Coin Slot
Issue: 1981 May 075 - Page 60
Coin Slot Magazine - #075 - 1981 - May [International Arcade Museum]
Constitution's guarantee of due process and the right to
Constitutional Limitations
property; specifically, he charged that confiscation and
destruction of slot-machines could be conducted, under
Continued from page 57
not necessarily require the formal paraphernalia of a
judicial trial.
The preceding is a short summary of part of the Con
stitutional law applicable to the confiscation of private
property by state action. Before proceeding to an analysis
of a recent case which involved this law, one might ask the
question, "What good is notice and a hearing if possession
of the property in question is illegal and will eventually be
confiscated and destroyed anyway?" The answer is simply
this: In the case of slot-machines which are obsolete for
casino use, the tribunal conducting such a hearing may
have grounds for either one of two rulings against con
fiscation — (1) The statute in question cannot be in
terpreted
as
being
applicable
to
the
particular
slot-
machine^) before the court or (2) the statute in question is
unconstitutional in that it violates substantive due process
or procedural due process.
The case about to be analyzed involves a Louisiana
statute, but the validity of that statute and the action taken
under it are limited by the provisions of the United States
Constitution discussed above; therefore, the legal princi
ples involved may well apply to the confiscation of slot
machines in any other state.
the terms of the statute, without any judicial intervention
and without notice or opportunity for a hearing. Nor does
the statute require that such action be in conjunction with a
conviction for a crime (e.g., gambling) related to the pos
session or use of the slot-machine. The court pointed out
that the statute does NOT define mere possession off a
slot-machine to be a crime; rather, criminal activity is in
volved under the statute in question only when a slot-
machine is used to commit the crime of gambling.
It has long been recognized that a state through the ex
ercise of its police power can constitutionally act to sum
marily confiscate and destroy things which cannot be put
to a lawful use. The court pointed out, however, that if the
thing seized is susceptible of a legal use, due process re
quires notice and opportunity for a hearing.
The effect of the Louisiana statute was to treat slot-
machines as though they were insusceptible of lawfui pos
session — i.e., to treat them as contraband. Yet the state's
power to classify a thing as contraband is limited by due
process considerations and by Louisiana law providing
that property rights can be curtailed only by reasonable
statutory restrictions and the reasonable exercise of the
police power. The court ruled that, while the purpose of
suppressing gambling is laudable, it cannot justify sum
Analysis off Brown v. The State off Louisiana
A Louisiana statute requires law enforcement officers to
confiscate and immediately destroy all gambling devices
mary seizure and destruction of items legally possessed
which are not being used for gambling.
(including slot-machines) that come to their attention. In
accordance
with
the
provisions
of
this
statute,
the
Louisiana State Police seized a slot-machine in the pos
session of one Pat Brown, Jr. Brown filed suit seeking an
injunction to prevent the police from destroying the slot-
"Slot machines are inherently
detrimental to the community."
machine and to order the police to return it. The following
facts were agreed upon by all concerned parties: The
machine was an antique; it was a one-cent machine,
The court cited an earlier case, State v. 1971 Green
operable by the insertion of a penny, and not operable by
GMC Van, 354 So.2d 479 (1977), which considered the
insertion of other coins of greater monetary value; the
type of property which can properly be classified as con
machine was operable at the time of seizure; the machine
traband. In that case, conveyances had been used to tran
was not used for gambling purposes; the coin box of the
sport controlled dangerous substances, and that case held
machine did not have a lock, so that the coins once
that such property could not be treated as contraband
deposited could be reclaimed by anyone depositing a pen
since the conveyances could be used for a lawful purpose
ny in the coin slot; no criminal charges for gambling had
and, thus, were susceptible of ownership. An example of a
been filed against Brown; and the place from which the
type of article which can properly be classified as contra
machine was seized is not generally open to the public.
