Trainer, et al. v. Miss.
| Docket Number: | 2004-CA-01955-SCT Linked Case(s): 2004-CA-01955-SCT |
|
| Oral Argument: | 02-07-2005 | |
* This video is best viewed in the most current version of Google Chrome, Internet Explorer with Windows Media Player plug-in, or Safari (Mac Users). |
||
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 04-06-2006 Opinion Author: Carlson, J. Holding: AFFIRMED |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Constitutionality of statute - Illegal gambling machines - Section 99-33-7 - Section 99-33-17 - Due process Judge(s) Concurring: Smith, C.J., Waller and Cobb, P.JJ., Easley, Dickinson and Randolph, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Diaz and Graves, JJ. Procedural History: Dismissal Nature of the Case: CIVIL - UNCONSTITUTIONAL STATUTE |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 08-05-2004 Appealed from: WASHINGTON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT Judge: Richard Smith Disposition: Granted Appellee's Motion to Dismiss Case Number: CI2002-279 |
|
| Note: | Unconstitutional Statute-- case arises out of the arrest of one of the appellants | |
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Timmy Trainer, Angela Trainer, SD Amusements of Mississippi, Inc. and Mississippi Amusement Operators' Association |
JOHN H. COX, III |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: BILLY BERRYHILL, THOMAS HENRY MUELLER, MEREDITH M. ALDRIDGE |
|
|
Synopsis provided by:  If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office. |
|
| Topic: | Constitutionality of statute - Illegal gambling machines - Section 99-33-7 - Section 99-33-17 - Due process |
| Summary of the Facts: | Timmy Trainer was charged with possession of illegal gambling machines. The machines were seized from Trainer’s place of business and partially disassembled. Money was also removed from the machines and seized. Trainer relied on profit from the machines for part of his livelihood. Claiming the machines were not illegal gambling machines, Trainer brought this suit to challenge the constitutionality of the criminal statutes under which he was arrested and under which the machines and money were seized. The trial court granted the State of Mississippi’s motion to dismiss, finding the machines were illegal gambling devices, that Trainer thus had no property rights in contraband, and that Trainer had failed to meet his burden of showing that the law was unconstitutional. Trainer appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Trainer argues that sections 99-33-7 (making the possession of slot machines illegal) and 99-33-17 (making monies exhibited from illegal gambling subject to seizure by the sheriff) are unconstitutionally vague and impermissibly allow seizure of personal property without a hearing, depriving individuals of property rights and due process under the federal and state constitutions. The basic legal question is whether the statutes are unconstitutional because of vagueness in the description of what constitutes a slot machine. Trainer’s argument is that the vague description of slot machines and gambling devices prevents law enforcement officials from possessing the knowledge needed to discern which machines are legal and which are not. Trainer thus argues those officials are empowered with the authority to confiscate and destroy the personal property of individuals who are never afforded a hearing. Illegal gambling machines under section 97-33-7 are those that are operated by coin, token, or other consideration, and dispense a product with the possibility of dispensing additional items at varying quantities. As written, the criminal statutes, sections 97-33-7, -17, are not too broad in their description of what causes a video game to be an illegal slot machine. From the criminal statutes, as they currently exist, a person with ordinary intelligence would have little difficulty determining what exactly is prohibited and what is not. With regard to Trainer’s argument that he was deprived of property without due process of law because there was no hearing, there is abundant case law (with exceptions made in instances of health risks), firmly rooted in legal history, across numerous jurisdictions, which absolutely requires a hearing to determine whether property is illegal or is a nuisance before it can be destroyed. This has long been the rule, clearly consistent with basic principles of due process. However, the gambling laws in Mississippi do not extend a property right to illegal gambling machines. Since today’s factual scenario does not create any violation of Trainer’s due process rights, this question is not properly before the Court to resolve. Trainer argues that because the statute is vague, he could not know if his devices were indeed illegal under the statute and thus was due a hearing to determine if they were. Trainer’s challenge to this statute is not that it is facially unconstitutional, but rather that it is unconstitutionally vague. Because the statute in question is not unconstitutionally vague, it follows that Trainer was not deprived of property without due process of law. Trainer was not due a hearing on whether his gaming machines were actually gambling devices precisely because the statute is not constitutionally vague as written. HOLDING: Affirmed. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
