -- I don't know. We don't
21 know.
22 Q Okay. So nobody has had a -- there's
23 never been a discussion where you have pinpointed
24 a reason that the crowd has not...
25 A No. No.

373
4 I, Ashley Rogers, Court Reporter and Notary
9 truth; that said deposition transcript was taken
10 via stenomask with backup; that the foregoing
11 transcript contains a true record of the
12 deposition of said deponent.
13 Before completion of the deposition, review
14 of the transcript was requested by the deponent,
15 and any changes made by the deponent after the
16 period allowed shall be appended hereto.
18 nor counsel for, nor related to or employed by any
22 this the 27th day of November, 2018.
23 ___________________
24 Ashley Rogers
25

EXHIBIT
5
GHS0003
GHS0004
GHS0005
GHS0006
EXHIBIT
6
Prock, Amy November 27, 2018
1
In The United States District Court
Florence Division

Cedric Stevenson,
Plaintiffs,
V. 4:18-CV-00554-MGL
within the state of South Carolina, and City of
the city of Myrtle Beach,
Defendants.
Deposition of: Chief Amy Prock
Location: 1200 Main Street
Date: Tuesday November 27, 2018
Time: 9:56 a.m. - 5:37 p.m.
Court Reporter: Erica N. Creel

the above-named court and pursuant to the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure.

31
1 up for approval.
2 Q And was this when you were with the
3 regulatory unit?
4 A Intermittently, yes.
5 Q So you started that in 2008. Have you
6 played some role in the planning of operations of
7 Memorial Day Weekend since 2008?
8 A Yes, sir.
9 Q Back in 2008 were you also involved in
10 developing operations plans for any other special
11 events in Myrtle Beach?
12 A I had some role in some of the other
13 operational plans. But the majority was our
14 special events coordinator at that time.
15 Q And who was the special events
16 coordinator at that time?
17 A At that time, it was Brian --
18 Brian Murphy.
19 Q Okay. And did Mr. Murphy work with you
20 starting in 2008 for the Memorial Day Weekend
21 planning?
22 A He worked in that capacity at the
23 time.
24 Q And you worked together in relationship
25 to the Memorial Day --

32
1 A He was working under me at that time.
2 Q In 2008 what was, just in general terms,
3 the traffic management plan that was in place for
4 Memorial Day Weekend?
5 A We had a one-way traffic plan on
6 Ocean Boulevard.
7 Q Were there any other different
8 operations at a significant level in terms of
9 traffic back in '08 other than the one-way?
10 A The only other traffic diversion plan
11 in place, if it was necessary, is if we needed to
12 utilize our -- any type of flush that was needed.
13 Q For how many years -- do you know prior
14 to 2008, how many years prior to that the one-way
15 traffic plan that was in place for Memorial Day
16 Weekend?
17 A 1999 is my understanding to...
18 Q And -- and then at some point, did the
19 one-way traffic pattern end for Memorial Day
20 Weekend?
21 A In 2010.
22 Q And just so it's clear, in 2010 was the
23 last year -- before it restarted -- but the last
24 year that there was, or was that the first year that
25 there was not a one-way?

33
1 A That was the last year.
2 Q You mentioned something about a flush
3 that could be utilized if needed. What was this
4 flush plan?
5 A It is just -- the flush is, basically,
6 a plan of action, and it's a traffic congestion
7 relief plan otherwise known as a flush.
8 Q And in what areas or roads was that plan
9 in place that a flush could be utilized?
10 A It allows us to evaluate a critical
11 incident or an emergency situation to divert
12 traffic.
13 Q And could that be done anywhere in the
14 city limits?
15 A It could be.
16 Q So for example, if Kings Highway and
17 1st North --
18 A Yes.
19 Q -- there was some --
20 A Sorry.
21 Q -- emergency -- if there is some
22 emergency and you needed to clear the traffic out of
23 that way -- out of that area, would there be a plan
24 where officers would know where to go, where to
25 direct traffic to able to clear out that spot?

