### I n a ddi t i on t o Ti mmy Tr a i ne r , the othe r

a ppe l l an ts ar e Ange l aTr a i ne r , SD 1 

### Am us em e nt s of Mi s s i s s ippi , I nc . , and Mi s s i s s ippi Am us e m e nt Ope r at or s ’ As s oc i at i on. Ange l a Tr a i ne r i s Ti mmy Tr a i ne r ’ s wi fe
. She i s i de nt i fi e d i n the r e c or d a s c o- owne r and c oope r at or of Ma c ’ s Gr oc e ry . SD Am us e m e nt s of Mi s s i s s ippi , I nc . , i s afor

- pr ofi t c or por at i on I N T H E SUPR EM E C O UR T O F M I SS I SS I PPI

NO. 2 0 0 4 - CA- 0 1 9 5 5 - S CT TI M M Y TR AINE R, ANGELA TRA I N ER , SD AMUS EMENT S OF M

I S S I S S I P P I , I NC . AN D MI SSI SSI PPI AM USEMEN T O PE RA TO RS’ AS S OC I AT ION

v. STATE OFM

I SS I SS I PPI
D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 08/ 05/ 2004 TRI AL J UD GE: HO N. RI CH AR D A
. SM I TH COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: W ASHI NGTON COU NTY CI RCUI T COURT A T T O R N E Y F O R A P P E L L A N T S : JO H N H
. C O X , III AT T OR NE YS F OR AP P E L L E E : OF F I CE OF T HE AT T OR NE Y GE NE RA L BY : BI LLY B ERRY HI LL THO M AS H ENR Y M UELLER M E RE DI T H M
. AL DR I DGE NA TUR E OF THE C ASE: CI VI L - UN CO NSTI TUTI ON AL STATU TE D I SPO SI T I O N : A FFIRM E D - 04/ 06/ 2006 M OT I ON F OR RE HE AR I NG F I L E D: M ANDAT E I S S UE D:

B E F O R E W A L L E R , P . J. , C A R L SO N A N D R A N D O L P H , JJ. CAR LS ON , J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶ 1
. T hi s ci vi l act i on a g a i n s t t he St at e of M i s s i s s i ppi , w hi ch cha l l enges t he

con st i t uti on al i t yof ce rt ai n cri m i nal s t at utes , ari ses fr om t he arr estof one of the app el l ants , 1

### wh ic h h as bu si ness inte re st s throu gh ou t Gre enville andWa shingtonCo un ty , andwh ic h

owns and ope r at e s vi de o gam e m a c hi ne s s i mi l ar t o thos e s e i z e d fr om the Tr a i ne r s ’ pl a c e of bus i ne s s . At

the he ar i ng on the m ot i on t o di s m i s s , Tr a i ne r t e s t i fi e d he wa s e m pl oye d by SD Am us e m e nt s . Tr a i ne r a l s o t e s t i fi e d that he owne d and ope r at e d Ma c ’ s Gr oc e ry . Mi s s i s s ippi Am us e m e nt Ope r at or s ’ As s oc i at i on i s a n o t - f o r - pr ofi t a s s oc i at i on of Mi s s i s s ippi owne r s and ope r ato rs of vi de o gam e m a c hi ne s s i m i l ar t o the one s s e i z e d fr om

the Tr a i ne r s ’ pl a c e of bus i ne s s . I t

i s not c l e ar fro m th e record whe the r Tr a i ne r wa s am e m

be r of Mi s s i s s ippi A m u sem en t O p erato rs’ A sso ciatio n . F o r th e sak e o f clarity , w e w ill ref er to th e ap p ellan ts co llectiv ely

as “T rain er.”
2 T i m m yT raine r , w ho w as char ged w i t h pos s es s i on of i l l egal gambl i ng m achi nes . T he

m a c h in e s in q u e stio n w e re se ize d f ro m T ra in e r’s p lac e o f b u sin e ss a n d p a rtially di s as s emb led. M o n eyw as al s o r emoved fr om t he machi nes and s ei zed. T r ai nerr el i ed on p rof it fro m t he machi nes forpar tof hi s l i vel i hood. T r ai nercl ai m s t he machi nes w er e not i l l egal gambl i ng m achi nes . H e br ought t hi s s ui t t o chal l enge the cons t i t ut i o n ali ty of t he crim inal statu tes u n d er w h ich h e w as a rrested an d u n d er w h ich t h e m ac h ines an d m o n ey w ere
s e i z e d
. Tr a i n e r ma i n t a i n s t h e s t a t ut e s a r e v a g u e a n d a mb i g u o u s . Tr a i n e r a l s o c l a i ms vi ol at i ons of hi s pr oper t y r i ght s and hi s r i ght t o due proc es s of l aw , as he w as pr ovi ded no hear i ng. T he t r i al cour tgr ant ed t he St at e of M i s s i s s i ppi ’ s m ot i on t o di s m iss, fi ndi ng t he

m a c h in e s w e re ill e g a l g a m b lin g d e v ice s, a n d th a t T ra in e r th u s h a d n o p ro p e rtyrig h ts in cont r aband; and, t hatT r ai nerhad fa il ed t o m eethi s bur den of s how i ng t hatt he l aw w as
u n c o n stitu tio n a l.

### Th e r e i s s om e c on fu s i oni n the r e c or d a s to the s t or e ’ s a c t ua lnam e . I n h i s bri e f, 2 

### Tr a i ne r r e fe rr e d t o hi s s t or e a s T and N Gr oc e ry , but i n hi s t e s t i m ony at the he ar i ng on the s t at e ’ s m o t i o nt o d i s m i s s , h e c a l l e di t M a c ’ s G r o c e ry. 3 ¶2. T r ai ner appea l ed t o t hi s C ou rt
. W e a ff ir m the tri al co u rt ’s j udgm ent w hi ch

s peci fi cal l yal l ow ed s ei zur e of thes e m achi nes under M i s s . C ode A nn. § 97- 33- 7 and

