Pennsylvania State Police, Bureau of Liquor Control Enforcement v. Legion Post 304 Home Ass'n
164 A.3d 612
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2017Background
- Officer Rosenstock investigated Legion Post 304 and bought two $1 “Bonanza Bingo” tickets (April 28, 2013) and later found the club’s small-games and bingo licenses had expired (April 4 and August 20, 2013). He concluded games ran after the expiration dates.
- The State Police issued a citation charging violations of the Local Option Small Games of Chance Act (Count One) and the Bingo Law plus the Liquor Code (Count Two) for conducting games after license expiration.
- The ALJ dismissed the citation for defective notice and deemed Bonanza Bingo a lawful form of bingo. The Liquor Control Board reversed in part, finding games were run after expiration and remanding for penalties, but concluded Bonanza Bingo fit the Bingo Law definition.
- The trial court affirmed the Board’s decision that Bonanza Bingo meets the statutory definition of “bingo,” rejected the State Police’s contention that it was a pull-tab style game, and remanded to the ALJ to impose penalties. The ALJ later imposed $700 in fines.
- Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court considered (1) whether the ALJ’s penalty order was appealable directly to the court and (2) on the merits whether Bonanza Bingo qualifies as “bingo” under 10 P.S. §303. The court affirmed the trial court: Bonanza Bingo is bingo and the penalty order was final and not before the Board.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Bonanza Bingo is a lawful form of “bingo” under the Bingo Law | State Police: Bingo statute contemplates traditional call bingo; Bonanza Bingo is pre-drawn and functions like pull-tabs, so it falls outside the Bingo Law | Licensee: Statute’s language is broad and permits preannounced combinations and use of non-mechanical methods; Bonanza Bingo fits §303’s definition | Court: Bonanza Bingo meets §303 (preannounced combinations, prize-awarding allowed); not a pull-tab; affirmed as lawful bingo |
| Whether Bonanza Bingo is a “pull-tab” under Small Games Act | State Police: Mechanics (pre-drawn master card, tickets sold through the day) make it a pull-tab (strip) game | Licensee: Pull-tabs have pre-designated winning tickets; Bonanza’s winners depend on master card so not pre-determined | Court: Bonanza is not a pull-tab; winners depend on master card, players must compare cards; therefore not a pull-tab |
| Whether the ALJ’s penalty order was appealable directly to Commonwealth Court without Board review | State Police: Trial court decided law; ALJ on remand only ministerially set penalties; direct appeal is permitted | Implicit (Board/Licensee): ALJ’s remand required exercise of discretion; appeals must follow statutory route | Court: Because neither party appealed the ALJ’s penalty, that adjudication became final and beyond Board review; but the legal issue as decided by the trial court could be appealed to Commonwealth Court; appeal on bingo issue allowed |
| Proper construction of Bingo Law when ambiguous | State Police: Statute should be read to cover traditional play; penal/gambling statutes strictly construed | Licensee: Statute’s plain language authorizes preannounced combinations and non-mechanical number selection | Court: Applied plain-language construction; §303 contemplates preannounced combinations and allows non-mechanical selection; statutory strictness did not bar this form of bingo |
Key Cases Cited
- Pennsylvania State Police, Bureau of Liquor Control Enforcement v. Kenrich Athletic Club, 49 A.3d 13 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012) (ALJ ministerial implementation of an unappealed adjudication is not an adjudication appealable to the Board)
- Fumo v. Hafer, 625 A.2d 733 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1993) (statutory interpretation starts with plain language and applies rules to avoid surplusage)
- Pennsylvania State Police, Bureau of Liquor Control Enforcement v. Capek, 657 A.2d 1352 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1995) (trial court’s de novo review power over Board decisions)
- Erie Sports Bar, Inc. v. Pennsylvania State Police, Bureau of Liquor Control Enforcement, 6 A.3d 663 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010) (standard of appellate review over trial court’s decision on Board matters)
- Shuster v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission), 745 A.2d 1282 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2000) (distinguishes appealability of remand orders in a different administrative context)