band
The case went through all three levels of the Louisiana
is
an
illegal
drug
the
possession
of
which
is
prescribed by law. The court then concluded that the
court system: the trial court, the intermediate appellate
reasoning
court, and the Supreme Court. The trial court granted the
guidelines in
relief sought by Brown, the plaintiff. The State of Louisiana
question is contraband and ruled that it is not contraband;
of
that
earlier
case
furnishes
appropriate
determining whether the slot-machine in
(through the Department of Public Safety, Division of
rather, it is personal property the ownership and posses
Louisiana State Police) appealed that decision to the First
sion of which is protected by the due process provisions of
Circuit Court of Appeal which affirmed the decision of the
the Louisiana Constitution.
trial court and
ruled the state in question (Louisiana
Revised Statutes, Title 15, Section 31) unconstitutional.
The basis for the Court of Appeal's ruling was a determina
.com
m
:
u
tion that the statute allows
state se
u to take personal
from the
m
d process
property without due
of
law.
-
e
e
d
In its opinion
rcad in volume 385, Southern
nloa (reported
a
.
w
o
w
Reporter,
D 2d Series,
w beginning at page 436), the Court of
://w to an earlier case State v. Madere, 352 So.
Appeal referred
p
t
t
h
2d 666 (1977), in which the Louisiana Court had ruled that
the statute in question applied without regard to whether
slot-machines were used to conduct gambling. Brown had
challenged the police action on the basis of the Louisiana
© The
Arcade
Museum
58 International
— THE COIN
SLOT
The Court of Appeal concluded that the portion of the
statute
dealing
with
the
confiscation
and
immediate
destruction, without judicial proceedings, of slot-machines
is unconstitutional, as being in violation of the due process
provisions of the Louisiana Constitution.
The Supreme Court of Louisiana, in an opinion reported
in
So.2d
(1980), disagreed with the Court of
Appeal and reversed the holding of the lower court.
In reaching its decision,' the highest court in Louisiana
first reiterated its earlier position that the legislature in
tended slot-machines to be treated as contraband without
regard to whether they are used for gambling. It then cited
http://www.arcade-museum.com/
May 1981
Constitution's guarantee of due process and the right to
Constitutional Limitations
property; specifically, he charged that confiscation and
destruction of slot-machines could be conducted, under
Continued from page 57
not necessarily require the formal paraphernalia of a
judicial trial.
The preceding is a short summary of part of the Con
stitutional law applicable to the confiscation of private
property by state action. Before proceeding to an analysis
of a recent case which involved this law, one might ask the
question, "What good is notice and a hearing if possession
of the property in question is illegal and will eventually be
confiscated and destroyed anyway?" The answer is simply
this: In the case of slot-machines which are obsolete for
casino use, the tribunal conducting such a hearing may
have grounds for either one of two rulings against con
fiscation — (1) The statute in question cannot be in
terpreted
as
being
applicable
to
the
particular
slot-
machine^) before the court or (2) the statute in question is
unconstitutional in that it violates substantive due process
or procedural due process.
The case about to be analyzed involves a Louisiana
statute, but the validity of that statute and the action taken
under it are limited by the provisions of the United States
Constitution discussed above; therefore, the legal princi
ples involved may well apply to the confiscation of slot
machines in any other state.
the terms of the statute, without any judicial intervention
and without notice or opportunity for a hearing. Nor does
the statute require that such action be in conjunction with a
conviction for a crime (e.g., gambling) related to the pos
session or use of the slot-machine. The court pointed out
that the statute does NOT define mere possession off a
slot-machine to be a crime; rather, criminal activity is in
volved under the statute in question only when a slot-
machine is used to commit the crime of gambling.
It has long been recognized that a state through the ex
ercise of its police power can constitutionally act to sum
marily confiscate and destroy things which cannot be put
to a lawful use. The court pointed out, however, that if the
thing seized is susceptible of a legal use, due process re
quires notice and opportunity for a hearing.