269
4 I, Erica N. Creel, Court Reporter and Notary
9 truth; that said deposition transcript was taken
10 via stenomask with backup; that the foregoing
11 transcript contains a true record of the
12 deposition of said deponent.
13 Before completion of the deposition, review
14 of the transcript was requested by the deponent,
15 and any changes made by the deponent after the
16 period allowed shall be appended hereto.
18 nor counsel for, nor related to or employed by any
22 this the 12th day of December, 2018.
23 ______________________
24 Erica N. Creel
Notary Public for South Carolina
25 My Commission Expires: March 2, 2022


NAACP Response To MB With Chief Prock Deposition and GSMC Stats, 4.25.19

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

NAACP Response To MB With Chief Prock Deposition and GSMC Stats, 4.25.19

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

4:18-cv-00554-MGL Date Filed 04/25/19 Entry Number 114 Page 1 of 7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE

CITY OF MYRTLE BEACH, et al.,

PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND

Plaintiffs hereby respond to Defendants’ Motion to Amend Their Response to Plaintiffs’

Second Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 112).

discriminatory underpinnings, no articulable justification, and causes substantial harm to the

A. Grand Strand Hospital Data

Weekend highlighted and summed).

arrival of Tropical Storm Bonnie. Ex. 3 (Pedersen Dep.) at 139:5-40:6 (acknowledging

B. Joseph Hill Testimony

testimony is of limited value for several reasons.

15 I never went anywhere -- didn’t

2014) and post- (2015-2018) loop traffic management plans.

Bike Week than other busy Myrtle Beach weekends.

DATED: April 25, 2019 /s/ Peter Wilborn

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

/s/ Peter Wilborn

Date Day Total Date Day Total Date Day Total

MDW 2012 77 MDW 2013 69 MDW 2014 112

MDW 2015 72 MDW 2016 59 MDW 2017 76 MDW 2018 47

Geoffrey Alpert, Ph.D.

Charles Gallagher and Allan Parnell.

off Ocean Boulevard and around beach access points.

To examine the comparative impact of Memorial Day Weekend on public safety

responses into the city limits of Myrtle Beach.

Calls for Service and Self-Initiated Activity

in an encounter with a citizen.

Table 1. CAD Calls for Service

Table 2. CAD Self-Initiated Activity

Figure 1. CAD Calls for Service

Figure 2. CAD Self-Initiated Activity

activities and the number of calls for service.

average response times are produced in Table 3.

Table 3. CAD Average Response Time

Figure 3. CAD Response Time

Motor Vehicle Collisions

weekends from 2011 to 2018.

Table 4. CAD – Motor Vehicle Accidents

Table 5. CAD – Motor Vehicle Accidents with Injury

Figure 4. CAD Motor Vehicle Collisions

injury during other weekends is remarkably steady.

Figure 5. CAD Motor Vehicle Collisions w/ Injury

assault (“ASSAUL”), carjacking (“CARJ”), criminal domestic violence (“CDV”), fights

(“FIGHT”), homicides (“HOMICI”), kidnappings (“KIDNAP”), shootings (“SHOOT”), and

indicated by Nature Codes related to auto burglaries (“BURGA”), business burglaries

(“BURGB”), burglaries from motels (“BURGB”), burglaries from residences (“BURGR”),

Table 6. CAD – Serious Violent Crime

Table 7. CAD – Serious Property Crime

crimes is displayed in Table 7.

crime with the first weekend of June.

weekends in the City of Myrtle Beach.

Figure 6. CAD Activities – Serious Violent Crime

Figure 7. CAD Activities – Serious Property Crime

Weapons Violations and Narcotics Activities

Table 8. CAD – Weapons Violations

Table 9. CAD – Narcotics Activity

Figure 8. Fire/EMS Call Volume

Figure 9. Fire/EMS Response Time

between the Horry County data and the CAD data.

Table 10. Fire/EMS Call Response Volume

Table 11. Fire/EMS Average Response Time