Court Opinion

ID: 9625692
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 07:48:01.152723+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:06:13.550628
License: Public Domain

Justice BURNETT:
I respectfully dissent from the majority’s conclusion respondent is not subject to criminal prosecution under any existing state statute. Respondent admits it possesses slot machines, blackjack tables, roulette tables, craps tables, and poker tables for use on “day cruises” or “cruises to nowhere.” Possession of these items within the territorial waters of the State of South Carolina subjects respondent to the criminal laws of this state.
South Carolina Code Ann. § 16-19-40 (Supp.2000) provides: [i]f any person shall play at any tavern, inn, store for the retailing of spirituous liquors or in any house used as a place of gaming, barn, kitchen, stable or other outhouse, street, highway, open wood, race field or open place at (a) any game with cards or dice, (b) any gaming table commonly called A, B, C, or E, 0, or any gaming table known or distinguished by any other letters or by any figures, (c) any roley-poley table, (d) rouge et noir, (e) any faro bank, (f) any other table or bank of the same or the like kind under any denomination whatsoever or (g) any machine or device licensed pursuant to Section 12-21-2720 and used for gambling purposes, except the games of billiards, bowls, backgammon, chess, draughts, or whist or shall bet on the sides or hands of such as do game, upon being convicted thereof, before any magistrate, shall be imprisoned for a period of not over thirty days or fined not over one hundred dollars, and every person so keeping such tavern, inn, retail store, public place, or house used as a place for gaming or such other house shall, upon being convicted thereof, upon indict*388ment, be' imprisoned for a period riot exceeding twelve months and forfeit a sum not exceeding two thousand dollars, for each and every offense.
(emphasis added).
Navigable waters are public highways. S.C. Const, art. XIV, § 4. Accordingly, gambling on a navigable water, a highway, violates § 16-19-40 and “keeping” gaming tables on navigable water of this State, a public place, violates § 16 — 19— 40.
South Carolina Code Ann. § 16-19-50 (Supp.2000) makes it unlawful to
set up, keep, or use any (a) gaming table, commonly called A, B, C, or E, O, or any gaming table known or distinguished by any other letters or by any figures, (b) roleypoley table, (c) table to play at rouge et noir, (d) faro bank (e) any other gaming table or bank of the like kind or of any other kind for the purpose of gaming....
Violators of this section are subject to fines and possible imprisonment. Id.; see also S.C.Code Ann. § 16-19-100 (1985).
South Carolina Code Ann. § 12-21-2710 (Supp.2000) makes it unlawful for any person
to keep on his premises or operate or permit to be kept on his premises or operated within this State any vending or slot machine, or any video game machine with a free play feature operated by a slot in which is deposited a coin or thing of value, or other device operated by a slot in which is deposited a coin or thing of value for the play of poker, blackjack, keno, lotto, bingo, or craps, or any machine or device licensed pursuant to Section 12-21-2720 and used for gambling or any punch board, pull board, or other device pertaining to games of chance of whatever name or kind, including those machines, boards, or other devices that display different pictures, words, or symbols, at different plays or different numbers, whether in words or figures or, which deposit tokens or coins at regular intervals or in varying numbers to the player or in the machine, but the provisions of this section do not extend to coin-operated nonpayout pin tables, in-line pin games, or to automatic weighing, measuring, musical, and vending machines which *389are constructed as to give a certain uniform and fair return in value for each coin deposited and in which there is no element of chance.
(emphasis added). Respondent’s gambling devices which are prohibited by § 12-21-2710 are subject to seizure, and, if a magistrate determines they violate § 12-21-2710 after a hearing, destruction. S.C.Code Ann. § 12-21-2712; State v. 192 Coin-Operated, Video Game Machines, 338 S.C. 176, 525 S.E.2d 872 (2000).
Nowhere do these statutes provide exceptions for gambling devices or tables located on boats. In fact, § 16 — 19—40 specifically applies to gambling devices or tables located on boats. Yet despite the plain language of these statutes, the majority concludes the General Assembly did not intend them to apply to the gambling devices aboard vessels such as respondent’s. The majority bases this conclusion on the “intent” clause contained in Act 125, which stated in part:
