Coin Slot

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/