Coin Slot

Issue: 1978 June 041

Coin Slot Magazine - #041 - 1978 - June [International Arcade Museum]
The Defendant's final witness was Carolyn Brodish, the Defendant's
wife. She stated that the machine had been possessed for 3 or 4 years
in the home. The machine was kept as a conversation piece and as an
investment that was expected to appreciate in value. Mrs. Brodish
stated the machine was kept in their sons art room and had a glass
jar of dimes kept next to the machine along with the key to the
back of the machine. She stated that dimes used in the machine
were old worn coins, the only kind that worked well in the machine
and that was the reason for the glass jar of old dimes. Mrs. Brodish
stated that no one in the family ever used the machine as a gambling
device to get any money back from the machine. She denied that
the machine was ever used for gambling purposes. She stated on
cross-examination that the family had other antique items such as
an old telephone, an old school bus, and an old rifle. She stated she
eventually was going to get around to clean and shine the old slot
machine.
The State's Attorney offered rebuttal evidence from Tom Fisher.
Mr. Fisher, the Jail administrator, identified certain other slot
machines that had been taken in a prior raid by the Sheriff of Marion
County, on Meadow Woods Country Club. State's Exhibit No. 3
was identified by Mr. Fisher as one of these machines (a Jennings
Model). The witness stated that these types of machines recovered
from the Country Club are used for revenue purposes, although on
cross-examination it appeared that the witness was not necessarily
talking about a type of vintage machine like that taken from the
defendant.
The State then rested and the Defendant rested.
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
While the Centralia Police were purportedly assisting firemen in
the detection and suppression of a fire at the defendant Brodish's
home, a "slot machine" was seized and thereafter Brodish was
charged by Information with the offense of gambling.
Chapter 38, III. Rev. Stat. Sec. 28-2, provides
in part: "(a) A 'gambling device' is any . .. slot
machine . . .' (and): Chapter 38, III. Rev. Stat.
Sec. 28-1, provides in part' (a) A person commits
gambling when he: ... (3) owns . . . any gambling
com
.
m
:
u
from -muse
d
e
device."
ad rcade
lo Brodish
n
The defendant
.a attacks the Information on several grounds:
w
Do //ww in w question
The Illinois Statute
suffers from a constitutional impedi
:
http overboard in violation of the First Amendment of the
ment of being
U.S. Constitution, the rights of privacy, and due process guaranteed
by the U.S. Constitution which are applicable to the States pursuant
© The International Arcade Museum
42
http://www.arcade-museum.com/
Coin Slot Magazine - #041 - 1978 - June [International Arcade Museum]
to the Fourteenth Amendment insofar as it punishes the private
ownership of a "slot machine" found in the home of the defendant
where said slot machine is neither used nor intended to be used
for gambling or wagering nor is the type of machine which is econo
mically feasible to operate in a gambling business or enterprise. The
Statute further violates the Illinois Consittution Article lf Section 2
(1970). This Court conducted a hearing on the defendant's challenge
and the evidence clearly established that nothing of value was ever
staked in the subject slot machine while in the defendant's home, nor
was there any intent to use the machine for said purpose. Further,
individuals having special knowledge of "slot machines" of the type
that was seized from defendant established that the subject "slot
machine" has an intrinsic worth as a collector's item, a worth founded
on a historical and an engineering development of the slot machine
apparatus and the people that caused its development.
This court also finds that because of the antiquated mechanism
of the subject machine, the ability for an entrepreneur to service
and maintain such a mechanism would be economically unfeasible,
if not impossible.
This "slot machine" simply stated has an aesthetic value to an
individual because it allows him to "enjoy" or be entertained by
the action of the mechanism which portrays thousands of expressions,
which is distinct from any gaming or wagering use or interest.
This Court considers this case one of first impression and which
has strong parallels to Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557 (1969).
As in Stanley where the court recognized that the State of Georgia
has a I egitimate interest to protect it's citizens from obscene material
which is not constitutionally protected, this court recognizes an
interest of the State of Illinois to proscribe certain conduct illegal
to prevent gambling. Also as inStanley this Court must recognize a
distinction between public actions from private action.
In Stanley at 564, the court stated:
"It is now well established that the Constitution protects the
right to receive information and ideas. This freedom . . .
necessarily protects the right to receive . . . For also fundamental
is the right to be free except in very limited circumstances
from unwanted governmental intrusions into one's privacy."
"The makers of our Constitution undertook to secure condi
tions favorable to the pursuit of happiness. They recognized
the significance of man's spiritual nature of his feelings and
of his intellect (emphasis added) . . . They sought to protect
Americans in their beliefs, their thoughts, their emotions, and
their sensations. They conferred, as against the government,
the right to be left alone, the most comprehensive of rights
and the right most valued by civilized man."
.com
m
:
u
m
e
d fro de-mus
e
d
nloa w.arca
w
o
D
w
://w
p
t
t
h
© The International Arcade Museum
43
http://www.arcade-museum.com/

Download Page 44: PDF File | Image

Download Page 45 PDF File | Image

Future scanning projects are planned by the International Arcade Museum Library (IAML).

Pro Tip: You can flip pages on the issue easily by using the left and right arrow keys on your keyboard.