State surveillance, plainclothes officers possible at Pa. casinos

Marc Levy

Thursday, May 19, 2005 | 9:05 a.m.

HARRISBURG, Pa. -- Pennsylvania's slot-machine casinos could be equipped with surveillance offices operated by state investigators as plainclothes police officers roam the casino floor.

In addition, members of the Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board are considering fingerprinting relatively peripheral casino employees, such as waitresses, and requiring temporary holding cells on-site for those suspected of wrongdoing.

Many decisions are still up in the air, but board chairman Tad Decker said he wants Pennsylvania to err on the side of strictness.

"We want to set the tone that criminal activity is not going to be tolerated," Decker said.

On Wednesday, the gaming board held a meeting in which members heard a report by consultants that detailed gambling security procedures in nine other states, from New Jersey to Mississippi.

In most of those states, casinos are required to have holding cells and state authorities have a surveillance facility at the casino, in addition to the casino's own surveillance.

In all nine states surveyed, the casinos, not police, are responsible for security on the casino floor -- but they are monitored by state gambling authorities, the consultants said.

Decker said the question of whether to require holding cells at casinos is undecided, but the gaming board plans to have its own surveillance at each facility. He said that he favors having plainclothes state police on casino floors to provide an extra layer of surveillance.

Unlike most gambling states, the board is also likely to require criminal background checks on employees, such as waitresses, who are peripheral to the gambling operation, Decker said. Gambling executives and employees who run the casino operation also will face criminal background checks.

State lawmakers legalized slot machines in July and created the Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board to issue 14 gambling licenses. The law, however, could be undone if the state Supreme Court agrees with a pending challenge by gambling foes and good-government advocates that says its passage was unconstitutional.