Photography in Casinos … “Officials” Respond

Casino security has been a hot topic on this site, and other local sites in the past couple of months.

The topic really gained momentum with the revelation of Poker Grump’s detention last month at the Cannery.

Grump’s story touched off a firestorm among journalists, bloggers, and the legal profession here in town.

To his credit, local reporter Ben Spillman convinced the Review Journal that it was a worthy topic to cover.

Ben spoke with Poker Grump, myself, an attorney, the cops, and a host of other people who are familiar, or should be familiar with the topic of photography in casinos and the greater issue of illegal detention of anyone in casinos.

Before you go any further, you should read the full article. It is here:

http://www.lvrj.com/business/41647727.html

I am glad the mainstream printed a story, and frankly, I am glad that someone in “authority” has finally been quoted on the subject. It vindicates what I have been saying all along. For those of you who are confused about the matter, let this end the debate once and for all:

“There are no rules against it [photography in casinos], and there are no rules or regulations that govern it,” Randy Sayre, a member of the Nevada Gaming Control Board, said of shooting photos in Nevada casinos.

But that’s not all. A North Las Vegas Police spokesman offered the following:

“It is a reasonable response to say no if someone wants to see your pictures,” Bedwell said.

There, now that you have all seen it in mainstream print, perhaps you will finally believe what I have been telling you for the past several years.

It is not illegal to take photographs in casinos, nor are you required to show anyone your photos after you have taken them. You are also not required to have your bags checked at Best Buy or Fry’s when leaving the store. All of these “private property checks” are completely voluntary, and anyone who tells you to the contrary is just plain wrong.

Like any other citizen, security guards can only make “citizen’s arrests” if you have committed a crime. If you have not committed a crime, you are free to ignore anyone who tries to stop you, and you may effect any force necessary to ensure your freedom.

Now, about the article itself. It should come as no surprise that I do take some major exceptions to it. Not to the reporter, but to the comments made by some of the people interviewed.

After Mr. Sayre from the Nevada Gaming Control Board admitted that it was perfectly legal to take photos in casinos, he immediately seemed to take an opposing viewpoint.

“If it seems suspicious, clearly I think the property should have the ability to ask questions,” Sayre said. “These places have a lot of cash exposed.”

However, Sayre said, customers are under no legal obligation to reveal photos upon request.But he added that companies are free to prohibit the practice. They are also authorized to detain customers deemed to be security risks until police arrive.

Huh?

What does Sayre mean when he says that casinos are authorized to detain suspicious people? Where is the Nevada Statute that authorizes private citizens to detain other private citizens for being “suspicious”?

Forget about that, show me the Nevada Statute that defines “suspicious”.

I think anyone who plays 6:5 Blackjack is “suspicious”, but can I throw them in my trunk and wait for the cops to arrive? Of course not.

Casinos are let off the hook by using this vague “suspicious” definition, and that is where most of the problem resides.

“Hey, why did you lock that guy in your basement?”

“Because he looked suspicious.”

Do any of you think you could get away with that in your own hometown?

The answer is no. No you couldn’t. It didn’t work for Rick James, and it damn sure won’t work for you.

If you have a pile of cash laying on your kitchen counter, can you lock someone in your basement who looks “suspicious”?

Again, no.

With all due respect to our esteemed member of the Nevada Gaming Control Board, having money doesn’t give you any more legal rights than anyone else. That statement was just insulting and condescending, but not surprising. After all, we are talking about the Nevada Gaming Control Board.

Also, casinos do not have “a lot of cash exposed”. I can’t help but wonder if Mr. Sayre, has been inside of a casino lately. They lock the cash up now. These days, people use these things called “gambling chips”. When you sit at a table, the first thing the dealer does is take your cash, and shove it into a locked box under the table. I’ve yet to walk into a modern gambling venue to find tons of “exposed” cash.

Next, I find it incredibly troubling that the Cannery had absolutely no articulable position on the matter that stands up to even the most rudimentary amount of scrutiny:

Cannery spokesman Tom Willer said that although there is no rule explicitly prohibiting photography in the casino, guards considered Woolley a security threat.

“(He) appeared to be taking photos of surveillance camera positions,” Willer said. “That would be a problem for any casino operator.”

Really???

That’s the position of the Cannery?

Seriously, I thought they would come up with a better response, but this just reveals the complete lack of introspect of the people running the Cannery.

Forget the fact that it is IMPOSSIBLE to take photos in a casino without getting a security camera in the picture. It’s like taking photos in the forest and making sure you don’t get any trees in the shot. The Cannery are the ones who put a security camera next to a mural designed to attract attention. Does that mean that everyone who looks at it or photographs it is casing the joint?

Then, Mr. Willer went on to tell a bald-face lie.

“He did not wish to cooperate with us and show us the photos he was taking, or he had taken. So we asked him to leave the property.

When the reporter asked Mr. Willer this question, it was already well-established that they did far more than “ask him to leave the property”. They assaulted and imprisoned him for 90 minutes, and then filed a false police report.

Those are serious charges which, to this day, remain un-rebutted.

Allow me to continue:

Bedwell said North Las Vegas police responded to the Cannery call over Woolley’s pictures partly because Woolley was reportedly “very upset and being verbal.”

For some reason, stating the obvious is usually a responsibility left to me, but what the hell … here goes.

I am going to let you all in on a little secret.

Being “very upset” is not a crime!

Neither is “being verbal”.

Many of the authorities who were interviewed made no logical sense whatsoever. Why not just say you responded to the Cannery because Grump wore glasses or because security didn’t like his haircut? Let’s assume he was upset? So what? The fact is that he was trying to leave the casino.