- 17, as
w e d o n o t f

in d th e se sta tu tes to b e u n c o n stitu tio n a l. F ACT S AND P ROCE ED I NGS I N T HE T RI AL COURT ¶3. Shor t l yaft erT im m y T raine r’s p u rchas e of M ac’ s G r ocery i n G r eenvi l l e, a l aw 2 enfor cements ear ch of Tr ai ner ’ s s t or e w as conduct ed pur s uantt o a w ar r ant , i n J une, 2002. As a r e s u l to f

t h e e x e c u t i o n o f

t h i s wa r r a n t , l a w e n f

o r c e me n t o f

f i c i a l s s e i z e d f

o u r v i d e o g a me
m a c h in e s a n d th e m o n e yin sid e th e m a c h in e s. T ra in e r h a d b e e n o p e ra tin g th e sto re f o r o n ly a fe w w eeks w hen t he W as hi ngt on C ount ySher i ff’ s D epar t m ent conduct ed t he s ear ch. T he

w ar r antdes cr i bed “f

ourvi deo poker m achi nes , ” w hi ch Tra i nert es t i fi ed w er e nott he t ypes of m achi nes s ei zed. I n fac t , T r ai nerdi d notactual l yow n any“vi deo poker ” machi nes . T he

s ei zed vi deo games, fr om w hi ch T r ai ner earns s om e of hi s l i vel i hood, have a di s pl ays i m i l ar t o t hos e on s l otm achi nes , and ar e know n as “C her r yM as t er s ” o r “ E ightL i ner s . ” Tra i ner
w as ar r es t ed for pos s es s i ng i l l egal gambl i ng devi ces . W hen t hi s ci vi l act i on came befor e t he ci r cui tcour t , t he cr i m i nal m at t er w as s t i l l pendi ng i n count ycour t , and a s t ayof t he cr i m i nal

cas e had be en i s s ued byt he countycour t j udge. T he off i cer s fr om t he s her i ff’ s depar t m ent
re m o v e d f

ro m th e m a c h in e s o n s it e th e m o th e r b o a rd s, o r “ b ra in b o a rd s,” w h ich a re c irc u it b o a r d s s i mi l a r t o a c o mp u t e r ’ s CP U.

### 4

¶4. A t t he heari ng on t he S t at e’s m oti on t o dis m i ss, T rai ner p re se n t ed t hree w i t nesses, Phi l l i p L ee, B r i an W al t er s , and R onni e M oor e, w ho had expe r i ence s s i m i l art o T r ai ner . L ee, W al t er s , and M oor e al l ow ned bar s and cl ubs w hi ch had thes e game m achi nes w hi ch pol i ce confi s cat ed and/ or des t r oy ed; and, t heyw er e notaff or ded a he ar i ng ora cr i m i nal t r i al
. L ee, W al t er s , M oor e, and T r ai ner do not know w her e t hei r game machi nes ar e bei ng keptor w hat condi t i on t hos e machi nes ar e i n. T es t i m onyatt he hea r i ng r eveal ed t hatt hes e ar cade

- l i ke

m achines w hich are com m on t o al l fou r i nd i vidual s, proj ect el ect roni c dis play s o n to g lass

s cr eens s i m i l ar t o t hos e on per s onal comput er s . T he di s pl ay s t hemsel ves r es embl e s pi nni ng
r eel s li k e tho s e on a tr adi t i onal s l otm achi ne. T he pl ay erbegi ns t he game byi ns er t i ng
m o n e y , w hich gen erat es a cert ai n n um ber of credi t s, dep end i ng on ho w m uch m on eyis i nsert ed. T he gam e i s play ed by st op ping the spi nn i ng reel s by press i ng bu t t on s, o r sk ill sto p s, o n th e f

ro n t o f th e se v id e o g a m e m a c h in e s. T h e o b jec t is to lin e u p c o m m o n sy m b o ls

on t he d i spl ayt o accum ulat e m ore c redi t s, w hich i n tur n w i l l al l ow m ore pl ay i ng t i m e. T hu s, th e p layer “ b u y s” c re d its b yin iti a llyin se rtin g m o n e ya n d th e n a ttem p ts to “ w in ” m o re c re d its t hr ough game pl ay . T he machi nes , w hi ch acc ept bot h coi ns and bi l l s , do not gi ve cha nge or
r etur n unus ed cr edi t s . I ns t ead, anyunus ed cr edi t s become a w i ndfal l t o t he next pl ay er . T he

m achi nes al s o l ack w hatar e comm onl ycal l ed knock- off but t ons , a devi ce c om m on t o actual

s l ot m achi nes i n cas i nos w hi ch re s et t he game cr edi t s t o zer o, t hus al l ow i ng t he pl ay ert o be

r ei m bur s ed foranyunus ed cr edi t s . H ow ever , conce r ni ng t he machi nes w hi ch ar e t he s ubj ect

### 5

of t oday ’ s appea l , i f t he pl ay er has i ncr eas ed t he num ber of cr edi t s , t he “w i nni ngs ” ca nnot b e re d e e m e d f

o r v a lu e . ¶5. T r ai ner fi l ed h is co m p lai n t fo r de clarato ry jud g m en t/ reli ef ch all en g ing t he

cons t i t ut i onal i t yof t he s t atut or ypr ovi s i ons u n d e rwhi c h h e was a r r es t ed, nami ng W as hi ngt on C ount yas t he def

endant
. I n t he or i gi nal compl ai ntT r ai neral s o cl ai m ed vi olat ions of t he Fou r t eenth A m endmentof t he U ni t ed St at es C ons t i t ut i on, namel yt hathe w as depr i ved of due pr oces s of l aw and pr oper t y , and t hat he w as deni ed equal pr ot ect i on of t he l aw s . T he

s t a t e A t t or ne yG e ne r a l i nt e r ve ne d o n b e ha l f o f W a sh i ng t on Countyun de r M i s s . R. Ci v. P. 2 4 (d ), an d f

iled a m o tio n to d ism iss . B e f o re T ra in e r f

iled h is re sp o n se to th e m o tio n to di s m i s s , he fi l ed a mot i on t o amend hi s compl ai ntfordecl ar at or yj udgm ent , r eques t i ng t hat W as hi ngt on C ount ybe del et ed as t he def endant , an d that t he St at e of M i s s i s s i ppi be

s ubs t i t ut ed t her efor , s i nce he w as chal l engi ng t he cons t i t ut i onal i t yof a s t at e s t atut e. T r ai ner
a l s o r e q u e s t e d t h a tt h e c o m p l a i n tb e a m e n d e d t o i n c l u d e a n o t h e r b a s i s o f u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i t y, namel y , t hatt he s t atut e w as vague a nd arbit rary as w or ded, i nt erpr et ed and e nfor ced. W a sh in g to n C o u n tyf

iled a re sp o n se , ag re e in g th a t th e c o m p lain t sh o u ld b e d ism iss e d a s to the C o u n ty
. In it s resp o n se, t h e S tat e a rgu ed that the tri al co u rt s h o u ld a d d ress the S tat e’s

m ot i on t o di s m i s s befor e cons i der i ng T r ai ner ’ s m ot i on t o amend; and, t hatt her e w as no need t o amend t he compl ai ntas t he St at e had al r eady i nt er vened. A t a s ubs equenthear i ng, t he t r i al

co u rtg ran ted b o th m o ti o n s to d ism iss. In i ts o rde r g ran ti n g the S tat e’s m o ti o n , the tri al co u rt

