Sunday, March 11, 2012 | 4:40 p.m.
Two state Gaming Control Board agents can’t be sued for allegedly arresting a Reno gambler on suspicion that he failed to re-pay a casino a $950 overpayment, an appeals court ruled Friday.
A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco on Friday reversed a decision by Robert C. Jones, chief U.S. District Court judge for Nevada, in which he refused to dismiss agents Steve Heiman and Russ Neil from a lawsuit filed by William Conner against the agents and Harrah’s Operating Company Inc.
Conner, in a December 2008 federal lawsuit, said he was playing baccarat at Harrah’s Reno in July 2008 when a manager interrupted his game to say Conner had been overpaid $950 during a game at another table and to demand that the money be returned.
Conner said in the lawsuit that because his winnings from the first table were intermingled with his money at the second table, it was impossible for him to determine if he had been overpaid.
He said he had no reason to doubt the accuracy of the payment from the first table and that even after a Harrah’s manager said the overpayment had been confirmed by surveillance video, Harrah’s refused to show him the video.
Conner met with the casino operations manager the next morning to discuss the alleged overpayment and he says the manager still refused to show him the video and told him a Gaming Control Board agent would be in touch with him.
"Plaintiff thought this was unusual because there was a civil dispute regarding overpayment. Plaintiff had committed no crime," his suit said.
The suit says Heiman called Conner about the dispute and Conner again "expressed doubt about the factual assertion that he was overpaid’’ and that he questioned the state's involvement in the dispute by asking the agent if they were in Communist China.
Conner later went to the Gaming Control Board office, where he says he was arrested for a "felony" by Heiman and Neil.
The suit says the agents gave him a choice of being booked into the Washoe County Jail or of going directly to the casino to repay the money.
"Plaintiff did not want to go to a debtor’s prison. Plaintiff felt he had no choice and said he would pay the money," the suit says, adding the agents then took Conner to the casino where he repaid the money.
His lawsuit against the agents say they violated his First Amendment right to freedom of speech and his Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.
Jones, the federal District Court judge, refused to dismiss Heiman and Neil from the lawsuit, saying a jury should decide if they had probable cause and are immune from suit because the incidents involved their work for the state as law enforcement agents.
Attorneys for Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto asked the appeals court to overturn Jones and remove the agents from the suit.
They said there was plenty of evidence Conner had been overpaid and that Heiman had seen this evidence on surveillance video.
"The agents were also aware plaintiff knew he had been overpaid because plaintiff was a very experienced baccarat player and would have known he was overpaid since he was paid for a $3,000 wager when he only made a $2,000 wager," state attorneys wrote in a court filing.
Records show he won $2,850 on a single bet and that because the table had a wager limit, the most he could have legally won was $1,900.
His refusal to re-pay the overpayment, the state argued, was a violation of Nevada law making it unlawful for anyone to "claim, collect or take an amount greater than the amount won" from a gambling game.
The state’s version of the events at the Gaming Control Board office is as Heiman was preparing to arrest Conner, Conner asked if he could avoid going to jail by repaying the overpayment and the agents exercised discretion by not arresting him.
The appeals court sided with the state on Friday, finding, "Neil and Heiman could have reasonably concluded that they had probable cause to believe that Conner knowingly controlled Harrah’s property and intended to deprive Harrah’s of that property."
Conner’s attorney told Thomson Reuters he intends to ask the full 9th Circuit to review the ruling and that Conner’s suit against Harrah’s is proceeding.
Harrah’s is owned by Las Vegas-based Caesars Entertainment Corp.
Join the Discussion:
Check this out for a full explanation of our conversion to the LiveFyre commenting system and instructions on how to sign up for an account.
Full comments policy