Games on the devices typically start like they would on a slot machine. But after the initial spin, players on gray machines can adjust the symbols to create a winning pattern, manufacturers told.
Are You Legally Allowed to Own or Operate Slot Machines Outside of Casinos?
Wisconsin has gambling laws which limit the ownership and possession of gambling devices. Yet there are places in Wisconsin where these devices, ranging from traditional slot machines to modern video gambling machines, are perfectly legal. Under Wisconsin Law, gambling device charges range from non-criminal forfeiture violations, to misdemeanors and felonies. If you are being charged with possession of gambling devices, contact Milwaukee’s top defense lawyers for a consultation.
What counts as a gambling machine in Wisconsin?
Wisconsin state statute 945.01(3) defines a gambling machine as any “contrivance which for a consideration affords the player an opportunity to obtain something of value”. The most common type of device is a standard slot machine. Devices which are not considered gambling machines include pinball arcades and crane games. Video poker machines may be considered gambling devices if there is a payout for players.
Commercial Gambling Devices in Milwaukee Bars and Taverns: For Entertainment Use Only?
Commercial gambling is illegal in Wisconsin with a few very specific exceptions. The Wisconsin Department of Revenue is responsible for enforcing the laws yet countless video poker machines and slot games can be found in bars and restaurants across the state. The penalties for gambling machine ownership increases per device:
- 1 machine: $500 forfeit maximum
- 2 machines: $1,000 forfeit maximum
- 3 machines: $1,500 forfeit maximum
- 4 machines: $2,000 forfeit maximum
- 5 machines: $2,500 forfeit maximum
Tribal casinos are exempt to these rules due to a state compact. Any other commercial establishment with these devices is at risk of being charged with possession. It often depends on local law enforcement’s interpretation of what constitutes a gambling device.
Examples of Legal Gambling in Wisconsin
- Lottery contests
- Bingo hall games
- Raffles
- Charity games
- On-track racing bets (horse and dog)
Private Gambling Machining Ownership
Individuals owning more than 5 gambling devices are subject to criminal charges. Possession of 5 or fewer may result in civil forfeiture but no charges. However, the exact penalties will depend on the specifics of your case. Certain exceptions exist for private individuals who own slot machines which are more than 25 years old. However, even owning gambling device paraphernalia can put you on the wrong side of the law.
Selling a gambling device like a slot machine is another gray area of gambling law in Wisconsin. Transporting a gambling device into the state is unlawful.
Criminal Defense Law Firm with Offices in Milwaukee, Brookfield, and Madison
Possession of gambling devices in Milwaukee or Madison may be legal depending on your circumstances. Gambling charges can range from ordinance violations to Class B misdemeanors and Class I felonies. You need experienced legal representation when you are charged with possession of a gambling device. Grieve Law’s team of award-wining attorneys can help you find what defenses you have. You may be able to fight or reduce your charges.
If you have been charged with possession of a gambling device, contact Milwaukee’s defense law firm for a consultation.
FRANKFORT, Ky. (CN) — An educational nonprofit organization argued before the Kentucky Supreme Court on Friday that historical horse racing slot machines are illegal under state law because they do not qualify as pari-mutuel betting.
Kentucky law allows for gambling only on horse racing, and the state has no casinos, but the Kentucky Horse Racing Commission authorized tracks to install historic race gaming machines in 2010 after determining they constitute pari-mutuel betting — a system in which all bets are placed in a collective pool before winners are paid.
The machines were challenged by the Family Trust Foundation of Kentucky in 2014, and after the state Supreme Court remanded the case for a four-day bench trial in Franklin County Circuit Court in 2018, the machines were ruled to be in compliance with state law.
Historical racing slot machines base a player’s odds of winning on three randomly selected historic races, which are usually shown on a screen at the top of the machine.
Bets from multiple players are thrown together in a payout pool from which all the players’ winnings are paid.
This pool system is what makes the machines legal under Kentucky law, but the Family Trust Foundation has consistently argued that the lack of “reciprocal wagering” invalidates the circuit court’s ruling.
Based on expert testimony provided at the bench trial, the foundation claims that because no two players are ever wagering on the same three historical races, bets are essentially independent and have no reciprocal effect on any others, which means the machines fall outside the definition of pari-mutuel gaming.
The Kentucky Horse Racing Commission also rested its case on evidence produced during the bench trial, and said in its brief with the court that “facts matter.”
“After years of extensive discovery and following a four-day bench trial, the Franklin Circuit Court found that because each element of the definition was factually satisfied, ‘the Exacta System is a ‘parimutuel system of wagering’ … authorized under the provisions of KRS Chapter 230,’” the commission said.
Attorney Stan Cave argued on behalf of the Family Trust Foundation and asked the court to “bring certainty” to the issue of historic horse racing machines after a circuitous decade-long legal journey.
“What has happened here,” Cave said, “is just plain wrong on every level.”
The attorney bemoaned the fact that the machines have been added to horse racing tracks across the state with “no legislative action … no voter approval and no executive order.”
Justice Laurance VanMeter asked Cave about the circuit court’s decision to allow wagering on separate events, such as the random races chosen by the historic gaming machines.
“I’m not sure where he came up with that,” the attorney said.
“It’s just a fiction to say it’s betting on a race,” he added. “It’s like saying everyone who takes a shower is showering together because the water runs into the same sewer.”
Deputy Chief Justice Lisabeth Hughes asked Cave if his client challenges the findings of fact made by the circuit court after the bench trial.
The attorney said he only disputed the finding of facts insofar as the judge misapplied the relevant law to the findings at trial.
“The wagering is pari-serial,” Cave said. “A player follows a player follows a player. But it is not pari-mutuel.”
Is There A Law For Slot Machines Required
Justice Michelle Keller asked Cave whether the legislature’s 10-year silence on the issue has any bearing on the legality of the machines.
“If the general assembly wants to legalize gaming, such as slot-type gaming, then the assembly should act to authorize it,” the attorney answered.
Attorney Jay Ingle argued on behalf of Kentucky Downs LLC and several other racetracks that use the Exacta Gaming system and told the court that the legislature’s lack of action “speaks volumes.”
Is There A Law For Slot Machines Dispense
“If the legislature thought this was bad policy … it would have said so,” the attorney said.
Ingle claimed his opposition’s arguments were an attempt to relitigate the circuit court’s decision and told the court it has “heard all these same arguments before.”
Is There A Law For Slot Machines For Real
The attorney seized on the fact that his opposing counsel did not dispute the findings of fact made after the bench trial and told the court that every expert witness – including the foundation’s – agreed that having multiple bettors placing bets on different events in the same pool is legal under Kentucky law.
Attorney Jennifer Wolsing, arguing on behalf of the Kentucky Horse Racing Commission, told the court that any alteration of the definition of pari-mutuel wagering would fundamentally alter the way bets are taken in live racing as well as the machines.
Wolsing said eliminating carryover pools like the ones used by the machines would also eliminate “exotic” betting that has risen in popularity and often involves pools with no winners that are carried over to the following day of races.
In his rebuttal, Cave disputed the notion that his client wants to alter or add words to the definition of the rule.
Virginia Slot Machine Law
“Nothing could be further from the truth,” he told the court.
The justices peppered all of the attorneys with questions throughout their arguments and recognized the decision would not be an easy one.
“This is a difficult puzzle,” Keller admitted during Cave’s rebuttal.
Georgia Slot Machine Laws
No timetable has been set for the court’s decision.