### Af ewd ay s b ef

o re th e o ral arg um en ts inth is case, T rain er, th ro u g hco un sel, 3 

### s ubm i tt e d aRul e 28(

j) l e tt e r . Se e M. R. A. P. 28( j)
. So that

the r e be no m i s unde r s t andi ng, th is C o urt h as also co n sid eredth e cita t i o n s o f sup p lem en tal auth o rities p ro v id edinth is le tt er , which was a

pp ropriate ly

subm itte d acc ording to the Rule, afte r the brie fs were fil ed w ithth e C o urt. 6 b ri ef lyad d resse d the issu e o f v ag u en ess. T raine r fil ed this ap p ea l from the tri al co u rt ’s d ism iss a l o f

h is c o m p lain t. ¶6
. In this ap p ea l, T raine r ch all en g es the co n sti tuti o n ali ty o f M iss. C o d e A n n . § 9 7 -33 -7 ( m aki ng t he pos s es s i on of s l ot m achi nes i l l egal ) , and M i s s . C ode A nn. § 97- 33- 17 ( m aki ng
m oni es exhi bi t ed fr om i l l egal gambl i ng s ubj ectt o s ei zur e byt he s her i ff)
. T r ai nercl ai m s he

w as depr i ved of a pr oper t yr i ghti n t he machi nes , and pr ofi t s fr om t hes e machi nes , w i t hout a hea r i ng t o det er m i ne i f hi s m achi nes w er e cover ed by t he st atut e or i f t he sei zur e w as val i d. T r ai nerr ai s es onl yone i s s ue t oday , but phr as es i t i n t w o par t s , namel y , w het hers ect i ons 99- 33- 7 and 99- 33- 17 ar e uncons t i t ut i onal l yv a g u e , and i m per m i s s i bl yal l ow s ei zur e of pe r s onal pr oper t yw i t hout a hear i ng, depr i vi ng i ndi vi dual s of pr oper t yr i ght s and due pr oces s under t he fe deral and st at e con st i t uti on s. 3 DI S CU S S I ON ¶7. T hi s C our t has s t at ed t he s cope of our po w er o f re v iew w h en interpr et i ng t he

con st i t uti on al i t yof st at utes : W i t houtdoubt , ourcons t i t ut i onal s cheme cont empl at es t he pow erof j udi ci al r evi ew of l egi s l at i ve ena ct m ent s ; how ever , t hatpow erm aybe exer ci s ed a f f irm a tiv e lyo n lyw h e re th e leg isla tio n u n d e r re v iew b e f o u n d ‘in p a lp a b le c o n f l i c t wi t h s o me p l a i n p r o v i s i o n o f t h e . . . c o n s t i t u t i o n . ’ S t a t u t e s . . . c o me befor e us cl ot hed w i t h a hea vypr es um pt i on of cons t i t ut i onal val i di t y . T he

### 7

p a rtyc h a llen g in g th e c o n stitu tio n a lityo f a sta tu te is b u rd e n e d w ith c a rry in g h is cas e bey ond al l r eas onabl e doubtbefor e t hi s C our t has aut h o ri tyt o hol d t he s t atut e, i n w hol e ori n par t , of no for ce oreff ect
. W hen a pa r ty i nvokes our pow erof j udi ci al r evi ew , i tbehooves u s to recal l t hatt he cha l l enged a cthas been p a s s e d b yl e g i s l a t o r s a n d a p p r o v e d b ya g o v e r n o r s wor n t o u p h o l d t he s e lf s a m e c o n s titu tio n a s a re w e . I n r e T. L. C. , 566 So. 2d 691, 696 ( M i s s . 1990) ( quot i ng H a rt v . S ta te , 87 M i s s . 171, 39 So. 5 2 3 , 5 2 4 (19 0 5 ) (i n terna l ci tat ion s o m it ted)). I . W HETH ER THE S TATUTES M AK I NG I T A CR I M E TO P O S S E S S GAM B L I N G M ACHI N E S ARE UNC ON S TI TUTI ON ALLY VAG UE. ¶8. T r ai nerw as ar r es t ed underM i s s i s s i ppi ’ s cr i m i nal l aw s w hi ch m ake i t a cr i m e for any per s on t o pos s es s , di s pl ay , oroper at e any“s l otm achi ne, pi nbal l m achi ne, ors i m i l ardevi ce or device s” e x c e p t w h ere the st at ute s pecifi cal l yal l ow s i t , such as i n legal casi no s. M i ss. C o d e A n n . § 9 7 -33 -7(1 ) (R ev . 2 0 0 0 ). (1 ) It sh a ll b e u n law f

u l f o r a n y p e rso n . . . to h a v e in p o ss e ss io n , o w n , co n tro l, di s pl ay , oroper at e any. . . s l ot m achi ne, pi nbal l m achi ne, ors i m i l ardevi ce or devi ces . . . . A nys l otm achi ne . . . w hi ch del i ver s , or i s s o cons t r uct ed as t hat b yo p e ra tio n th e re o f

it w ill d e liv e r to th e o p e ra to r th e re o f a n y th in g o f v a lu e in var y i ng quant i ti es, in addi t i on t o t he mer chandi s e r ece i ved, and anys l ot m achi ne . . . t hat i s cons t r uct ed i n s uch manner as t hats l ugs , t okens , coi ns or sim ilar d e v ice s ar e , o r m a y b e , u se d a n d d e liv e re d to th e o p e ra to r th e re o f in addi t i on t o m er chandi s e of a nys or t co nt ai ned i n s uch machi ne, i s her eby decl ar ed t o be a ga m b li ng devi ce, and s hal l be dee m ed unl aw ful undert he pr ovi s i ons of t hi s s ect i on. Pr ovi ded, how ever , t hatpi nbal l m achi nes w hi ch do not r etur n t o t he oper at or or pl ay er t her eof any t hi ng but fr ee addi t i onal games or pl ay s s hal l not be deem ed t o be gambl i ng devi ces , and nei t hert hi s s ect i on noranyot herl aw s hal l be cons t r ued t o pr ohi bi t s ame. I d. T hi s s t atut e pr ovi des t hatcer t ai n i l l egal gambl i ng devi ces i ncl ude s l otm achi nes t hat “del i vert o t he oper at ort her eof an y thing of val ue i n var y i ng quant i t i es , i n addi t i on t o t he