The General Assembly by enactment of this act has no intent to enact any provision allowed by 15 U.S.C. 1175, commonly referred to as the Johnson Act, or to create any state enactment authorized by the Johnson Act.
The majority acknowledges the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals has explicitly held the Johnson Act does not preempt state gambling laws: “That federal enactment does not even apply to South Carolina’s territorial waters — it leaves regulation, of those waters to the state.” Casino Ventures v. Stewart, 183 F.3d 307, 312 (4th Cir.1999), rev’g 23 F.Supp.2d 647 (D.S.C.1998), cert. denied 528 U.S. 1077, 120 S.Ct. 793, 145 L.Ed.2d 669 (2000). In fact, as the majority correctly explains, the Fourth Circuit held that any state enactment pursuant to the Johnson Act would determine whether gambling day cruises violate federal law, not state law. Thus, under Casino Ventures, the legislature’s intent statement in Act 125 has no impact on state law whatsoever. Nevertheless, the majority concludes that, because the Fourth Circuit’s opinion in Casino Ventures was not filed until four days after Act 125 was signed into law,15 the General Assembly must have intended to exempt gambling day cruises from the *390general prohibition on possession of gambling tables or devices. In essence, the majority would have us infer this startling intent, in clear contravention of the plain language of these statutes, solely on the basis of an earlier erroneous construction of federal law by the District Court of South Carolina.
Moreover, the majority asserts its interpretation of the legislature’s intent must be correct because subsequent legislation addressing “day cruises” has been rejected. Subsequent legislative acts, however, do not shed light on the intent of the legislature in enacting an earlier statute. Whitner v. State, 328 S.C. 1, 492 S.E.2d 777 (1997).
South Carolina’s authority over gambling activity extends to the State’s territorial waters. See Casino Ventures, 183 F.3d at 308. The criminal statutes of this state unequivocally make it unlawful to keep gambling tables or devices on boats and within this state. See §§ 16-19-40, 16-19-50 and 12-21-2710. We have held mere possession of gambling devices in this state — operational or inoperational, in storage or in use— violates state law. State v. 192 Coin Operated Video Game Machines, supra. If the General Assembly had intended to exempt vessels conducting day cruises from this prohibition, it would have done so in plain terms. See Tilley v. Pacesetter, 333 S.C. 33, 508 S.E.2d 16 (1998) (if legislature had intended certain result in statute it would have said so). The majority’s ruling exempts casino day cruises from the general criminal laws of this state, without any clear expression of legislative intent to do so.
Finally, under the majority’s decision, gambling devices may be kept solely on “United States flag ships” or “United States flag vessels” operating out of a South Carolina port. While the majority does not define “United States flag ship” or “United States flag vessel” it does refer to 18 U.S.C. § 1081 (2000) which defines “American vessel” as:
any vessel documented or numbered under the laws of the United States; and includes any vessel which is neither documented or numbered under the laws of the United States nor documented under the laws of any foreign country, if such vessel is owned by, chartered to, or otherwise controlled by one or more citizens or residents of the United *391States or corporations organized under the laws of the United States or of any State.
(emphasis added).
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1081, “vessel” includes every kind of water ... craft ... or other contrivance used or capable of being used as a means of transportation on water ... as well as any ship, boat, barge, or other water craft or any structure capable of floating on the water.16
Applying the definitions referenced by the majority to its analysis, it is legal for gambling devices to be kept on any type of “contrivance ... capable of being used for transportation on water” or “structure capable of floating on the water” if controlled by a United States citizen or resident. The majority’s opinion suggesting its decision is limited to a very narrow class of water craft (i.e., “United States flag ships” or “United States flag vessels”) is disingenuous or, at best, misleading.
I would reverse the order of the circuit court and hold boats located within South Carolina and its territorial waters are subject to the same laws concerning gambling as any other premises in this state.

. Act 125 was signed into law on July 2, 1999. Casino Ventures was filed on July 6, 1999.

. The Johnson Act does not refer to United States flag ships. While it refers to ''vessels,” it does not define the extent of water craft encompassed by that term.