NV Gaming Agents [NVGAs] are above the law, right?
Agent Spendlove jailed APs Carey & Amsberry for 1 night for failure to produce IDs. See below for details. As I recalled correctly, NVGAs had also jailed Grosjean & Companies for 4 nights for nothing illegal. NVGAs have hidden behind the immunity of peace officers. So far APs have not yet been able to beat NVGAs in courts. My questions are these. Is it worth for us to go to jail because of ID stuff, knowing that NVGAs are immune from lawsuits & or financial punishments? Or do we have to wait for another paladin, the giant defender of ID-rights, the one who has a lot of money to drag NVGAs all the way to U.S. Supreme Court to beat NVGAs?
From Google search engine:
���Kplaintiff James Carey, a
Nevada resident, and his friend, Ed Amsberry, were playing
"21" at the Ramada Hotel and Casino in Laughlin, Nevada.
Ramada employees suspected the two men of cheating and
observed them closely. Carey and Amsberry employed a
number of legal gambling strategies, such as "card counting,"
"shuffle tracking," and giving one another hand signals.
Ramada employees also suspected that Carey had a computer
or other counting device in his shoe based on the positioning
of his foot under the table, the way his shoes fit his feet, and
the employees' observation that Carey walked favoring his
right foot. Use of a counting device is illegal.
In the early morning hours of June 20, Ramada personnel
called Agent Gregory Spendlove of the Nevada Gaming Con-
trol Board to investigate whether Carey and Amsberry were
cheating. Agent Spendlove watched the two patrons on
closed-circuit television and reviewed videotapes of their play
from the previous day, but was unable to determine at that
time that any cheating had occurred. Spendlove decided fur-
ther investigation was required. Carey and Amsberry left the
casino, and Agent Spendlove instructed Ramada personnel to
contact him if the two returned so he could further observe
them.
Later that day, Carey and Amsberry returned. Ramada
security detained them in the security office and called Agent
Spendlove. Upon arriving, Agent Spendlove identified him-
self to Carey and Amsberry, indicated he was investigating
possible violations of the gaming laws, and read them their
Miranda rights. Spendlove also "Terry frisked" both detain-
ees. Agent Spendlove then asked Carey and Amsberry to
identify themselves. Carey refused. Agent Spendlove
instructed Carey that he could identify himself either verbally
or by showing identification. Carey again refused and asked
to speak to a lawyer. Spendlove informed Carey that he could
be arrested for refusing to identify himself, and gave him at
least three opportunities to do so.
In the meantime, Spendlove instructed both detainees to
remove their shoes and socks. Spendlove searched both men's
shoes, removing the insoles of Carey's shoes in the process.
With Amsberry's consent, Spendlove and Ramada security
searched the hotel room that Carey and Amsberry were shar-
ing. After detaining Carey and Amsberry for between one and
one and a half hours, Spendlove determined there was no
probable cause to arrest either of them for violating the gam-
ing laws. However, based on Carey's refusal to identify him-
self, Spendlove arrested Carey under the authority of two
Nevada statutes which require individuals to provide informa-
tion to peace officers under certain circumstances. Carey
spent the night in jail. He was released the next morning, and
no charges were brought against him.
Carey sued Agent Spendlove, the State of Nevada (the
"State") and the Nevada Gaming Control Board (the "Board")
under 42 U.S.C. �� 1983, claiming that Spendlove violated his
Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights by searching
Carey's shoes without probable cause and by arresting Carey
for refusing to identify himself. Carey also brought claims
under state law for false imprisonment and battery. The dis-
trict court granted summary judgment against Carey, finding
that the State and the Board were immune under the Eleventh
Amendment, and that Spendlove was entitled to qualified
immunity...��
