Tennessee police welcome court’s video poker ruling

Tom Sharp

Monday, Nov. 26, 2001 | 9:21 a.m.

NASHVILLE, Tenn. -- A recent Tennessee Supreme Court decision gives police and prosecutors new leverage against video poker operators, allowing seizure of machines on sight instead of requiring police to prove the machines pay off.

The ruling should make it easier for police to remove the devices. Gambling is illegal in Tennessee.

"The way to hurt them is in the pocketbook, and that's what we'll focus on," said John Gill, a former U.S. Attorney who is now special counsel in the office of Knox County District Attorney General Randy Nichols.

Nichols, a candidate for the Democratic nomination for governor, said the ruling allows "a renewed assault" on video poker machines, which for years have operated in plain sight in bars and convenience stores across the state.

The Supreme Court ruling came in a Clarksville case in which a bar owner who had six video poker machines in a padlocked back room was charged with possessing gambling devices.

The bar owner, Rhonda Burkhart, claimed the state law pertaining to video poker machines was unconstitutionally vague.

The state's high court found that the machines could accumulate credits, which could be erased via use of a "knock off switch." Meters inside the machines recorded the number of credits a player had won. The settings of the machines could be manipulated to alter the odds of winning, and the results did not depend upon any exercise of skill by the person playing.

All of those factors, the court found, defined the poker machines as gambling devices under state law.

The extent to which the court's ruling will lead to the removal of video poker machines may depend on the local situation, said James Kirby, executive director of the Tennessee District Attorneys Conference.

"Obviously priorities are different in different districts," he said. "Some districts have more murders than they can keep up with, so gambling would have to take a back seat in those districts."

Gill said the previous case law was not entirely clear, but that most law enforcement officials felt they needed to either get paid off for their winnings on a machine, or see someone else cash in, before trying to prosecute.

"This isn't the worst crime in the world, but when they're so open it really undercuts the credibility of law enforcement," Gill said. "We get calls on a regular basis from people addicted to these things. They're not harmless."

Gill said he suspects most machines will just be confiscated, without charges against the owner of the establishment at least on the first offense.

"I would suspect most prosecutions would be on the second or subsequent offense," he said, "except in cases where somebody is running a mini-casino in the back room."

He said a business could be closed down as a public nuisance if the owners persist in keeping the machines.