### 8

m er chandi s e r ece i ved” a nd t hos e t hatbot h u se and del i ver“s l ugs , t okens , coi ns or s i m i l ar devi ces . . . t o t he oper at ort her eof i n addi t i on t o m er chandi s e of any s or t cont ai ned i n s uch

m achi ne. ” I

d. T he s t atut e al s o car ves outexce pt i ons fo r a n ti q u e coi n m achi nes defi ned

u n d e r a n o th e r c iv il s ta tu te , § 2 7 -2 7 -1 2
. I d. O urC our t of A ppeal s has s t at ed t hatpr ohi bi t ed

m achi nes ar e t hos e t hat“( 1) ar e oper at ed bycoi n, t oken, orot hercons i der at i on, and ( 2) di s pens e a pr oductw i t h ( 3) t he po ssibi l i t yof di s pens i ng addi t i onal i t ems atvar y i ng quant i t i es . ” Mis s . G am ing C om m ’ n v. Si x Vi deo G am b. D evi ces , 79 2 S o. 2d 32 1, 32 4 (M i ss. A pp. 2001)
. O n t he ot herhand, t he M i s s i s s i ppi G am i ng C ont r ol A ctdefi nes s l otm achi ne
m o r e s p e c i f

i c a l l y: ( ff) “Sl otm achi ne” m ea n s anym echa ni cal , el ectr i cal orot herdevi ce, contr i vance or m achi ne w hi ch, upon i ns er t i on of a c oi n, t oken ors i m i l ar obj ect , orupon paym entof any cons i der at i on, i s avai l abl e t o pl ayor oper at e, t he pl ayoroper at i on of w hi ch, w het herbyr eas on of t he s ki l l of t he oper at or orappl i cat ion o f the el ement of cha nce, or bot h, m aydel i veror ent i t l e t he person p l ay i ng or operat i ng t he m achine t o recei ve cash , pre m i um s, m er chandi s e, t okens or any t hi ng of val ue, w het herthe pay off i s m ade aut om at i cal l yfr om t he machi ne ori n anyot herm anner . T he t er m does not i ncl ude anyant i que coi n m achi ne as defi ned i n Sect i on 27- 27- 12. M i s s . C ode A nn. § 75- 76- 5( ff)
. T he C our t of A ppeal s al s o cons i der ed t hi s ci vi l s t atut e i n S ix E lec. Vi deo G am b. D evi ces , 7 9 2 S o .2 d a t 3 2 6
. H o w e v e r, o u r h o ld in g to d a yis di s t i ngui s habl e fr om t hi s C our tof A ppeal s cas e, as our hol di ng i s l i m i t ed t o t he t w o s t atut es
r ai s ed on appe al – t hos e found unde r t i t l e 97 of t he M i s s i s s i ppi C ode. Fi nal l y , anym achi ne fal l i ng undert he ca t egor yof s l otm achi ne orgambl i ng devi ce i s s ubj ectt o s ei zur e byl aw enfo rcem ent offi ci al s. M i ss. C od e A nn . § 97 -33-17(1). E xcep t w here st at e l aw other w i se

### 9

pr ovi des , “al l m oni es s t aked orbet t ed, s hal l be l i abl e t o s ei zur e by anys her i ff, cons t abl e, or p o lice o f f ice r, to g e th e r w ith a ll th e a p p lian c e s u se d o r ke p t f o r u se in g a m b lin g . . . an d a ll appl i ance s s ei zed s hal l be des t r oy ed .
. . . ” I d. Iti s i m po rt ant t o n o te th a t th e st at ute al so
s t at es “t hatpi nbal l m achi nes w hi ch do not r etur n t o t he oper at or or pl ay ert her eof a ny t hi ng butfr ee addi t i onal games or pl ay s s hal l not be deemed t o be gambl i ng devi ces , and nei t her t hi s s ect i on nor any ot her l aw s hal l be constr ued t o pr ohi bi t s ame. ” M i s s . C ode A nn. § 97- 3 3 -7(1 ). ¶9. T he bas i c l egal ques t i on i s w het her t he s t atut es ar e un co n sti tuti o n al be ca us e of vag uen ess i n t he descri pti on of w hat const i t utes a sl ot m achine. T rai ner ar gu es t hat because t he st atut e i s vague, he coul d notknow i f hi s devi ces w er e i ndeed i l l egal undert he s t atut e and th u s, h e w a s d u e a h e a rin g to d e ter m in e if th e yw e re ill e g a l. T ra in e r a rg u e s th a t w ith o u t th is hear i ng, he w as depr i ved of a prope r t y r i ght i n t he machi nes and t he i ncome t hes e machi nes pr oduced f

orhi m . T r ai ner ’ s ar gum enti s t hatt he vague des cr i p ti o n o f slot m achi nes and gambl i ng devi ces pr event s l aw enfor cement offi ci al s fr om pos s es s i ng t he know l edge ne eded to d isc e rn w h ich m a c h in e s ar e leg a l a n d w h ich a re n o t. T ra in e r th u s a rg u e s th o se o f f icia ls

ar e emp o wer e d wi t h t h e a u t h o r i t y t o c o n f i s c a t e a n d d e s t r o y t h e p e r s o n a l p r o p e r t y of in d iv id u a ls w h o a re n e v e r a f f o rd e d a h e a ri n g . A . Thi s C our t ’ s de c i s i on i n Hens on , an d va gu en ess . ¶10. T h is C o u rt has had occ as i on t o cons i dera ca s e s i m i l art o t oday ’ s cas e. I n Miss. G am ing C om m ’ n v. Hens on , 8 0 0 S o .2 d 1 1 0 (M iss . 2 0 0 1 ), w e f o u n d tw o g a m e m a c h in e s to

### One of the gam e m a c hi ne s i n Hens on w as actu a l l y a “C h erry M aster V id eo ,” 4 

### sup p o sed ly

sim ilar to th e g am e ma c h i n e s i nto d ay ’s case. Hens on prov ides a det ai le d de s c r iption of the gam e m a c hi ne , whi c h i s e s s e nt i a l l y an upr i ght

ar c a de ve r s i on of as l ot m ach in e, an d w h ich is also p layed in a sim ilar f ash io n . Hens on , 800 So. 2d at 113- 14. The m a i n di ffe r e nc e be twe e n the m a c hi ne i n Hens on and the m a c hi ne s i n our c a s e t oday

i s the abs e nc e of “ knoc k- off” butt ons i n the m a c hi ne s whi c h ar e the s ubje c t of the c a s e be for e us to d ay . Howe ve r , i n Hens on , th e s e kn o c k