The effect of the Louisiana statute was to treat slot-
machines as though they were insusceptible of lawfui pos
session — i.e., to treat them as contraband. Yet the state's
power to classify a thing as contraband is limited by due
process considerations and by Louisiana law providing
that property rights can be curtailed only by reasonable
statutory restrictions and the reasonable exercise of the
police power. The court ruled that, while the purpose of
suppressing gambling is laudable, it cannot justify sum
Analysis off Brown v. The State off Louisiana
A Louisiana statute requires law enforcement officers to
confiscate and immediately destroy all gambling devices
mary seizure and destruction of items legally possessed
which are not being used for gambling.
(including slot-machines) that come to their attention. In
accordance
with
the
provisions
of
this
statute,
the
Louisiana State Police seized a slot-machine in the pos
session of one Pat Brown, Jr. Brown filed suit seeking an
injunction to prevent the police from destroying the slot-
"Slot machines are inherently
detrimental to the community."
machine and to order the police to return it. The following
facts were agreed upon by all concerned parties: The
machine was an antique; it was a one-cent machine,
The court cited an earlier case, State v. 1971 Green
operable by the insertion of a penny, and not operable by
GMC Van, 354 So.2d 479 (1977), which considered the
insertion of other coins of greater monetary value; the
type of property which can properly be classified as con
machine was operable at the time of seizure; the machine
traband. In that case, conveyances had been used to tran
was not used for gambling purposes; the coin box of the
sport controlled dangerous substances, and that case held
machine did not have a lock, so that the coins once
that such property could not be treated as contraband
deposited could be reclaimed by anyone depositing a pen
since the conveyances could be used for a lawful purpose
ny in the coin slot; no criminal charges for gambling had
and, thus, were susceptible of ownership. An example of a
been filed against Brown; and the place from which the
type of article which can properly be classified as contra
machine was seized is not generally open to the public.
band
The case went through all three levels of the Louisiana
is
an
illegal
drug
the
possession
of
which
is
prescribed by law. The court then concluded that the
court system: the trial court, the intermediate appellate
reasoning
court, and the Supreme Court. The trial court granted the
guidelines in
relief sought by Brown, the plaintiff. The State of Louisiana
question is contraband and ruled that it is not contraband;
of
that
earlier
case
furnishes
appropriate
determining whether the slot-machine in
(through the Department of Public Safety, Division of
rather, it is personal property the ownership and posses
Louisiana State Police) appealed that decision to the First
sion of which is protected by the due process provisions of
Circuit Court of Appeal which affirmed the decision of the
the Louisiana Constitution.
trial court and
ruled the state in question (Louisiana
Revised Statutes, Title 15, Section 31) unconstitutional.
The basis for the Court of Appeal's ruling was a determina
.com
m
:
u
tion that the statute allows
state se
u to take personal
from the
m
d process
property without due
of
law.
-
e
e
d
In its opinion
rcad in volume 385, Southern
nloa (reported
a
.
w
o
w
Reporter,
D 2d Series,
w beginning at page 436), the Court of
://w to an earlier case State v. Madere, 352 So.
Appeal referred
p
t
t
h
2d 666 (1977), in which the Louisiana Court had ruled that
the statute in question applied without regard to whether
slot-machines were used to conduct gambling. Brown had
challenged the police action on the basis of the Louisiana
© The
Arcade
Museum
58 International
— THE COIN
SLOT
The Court of Appeal concluded that the portion of the
statute
dealing
with
the
confiscation
and
immediate
destruction, without judicial proceedings, of slot-machines
is unconstitutional, as being in violation of the due process
provisions of the Louisiana Constitution.
The Supreme Court of Louisiana, in an opinion reported
in
So.2d
(1980), disagreed with the Court of
Appeal and reversed the holding of the lower court.
In reaching its decision,' the highest court in Louisiana
first reiterated its earlier position that the legislature in
tended slot-machines to be treated as contraband without
regard to whether they are used for gambling. It then cited
http://www.arcade-museum.com/
May 1981
Future scanning projects are planned by the International Arcade Museum Library (IAML).