Court Opinion

ID: 9559496
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 17:30:15.777545+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:11:14.034876
License: Public Domain

ERWIN, Justice,
dissenting.
I dissent from that portion of the majority opinion which holds that the $1,303.95 found in Parent’s left, front pocket, the $140.00 found in his right, front pocket, and the $1,100.00 found in the wallet located on his person are not subject to seizure and destruction as gambling implements within the meaning of AS 11.45.040, which reads:
The commissioner of public safety, a member of the division of state police, or a police or peace officer designated by the commissioner shall seize and destroy a gambling implement.
I reach this result on the basis of the admission made by Parent at the time of his *1272arrest that the money in his front pockets was the “bank” for the craps and blackjack games. In addition the discovery of police bait money in Parent’s wallet indicates that this money as well was being used as the “bank” for the games of chance.
I believe that as a matter of statutory construction, a two-step analysis is required. First it is necessary to determine whether the money in question is a “gambling implement” within the meaning of AS 11.45.040. If the money is a gambling implement, then the words “seize and destroy” used in the statute must be analyzed.
Turning first to the question of whether the money is a “gambling implement,” I view the reasoning of the New Mexico Supreme Court in State v. Johnson, 52 N.M. 229, 195 P.2d 1017 (1948), to be persuasive. In that case the New Mexico court found that money, once placed in a slot machine, became a “component part” of such gambling device, and thus became gambling paraphernalia, subject to seizure.1 I believe that this same reasoning is applicable to the statute in question here, which speaks of “a gambling implement.” To the facts in the case at bar, I would apply the reasoning of the Johnson case, under which the crucial inquiry is whether the subject money had become a component part of the prohibited game of chance.
In Johnson the game involved was the slot machine. As that game is played, the player places a coin in the slot, pulls the lever, and his chance of winning is determined by various combinations of symbols which appear before him. The game is one between man and machine, and the money bet is placed in the machine. Craps and blackjack are somewhat different, however; these games pair man against man. When there are a number of players, each player bets against the dealer, who is the agent of the house “bank.”
In the gaming capitals of the world, house banks are often luxurious rooms located away from the bustle of active gaming. Not so in this case. The “bank” in Valdez was the pockets of the dealer, Mr. Parent. As humble as this “bank” might have been, it nonetheless held the money that was being bet against by the players who had lain their bets on the table. Just as the money in a slot machine which pays off a successful player is part of the slot machine, so the money in the “bank” which is being bet against in craps or blackjack is part of that game. I believe that the money in a craps or blackjack “bank” is part of the game because it provides the stake for which the players bet. Once so classified, it follows that the money in the Valdez “bank” was indeed a gambling implement within the meaning of AS 11.45.040.
We have defined a “gambling implement” within the meaning of an earlier version of AS 11.45.040 as:
any tangible means, instrument, or contrivance by which money may be lost or won as distinguished from the game itself. The device need not be intended solely for gambling purposes. However,
if it is used in such a way that money may be lost or won as a result of its use, then it becomes a gambling implement and is subject to seizure and destruction under our statute.2
I believe that this reasoning should be applied here. Once the money was placed in Parent’s pockets, it became a distinct and separate tangible object, i. e. the “bank.” The “bank” itself was used in such a way that money could be lost or won as a result of its use, just as surely as use of the cards could produce a win or loss.3
*1273Since I find the money to be a gambling implement, the direction to “seize and destroy” found in AS 11.45.040 must be analyzed. The majority reads the statute to require that all items seized be destroyed. My reading of the statute is somewhat different. Again I find the reasoning of the court in Johnson to be persuasive. The New Mexico court held that the money, segregated as gambling paraphernalia, could not be restored to the former owner.4 Likewise, I believe that the appellants have no standing to contest the disposition of the money once it is classified as a gambling implement. Accordingly, I would affirm the court below.

. 195 P.2d at 1020.

. Pin-Ball Machine v. State, 371 P.2d 805, 808 (Alaska 1962) (footnotes omitted).

. This reasoning is supported by the language of the majority opinion herein, which states:
An item which has non-gambling uses can be a “gambling implement” subject to forfeiture under the statute, but only if the state proves that it is used as a material or integral part of the gambling activity. Pin-Ball Machine v. State, 371 P.2d 805, 808 (Alaska 1962); United States v. $3,236, 167 F.Supp. 495, 498 (D. Alaska 1958); Annot., 19 A.L. R.2d 1228, 1232-34 (1951) (citing numerous cases).

. 195 P.2d at 1020, citing Dorrell v. Clark, 90 Mont. 585, 4 P.2d 712 (Mont. 1931).