- o f f b utt o n s w e r e n o t th e d e t e rm i n i n g fa c t or co n cern in g th e m ach in es’ illeg ality
. 10 be i l l egal gambl i ng devi ces . T he ques t i on befor e t he C our t i n Hens on w as n o t the 4

cons t i t ut i onal i t yof t he s t atut e, but r at her w hat w as r equi r ed fora machi ne t o be cons i der ed a “ slot m ac h ine” u n d er S ec ti o n 7 5 -7 6 -5(f f) bef or e the m ac h ine c o u ld b e su b ject t o seizu re and des t r uct i on under Sect i on 97- 33- 7( 1)
. A s pr evi ous l ym ent i oned, t oday ’ s hol di ng appl i es
o n l yt o S e c t i o n s 9 7
- 3 3
- 7 a n d - 1 7 , a n d i s t h e r e f o r e d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e f

r o m Hens on . ¶11. T h e Fi f

th Ci r c u i tr e c e n t l ydeal t w i t h vaguene s s of s t atut es , s t at i ng t hat“[a ] n enac t m ent i s voi d forvaguene s s i f i t s pr ohi bi t i ons ar e not cl ear l ydefi ned. ” J & B E nter tainm ent , I nc.
v. Cit y of Jacks on , 152 F. 3d 362, 367 ( 5 C i r . 1998) ( quot i ng G rayn ed v. Ci t y of R ock

ford , th 4 0 8 U .S . 1 0 4 , 1 0 9 , 9 2 S .C t. 2 2 9 4 , 3 3 L .E d .2 d 2 2 2 (1 9 7 2 )). T o d e ter m in e w h e th e r a sta tu te i s vague “ w e vi ew t he l aw fr om t he s t andpoi nto f a p erso n of or di nar yi nt el l i gence . ” I d. T hi s C our thas r ecogni zed the es t abli sh ed , gui di ng l egal pr i nci pl e t hatan or di nance or
re g u latio n “ c a n n o t b e e n f o rc e d u n les s it p ro v id e s c lea r n o tice a n d su f f ic ie n tlyd e f

in ite

w a rn in g o f

th a t w h ich is p ro h ib ited , an d th a t w h ich is a llo w e d . T h e a u th o rities f o r th is pr opos i t i on abound. ” Mayor & B d. of A lder m en, Ci t y of Clinton v. W

elch , 888 So. 2d 416,

### 11

4 2 1 (M iss . 2 0 0 4 ). T h e “ re stric tio n [ s] m u st b e re a so n a b lyc lea r, en a b lin g a c iti z e n to under s t and w hati s al l ow ed, and w hati s not
. ” I d . a t 4 2 0
. B . T he pot ent i al danger of arbi t rary e nf orce m ent of the cri m i nal s ta tu te s . ¶12. T r ai nerexpresses co n ce rns that the cri m i nal s t atut es ati s s ue do notgi ve l aw enfor cement offi ci al s cl ear gui dance as t o w hat game machi nes ar e s ubj ect t o seizur e. T r ai nerpoi nt s out t hat t he M i s s i s s i ppi G ami ng C om m i s s i on, al l egedl y notunder s t andi ng t he

s t atut e as cl earand unambi guous , pr ovi des i t s ow n defi ni t i on of a ga m bl i ng game i n t hat

a g e n c y ’ s r e g u l a t i o n s b yp r o v i d i n g t h a t s u c h a g a me i s “ a n yb a n k i n g o r p e r c e nt a ge g a me pl ay ed w i t h car ds , w i t h di ce orw i t h any m echa ni cal , el ectr om echa ni cal or el ectr oni c devi ce
or m achine for m on ey , propert y , ch e c k s, c re d itor anyrepr esent at i ve o f value. ” M i ss. G ami ng C om m . , R eg. V I I
. , A
. ( 10) ( 2005)
. T he C om m i s s i on l at eramended t hi s defi ni t i on. T r ai nerar gues t hati f t he s t atut e w er e cl ear and unambi guous , t her e w oul d be no nee d fort he C om m i s s i on t o pr ovi de def i nit ion s an d am en d ed d ef init ion s. L ikew ise, the re co rd re v eal s that t h e l a w e n f

o r c e me n to f

f i c i a l s i n t o d a y ’ s c a s e h a d d i f f i c u l t ywi t h d e f

i n i n g a n i l l e g a l g a me
m a c h in e u n d e r th e c rim in a l s ta tu te s. H o w e v e r, o u r ro le d o e s n o t in v o lv e a n a ttem p t to

r e wr i t e t h e s t a t u t e . I n s t e a d , we mus t d e c i d e i f t h i s s t a t u t e p r o v i d e s “ c l e ar not i ce a nd

s uffi ci ent l ydefi ni t e w arni ng of t hat w hi ch i s pr ohi bi t ed, and t hatw hi ch i s al l ow ed. ” W elch , 888 So. 2d at421.

### 12 C . A cl os er l ook at s ect i ons 97- 33- 7, - 17. ¶13. A gai n, T r ai nerw as ar r es t ed under t he cr i m i nal s t atut e. W e t hus fi nd t he ans w ert o t he issue at ha n d in se cti o n 9 7 -33 -7. W ith the e x ce p ti o n s o f a n ti q u e c o in m ac h ines an d w h ere th e law sp e c if

ica llya llo w s g a m b lin g , su c h a s in leg a l ca sin o s, th e c rim in a l sta tu te m a k e s it i l l egal fora per s on t o pos s es s a devi ce w hi ch “del i ver [s ] t o t he oper at or t her eof any t hi ng of

v a lu e in v a ry in g q u a n tit ies , in a d d iti o n to th e m e rc h a n d is e r e c e iv e d ,” o r o n e w h ich “ is

cons t r uct ed i n s uch manneras t hats l ugs , t okens , coi ns ors i m i l ardevi ces ar e, orm aybe, us ed and del i ver ed t o t he oper at ort her eof i n addi t i on t o m er chandi s e of a nys or t cont ai ned i n s uch

m achine. ” M i ss. C od e A nn . § 9 7-33-7(1). G i ven t hat t he l aw t reat s a credi t as w hatever cost i s r equi r ed t o pl ay one cr edi t , t he pos s i bi l i t yof w i nni ng s ever al cr edi t s on anyone s pi n of t he vi r t ual r eel s cer t ai nl yaw ar ds t hi ngs i n var y i ng quant i t i es . T hus t her e i s a cl earexce pt i on for

v e n d i n g ma c h i n e s , s u c h a s a s n a c k o r s o f t - d r i n k ma c h i n e , wh i c h a l wa y s d e l i ve r t he s a me quant i t yof a pr oductforone fi xed amount of m oney . I n t he sa m e w ay that a “t r ue” s l ot

m achi ne, s uch as t hos e found i n l egal cas i nos , m i ghtdel i vervar y i ng quant i t i es of c oi ns or to k e n s to a p layer, th e m a c h in e s in to d a y ’s c a se c a n d e liv e r v a ry in g q u a n tit ies o f c re d its to a pl ay er , eac h w or t h one coi n ort oken i ni t i al l yr equi r ed forpl ay . W het hera pl ay err ece i ves
sev e ra l do zen co i ns or several do zen credit s, t he p l ay er i s r ecei ving, i n v ary i ng qu anti t i es,
so m e th in g o f

v a lu e . T h e q u e stio n o f a c re d it o r a c o in d o e s n o t layth is is s u e to re st in T ra in e r’s f

a v o r. L e g a l slo t m a c h in e s m a ya lso c o m m o n lyb e o p e ra ted to d e liv e r o n lyc re d its to a p layer w h o c a n c h o o se to late r “ c a sh in ” th e se c re d its. A s fo r th e e x c e p tio n th a t “p in b a ll

