History
  • No items yet
midpage
168 So. 3d 4
Ala.
2014
Read the full case

Background

  • Law-enforcement executed a search warrant at Center Stage Alabama (a bingo facility) on July 25, 2012 and seized 691 electronic gaming devices/servers, three Roubingo tables, $288,657.68 in cash, and business records; State filed a civil forfeiture under § 13A-12-30.
  • Houston County Economic Development Authority (HEDA), operator of Center Stage, intervened; machines were leased and bore county "machine-bingo" stamps under a county resolution implementing Amendment No. 569.
  • Trial was a three-day bench trial with live testimony, depositions (including HEDA’s expert), and video of play; trial court found devices and Roubingo tables were illegal gambling devices and ordered forfeiture and disposition.
  • HEDA appealed, arguing (1) Amendment No. 569, implementing statute, and county resolution exempted the devices from forfeiture; (2) prior bond-validation judgment validated the electronic operation; (3) devices actually played lawful "bingo" as defined by Alabama precedent; and (4) cash/records were not shown to be tied to illegal gambling.
  • The Supreme Court applied the Cornerstone framework (six minimum characteristics of the traditional bingo game) and affirmed: the electronic terminals and Roubingo tables did not meet those characteristics, so they were subject to forfeiture; cash and records were also forfeitable as connected to illegal gambling.

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument (HEDA) Defendant's Argument (State) Held
Whether seized devices played lawful "bingo" under Amendment No. 569 Devices (including electronic depictions of cards and networked play) are bingo; county resolution authorizes electronic equipment and stamps Devices eliminate core human elements of traditional bingo (physical cards, caller, sequential draws, daubing, group competition) Devices and Roubingo do not constitute the traditional game of bingo; forfeiture affirmed
Whether county resolution/implementing statute insulated devices from general antigambling forfeiture §45‑35‑150.15 and the county resolution classify electronic equipment as lawful bingo equipment, exempting them from other penalties Constitutional amendments and Cornerstone control; statutory/resolution definitions cannot expand the constitutional exception to cover devices that are not the traditional game County resolution/statute cannot protect devices that are not actually the traditional bingo game; exemption inapplicable
Whether prior bond‑validation judgment conclusively validated HEDA’s electronic operation Bond‑validation judgment for project financing that referenced fees on "charity bingo machines" conclusively validated the legality of the machines under §11‑81‑224 Bond validation only concerned validity of obligations/revenue streams, not legality of specific gaming devices Bond‑validation judgment did not preclude litigation over whether the devices were lawful; not dispositive
Whether seized cash and records were subject to forfeiture Cash/records were ordinary business assets and not proven to be proceeds or instrumentalities of illegal gambling Cash was seized from registers/vaults tied to operations; records documented gambling activity and winnings Trial court’s factual finding that cash and records were connected to illegal gambling is supported; forfeiture proper

Key Cases Cited

  • Barber v. Cornerstone Cmty. Outreach, Inc., 42 So.3d 65 (Ala. 2009) (defines "bingo" as the traditional game and sets out elements for analysis)
  • Riley v. Cornerstone, 57 So.3d 704 (Ala. 2010) (recognizes physical cards and traditional, non-electronic play in bingo analysis)
  • Ex parte State, 121 So.3d 337 (Ala. 2013) (applies Cornerstone elements and distinguishes electronic marking machines where amendment expressly permits them)
  • Smith v. Muchia, 854 So.2d 85 (Ala. 2003) (explains ore tenus standard of appellate review for bench trials)
  • Hagan v. Commissioner's Court of Limestone County, 160 Ala. 544, 49 So. 417 (Ala. 1909) (principle that constitutional language is to be given common-sense meaning)
Read the full case

Case Details

Case Name: Houston County Economic Development Authority v. State of Alabama
Court Name: Supreme Court of Alabama
Date Published: Nov 21, 2014
Citations: 168 So. 3d 4; 2014 Ala. LEXIS 183; 2014 WL 6608547; 1130388
Docket Number: 1130388
Court Abbreviation: Ala.
Log In
    Houston County Economic Development Authority v. State of Alabama, 168 So. 3d 4