Problem solved, no?

I see people “very upset” every day. I cannot arrest them for that. I see people talking every day … again, I cannot arrest them. Neither can private security guards. The police were responding to what they were fully aware was not a crime.

Also, this question SCREAMS to be asked:

Did the police check the tape to see if Woolley was being combative with the security guards?

Because, if they did check the tape, and he was not combative … the guards are now guilty of yet another crime. Filing a false police report.

If you claim you were raped, knowing full well that it did not happen, you can be arrested. This is exactly what should happen to these “security” guards. They should be arrested on criminal charges of assault, battery, unlawful imprisonment, lying to a police officer, and filing a false police report.

Unless they have Grump on tape taking swings at the guards, it should be a slam-dunk case … because … I will repeat … he did not break any laws. None whatsoever. Not only did he not break any laws, he was not even accused of breaking any laws.

The police are supposed to be here to protect and serve the citizens. This means arresting the people who unlawfully detain you. If someone kidnaps you, and all the cops do is order them to release you … do you think the kidnapper is in any way deterred from kidnapping someone else?

NO! That’s the problem.

When there is no penalty for harming someone, what is your deterrence? I’d like to beat half of the drivers in this town over the head with a baseball bat. But I don’t. Why? Because I wouldn’t get away with it. If I knew I would, well, let’s just say that there would be a few unconscious drivers sitting on Sahara Ave as we speak.

If security detains someone, and the cops arrive to find the detention is without merit, at that point the detainees have committed a very serious crime.

Now, some people say that it’s not criminal because the guards merely “inconvenience” people who get thrown in the back room.

Ben addressed the “inconvenience” aspect of this issue with me. He asked me what I would say to the people who opine that it was not a big deal because it was only a 90 minute inconvenience, and no harm was caused.

I told Ben that security guards have no way of knowing when they inconvenience someone, or are causing them grave harm. It’s a very dangerous assumption to make.

I will give you an example.

My mother currently has terminal cancer. I get phone calls sometimes, and have to be on an airplane with an hour’s notice to fly back East. She has been given “hours to live” on several occasions.

What if I am rushing out of the casino to McCarran after getting one of these calls, and security decides to kidnap me at that moment? Is it an “inconvenience”?

What if someone left their insulin at home, and before going back to get it, decides to snap a quick cellphone shot?

What if it is time to pick up your kid who is waiting for you?

What if you have a heart condition that is exacerbated by stress?

What if you just have a life, and have things to do?

Ninety minutes can mean everything to someone.

Casinos are opening themselves up to all kinds of damage claims by taking the position that it’s a mere “inconvenience”. Randomly throwing people in a basement for 90 minutes at a time is not an “inconvenience”. The very notion is patently absurd.

Private citizens have NO IDEA what is going on in other people’s lives. This is why they shouldn’t just interject themselves into the lives of strangers and assume it is just a “minor inconvenience”. You don’t know what people are going through or dealing with. You have no idea what ninety minutes means to a person. This is why, barring an overt crime taking place in your presence, the best course of action is to LEAVE PEOPLE ALONE!

If someone suffers harm at the hands of these guards, the casino will absolve themselves of all responsibility by claiming the patron was “upset”.

Well, guys, these people should be upset, there is no legal reason that they should cooperate, and the fact that they are “upset” does not constitute probable cause or even reasonable suspicion for their detention. You are playing with people’s lives here … a job you are not qualified to do.

The article also brought up a completely different point which rarely gets mentioned in these stories.

A Nevada jury found that citizens can legally defend themselves against private security guards.

I happened to be having this very discussion with someone last week. The person told me that they carried pepper spray in the event that casino security ever tried to “backroom” them.

“They are citizens like anyone else”, he said. “If it’s legal for me to defend myself if someone grabs me in a parking lot, it’s legal for me to defend myself if someone grabs me in a casino. They are not law enforcement.”

While this made absolute perfect sense, I was skeptical that anyone could do it and get away with it.

After reading Ben’s article, apparently, they can.

Please, do not get me wrong. I am not saying that it is a good idea to get physical with security. It’s a horrible idea and 99 out of 100 times they will beat your ass and “lose” the tape. Then, they will call the cops … who will respond to the casino and beat your ass again. Then they’ll say you “resisted” and throw you in a cage with Chester the Molester. You don’t want to know what he’ll do to your ass. It’s still very much the wild, wild West out here, and the rule of law is only theoretical. I’ve never gotten physical, or even raised my voice to a guard, nor will I ever. I’ve lived in this town long enough to know which battles you can and cannot win.

Legally, though, you are well within your right to use any means of self-defense at your disposal against any private citizen trying to kidnap, assault, or falsely imprison you. It bears repeating … security guards are private citizens. I’m glad to see that one person got justice, but 10 months in jail doesn’t seem right for lawful self-defense.

Anyway, I still don’t personally see this issue as being resolved. We have a 24 hour news cycle, and people will forget this issue even existed by tomorrow.

The powers that be appear to still feel comfortable enforcing laws that don’t exist, and seem to be even more comfortable failing to enforce laws that do exists.

I sincerely hope that Grump proceeds with both a criminal and civil suit, because the casinos and security guards depend 100% on our acquiescence to these illegal practices. Enough prima-facie evidence exists to indicate that there is a pattern of abuse going on, and like I said before …. if it is not dealt with, a casino patron is going to get hurt or end up dying in the back room of a Las Vegas casino for doing nothing wrong.

We all have a responsibility, locals and tourists alike, to be proactive and make sure that does not happen, and If this issue is not kept in the forefront, mark my words … it will happen.