### 13

m achi nes w hi ch do not r etur n t o t he oper at oror pl ay ert her eof a ny t hi ng but fr ee a ddi t i onal g am es o r pl ay s s hal l notbe dee m ed t o be gambl i ng devi ces , ” one c an ea s i l ys ee the d iffe ren ce b etw ee n an ad d it ion al ga m e, suc h as o n e m o re rou n d o r tu rn, an d an en ti re
a d d iti o n a l cr e d it, th e v a lu e o f w h ich is d e ter m in e d b yth e in iti a l c o st o f p lay. W e a g re e w ith t he C our tof A ppeal s t hat i l l egal gambl i ng m achi nes undert he cr i m i nal s t atut e ar e t hos e t hat “( 1) ar e oper at ed by coi n, t oken, or ot her cons i der at i on, and ( 2) di s pens e a pr oductw i t h ( 3) t he pos s i bi l i t yof di s pens i ng addi t i onal i t ems atvar y i ng quant i t i es . ” Si x E lec. Vi deo G am b. D evi ces , 792 So. 2d at324. ¶14. T r ai ner dr aw s our at t ent i on t o anot her par t of t i t l e 97, w hi ch s t at es , “[a ] l l l aw s m ade or t o b e m ade f

or t he sup press i on of gam bli ng or gam i ng , are rem edial and no t pen al st at utes , and s hal l be s o cons t r ued by t he cour t s . ” M i s s . C ode A nn. § 97- 33- 29. T her efor e, T r ai ner
a s s e r t s t h a t S e c t i o n s 9 7
- 3 3
- 7 , - 1 7 a r e c i v i l i n n a t u r e , a n d n o t c r i mi n a l
. Lo o k i n g a t t h e s a me p e n a l/rem e d ial la n g u a g e f ro m th is s tatu te, th e F if th C ir c u it d e c lin e d to e q u a te “ re m e d ial”

w i t h r egul at or yand “pe nal ” w i t h cr i m i nal , and t her efor e ref us ed t o r ever s e t he cr i m i nal

c o n v ic tio n s . U

. S. v. S tew art , 2 0 5 F
. 3 d 8 4 0 , 8 4 3 (5 C ir
. 2 0 0 0 ). th In f u rth e r su p p o rt o f

th e ir a rg u m e n t th a t v io latio n o f a sta te g a m b lin g law is not“cr i m i nal ” .
. . A ppel l ant s r el yon § 97- 33- 29 of t he M i s s i s s i ppi cr i m i nal code, w hi ch pr ovi des : “A l l l aw s m ade ort o be made fort he s uppr es s i on of gam bli ng or gam i ng , are r em edial and no t pen al st at utes , and shal l b e so c o n stru e d b yth e c o u rts.” T h is p a rticu lar p ro v isio n h a s n o t b e e n in ter p re ted in m oder n cas e l aw i n t hi s cont ext , but t he M i s s i s s i ppi Supr eme Courti n 1903, i n F u lle r v . S ta te h e l d

- c o n s i s t e n t wi t h e v e n e a r l i e r o p i n i o n s - t h at t he p rov isi o n w as in tend ed to clarifythat crim inal law s p roh ibit ing g am b li n g w ere t o be constr ued l i ber al l y , as an exc ept i on t o t he nor m al r ul e of l eni t y , r equi r i ng s t r i ctcons t r uct i on of cr i m i nal s t atutes i n favorof t he ac cus ed. I n F uller , t he

### 14

c o u rt h e ld th a t th e p re d e c e ss o r to § 9 7 -3 3 -1 a u th o riz e d im p riso n m e n t in a d d iti o n - n o t ju st as a n a ltern a tiv e - t o a f in e a n d sta ted : “W e a re f o rtifie d in th is p o sitio n b y th a t p ro v isio n o f o u r c rim in a l la w w h ich sa y s th a t all la w s in r efe r ence t o gam i ng ar e r emedi al , and ar e t o be cons t r ued l i ber al l y- not lib e ra lly in f

a v o r o f th e c u lp ri t, b u t f

o r t h e s u p p re s s io n o f

v ic e .” I d . ( r el y i ng on F u ller v . S ta te , 3 5 S o . 2 1 4 , 2 1 5 (M iss . 1 9 0 3 ); Ca in v . S ta te , 21 M i s s . 456 ( 1850) )
. T he F i ft h C i r cui t fur t her s t at ed t hat “[t ] he M i s s i s s i ppi Supr eme C our t , i n cons t r ui ng ‘t h at pro v isi o n o f o u r cr i m i nal l a w’ c l a r i f i e d t h a t t h e wo r d ‘ r e me d i a l ’ c a l l e d f o r g a mi n g l a ws t o b e c o n s t r u e d l i b e r a l l y ag ainst t he cr i m i nal ; i t has never hel d t hatt he pr ovi s i on r emoved al l pr ohi bi t or ygambl i ng l aw s fr om t he cr i m i nal code. ” I d . ( e mp h a s i s i n o r i g i n a l )
. Al s o , we emphasi ze thatour cons t i t ut i onal anal y s i s of a s t atut e i s t he s ame w het hert he s t atut e under

s crut i nyi s cr i m i nal orci vi l
. W e have l ong hel d t hatt he C ons t i t ut i on appl i es t o everys t atut e. Hol lins v . State, 90 So. 630, 631 ( M i s s . 1922)
. U nabl e t o s ee the di s t i nct i on bet w een the

a u th o rity o f c rim in a l ca se law a n d th a t o f c iv il ca se law w h e n a n a ly z in g th e c o n stitu tio n a lit y of a s t atut e, t he C our t , i n Hol lins , hel d t hat“[t ]he p rop er const r uct i on of t he s t atut e, or
w hethe r it sh al l be s t r i ct l yorl i ber al l ycons t r ued, i s nott he ques t i on, butw het hert he C o n s titu tio n a p p lie s to a ll s ta tu te s a lik e , w h e th e r c iv il o r c ri m in a l. A n d w e h o ld th a t it d o e s .” I d. ¶15. T he fi nal ques t i on i n our anal y s i s i s w het her T r ai nerhas m ethi s bur den of s how i ng that thes e statutes a re u n co n sti tuti o n all yv ag u e. K ee p ing in m ind that statu tes co m e b ef o re
us “cl ot hed w i t h a heavy pr es um pt i on of cons t i t ut i onal val i di t y , ” T r ai ner m us t s ho w the

s ta tu te in q u e s tio n h e re is “ in p a lp a b le c o n f lic t w ith s o m e p la in p ro v is io n o f th e c o n s titu tio n .”

### 15

I n r e T. L. C. , 566 So. 2d at696 ( quot i ng H a rt v . S ta te , 87 M i s s . 171, 176, 39 So. 523, 524 (1 9 0 5 )) . T ra in e r’ s b u rd e n is to c a rr y th e c a s e b e y o n d a ll re a s o n a b le d o u b t. See I n r e T .L .C ., 566 So. 2d at696. I f Tra i nercan sho w this C o u r t bey ond al l r eas onabl e doubthe i s bei ng d e p riv e d o f

h is p ro p e rty w ith o u t d u e p ro c e ss o f law b e c a u se th e sta tu te is u n c o n stitu tio n a lly

v a g u e , h e sh o u ld p re v a il. H o w e v e r, T ra in e r h a s n o t m e t th a t b u rd e n . W e c lea rlyf in d th a t,
as w r i t t en, t he cr i m i nal s t atut es , Sect i ons 97- 33- 7, - 17, ar e nott oo br oad i n t hei r des cr i pt i on of w hatcaus es a vi deo game t o be an i l l egal s l otm achi ne. Fr om t he cr i m i nal s t atut es , as t hey

cur r ent l yexi s t , a per s on w i t h or di nar y i nt el l i gence w oul d have l i t t l e di ffi cul t ydet er m i ni ng
w hatexac t l yi s pr ohi bi t ed and w hat i s not
. For t hes e r eas ons , w e fi nd t hi s i s s ue t o be w i t hout

m e rit. I I . W HETH ER M I S S I S S I PP I ’ S GA M I NG - DEVI CE S TATUTES

DE P RI VE OW NE RS OF P ROP ER TY W I THOU T D UE P R O C E S S O F L A W. ¶16
. T rai ner al so con t end s h e w as depri ved of p ropert yw i t ho ut due process of law becau se there w as no hear i ng. T he fe der al cons t i t ut i on pr ovi des t hatno s t at e s hal l “depr i ve any p e rs o n o f

lif e , lib e rt y , o r p ro p e rt y , w ith o u t d u e p ro c e s s o f la w .” U .S . C ONST . A MEN D . X I V ( 1)
. T he M i s s i s s i ppi C ons t i t ut i on’ s count erpar t pr ovi s i on r eads , “[n] o per s on s hal l be depr i ved of l i fe, l i ber t y , o r p roper t yexce ptbydue pr oces s of l aw . ” M I SS . C ONST . A RT . 3, § 14. T he gambl i ng l aw s i n M i s s i s s i ppi how eve r d o notext end a pr oper t yr i ght t o i l l egal g am b li n g m ac h ines
. M iss. C o d e A n n . § 9 7 -33 -7(2 ). ( 2) N o pr oper t yr i ght s hal l exi s t i n anyper s on, natur al orar t i fi ci al , orbe ves t ed i n s uch per s on, i n anyor al l of t he devi ces des cr i bed her ei n t hatar e not

### 16

exempt ed fr om t he pr ovi s i ons of t hi s s ect i on; and al l s uch devi ces ar e her eby d e c lar e d to b e a t a ll tim e s s u b jec t to c o n f

isc a tio n a n d d e stru c tio n , an d th e ir p o sses sion sh a ll be u n law fu l, ex ce p t w h en in the p o sses sion o f o ff icers c a r r y i n g o u t t h e p r o v i s i o n s o f t h i s s e c t i o n . I t s h a l l b e t h e d u t y o f a l l l a wenfor ci n g o f

f i c e r s t o s e i z e a n d i mme d i a t e l yd e s t r o ya l l s u c h ma c h i n e s and dev i ces. I d. A s t o T r ai ner ’ s ar gum entt hat he has been depr i ved of pr oper t y w i t hout due pr oces s of l aw , w e have exami ned how ot her j ur i s di ct i ons have addr es s ed t hi s i s s ue. W i t h exce pt i ons
m a d e i n i n s t a n c e s o f

h e a l t h r i s k s , t h e r e i s a b u n d a n t c a s e l a w , f i r m l y r o o t e d i n l e g a l h i s t o r y,
acr os s nu m ero u s j ur i s di ct i ons , w hi ch abs ol ut el yr equi r es a hea r i ng t o det er m i ne w het her p ro p e rt yis ille g a l o r is a n u is a n c e b e f o re it c a n b e d e s tr o y e d
. S e e e .g ., S o u th D a k o ta D e p t. of Heal t h v. O w en , 3 5 0 N .W .2 d 4 8 , 5 1 (S .D . 1 9 8 4 ); State v. 25 Slot Machines , 163 W
. V a. 4 5 9 , 4 5 9 , 2 5 6 S .E .2 d 5 9 5 , 5 9 6 (W .V a . 1 9 7 9 ); I n r e D es tr ucti on of

O ne G am bling D evi ce , 1 6 W ash
. A p p . 8 5 9 , 8 6 3 , 5 5 9 P
. 2 d 1 0 0 3 , 1 0 0 5 (W ash
. C t. A p p . 1 9 7 7 ); S tate v. Mad ere , 344 S o . 2 d 2 9 , 3 0 (L a . C t. A p p . 1 9 7 7 ); Mar at hon Oi l Co. v . Boar d o

f Zoning Adj us t

m e nt , 44 O h io A p p . 2 d 4 0 2 , 4 0 7 , 3 3 9 N
. E
. 2 d 8 5 6 , 8 6 0 (O h io A p p . 1 9 7 5 ); I n r e T elet ype Mach. C o. 33335 , 1 2 6 P a .S u p e r. 5 3 3 , 5 3 4 , 1 9 1 A . 2 1 0 , 2 1 1 (P a . S u p e r. 1 9 3 7 ); State v. Fal gr en , 176 M in n . 3 4 6 , 3 4 7 , 2 2 3 N .W . 4 5 5 , 4 5 5 (M in n . 1 9 2 9 ); G a rla n d N o v e lty C o . v. S ta te , 7 1 S
. W. 2 5 7 , 2 5 9 (A rk . 1 9 0 2 ); B o b e l v. P e o p le , 173 I l l
. 19, 24, 50 N
. E
. 322, 323 ( I l l
. 1898)
. T hi s has l ong been the rul e, cl ear l ycons i s t entw it h bas i c pr i nci pl es of due pr oces s . “I f t her e i s no
n o tice a n d h e a rin g b e f

o re th e se izu re a n d d e stru c tio n o f th e p ro p e rty , the n th e o w n e r is

e n tit led to a h e a rin g a f

ter th e d e s tr u c tio n to d e ter m in e w h e th e r th e p ro p e rtyw a s in f a c t a nui s ance , and w het hers uch des t r uct i on w as , i n fac t , nece s s ar yt o abat e t he nui s ance . ” City

### 17

of Rapi d Ci t

y v . Boland , 271 N
. W
. 2d 60, 67-68 (S
. D
. 1 9 7 8) ( r el y i ng on N or th A m er i can C old Stor age Co. v. Chi cago , 211 U
. S. 306, 29 S. C t
. 101, 53 L
. E d. 195 ( 1908) ) ( i nt er nal ci t at i ons om i t t ed)
. O ne s t at e cour thas expr es s l y hel d t hat w her e doubt exi s t s as t o w het her t he us e t o w hi ch t he devi ce maybe puti s l aw ful or ent i r el yunl aw ful , “t hen the des t r uct i on of t he devi ce w i t hout not i ce a nd oppor t uni t y for a hear i ng i s fr ow ned upon as vi ol at i ve of due pr oces s of l aw ; par t i cul ar l yi s t hi s t r ue as t o devi ces w hi ch, alt h o u g h capa bl e of us e for gambl i ng purpos es , actual l y m ay be us ed forl aw ful purpos es . ” P r ender gas t v. D w yer , 88 I daho 278, 285, 398 P. 2d 637, 640- 41 ( 1965)
. A gai n, as t oday ’ s fac t u al s cena r i o does not
cr ea te anyvi ol at i on of Tra i ner ’ s due pr oces s r i ght s , t hi s ques t i on i s not pr oper l ybefor e us t o r es ol ve. ¶17. T he t r i al cour t i n t oday ’ s cas e r el i ed on S tev e n s v . S ta te , 225 M i s s . 48, 82 So. 2d 645 ( 1955) and Clar k v. Holden , 1 9 1 M iss. 7 , 2 S o . 2 d 5 7 0 (19 4 1 ) t o su p p o rtthat the m ere pos s es s i on of an i l l egal gambl i ng devi ce, s uch as a s l otm achi ne, i s enough fora vi ol at i on. N a tu ra lly , if p o ss e ss io n a lo n e o f c e rta in o b jec ts is a c rim e , the re is n o p ro p e rtyin ter e st in t hos e obj ect s . I f t he machi nes i n ques t i on cl ear l yfal l undert he des cr i pt i on of “i l l egal gambl i ng devi ce s , ” i ti s w i t houtques t i on t hatno pr oper t yr i ght exi s t ed i n t hem. T r ai ner
ar gues t hatbeca us e t he s t atut e i s vague, he coul d notknow i f hi s devi ces w er e i ndeed i l l egal undert he s t atut e and thus w as due a he ar i ng t o det er m i ne i f t heyw er e. T r ai nerar gues t hat

w i t hout t hi s hear i ng, he w as depr i ved of a pr oper t y r i ght i n t he m achi nes and t he i ncome t hey

### 18

p ro d u c e to h im . T h is iss u e th e n h in g e s e n tirelyo n th e v a g u e n e ss o f th e sta tu tes a t issu e in t hi s cas e. ¶18. T he t r i al cour t di d not del ve i nt o a dee p anal y s i s of vague nes s , butpoi nt ed outt hat for T ra in e r t o p revai l on t he clai m t hat Sect i on 97 -33-7 i s faci al l yun con st i t uti on al , he m ust
es t abl i s h t hatt her e i s no s etof ci r cumst ance s i n w hi ch t h e law coul d be appl i ed

c o n s titu tio n a lly. B arn es v. Miss. , 9 9 2 F .2 d 1 3 3 5 , 1 3 4 2 (5 C ir . 1 9 9 3 ), cert . deni ed , 51 0 U. S. th 976, 114 S. C t
. 468, 126 L
. E d. 2d 419 ( 1993)
. T he mer e pos s i bi l i t yt hatt he l aw “mi ght

o p e ra te u n c o n stitu tio n a llyu n d e r so m e c o n c e iv a b le s e t o f c irc u m sta n c e s is in su f f icie n t to

r enderi tw hol l yi nval i d. ” W ebs ter v. R epr oducti ve Heal th Serv i ces , 492 U
. S. 490, 524, 109 S . C t. 30 4 0 , 1 0 6 L .E d
. 2 d 4 1 0 (1 9 8 9 ). T ra in e r’s c h a llen g e to th is s tatu te is n o t th a t itis fac i al l yuncons t i t ut i onal , but r at her t hat i t i s uncons t i t ut i onal l y vague. B eca us e w e fi nd t he

s t atut e i n ques t i on i s not uncons t i t ut i onal l y vague, i t fol l ow s t hat T r ai nerw as notdepr i ved

o f p ro p e rtyw ith o u t d u e p ro c e ss o f law
. T r a in e r w a s n o t d u e a h e a rin g o n w h e th e r h is gami ng m achi nes w er e ac t ual l ygambl i ng devi ces pr eci s el ybeca us e t h e stat u t e i s not
c o n stitu tio n a llyv a g u e a s w ritten . T h is iss u e is w ith o u t m e rit. CO NC L US I ON ¶ 1 9
. T r ai n e r h a s n o t me t h i s b u r d e n o f s h o wi n g t h a t , a s c u r r e n t l y wr i t t en, t he cr i m i nal sta tu te in q u e stio n , an d th e o n lyo n e T ra in e r a rg u e s, f a ils to p ro v id e a c lea r a n d a d e q u a te defi ni t i on of w hat i s al l ow ed and w hat i s pr os cr i bed w i t h r egar d t o vi deo gam e machi nes for

a p e r s o n wi t h o r d i n a r yi n t e l l i g e n c e . I n t h e a p p l i c a t i o n o f t h e l a w t o t h e f a c t s b e f o r e u s n o w,

### 19

w e ca n n o t fi nd t her e i s no pos s i bi l i t yfort he s t atut es t o oper at e cons t i t ut i onal l y . For t he for egoi ng r eas ons , w e do notfi nd t hi s s t atut e t o be uncons t i t ut i onal l yvague, t hus al l ow i ng
s ei zur e of the devi ces and moni es i n t hi s cas e. ¶2 0
. In su m , fo r t h e re aso n s stated, w e f ind the tri al co u rt p ro p e rl y g ra n te d the S tat e’s

m ot i on t o di s m i s s . T hus , t he fi nal j udgm entent er ed byt he C i r cuit C our t of W as hi ngt on C ount yi s aff

i r m ed. ¶21. AF F I RM ED . S M I TH, C. J . , W AL LE R AND C OBB , P . J J . , EA SL EY , DI CKI NS ON AND RA ND OL P H, J J . , CO NC UR . DI AZ AN D G RA VE S , J J . , NO T P AR T I CI P AT I NG .