Nevada trespass laws amended to 2 years

I know tableplay recently advertised Munchkin's new podcast, Life is a gamble, but card counters, or any trespassed AP's might want to skip ahead to episode 6, where our favorite attorney, Mr Nersesian, makes the announcement that lifetime trespass bans have now been amended to be good for only two years.

My take-aways. 1.) Casino and casinos personnel will likely be unaware of this change, (or pretend to be), so if you go running back to a casino where your trespass is more than 2 years old, and they "grab" you, be prepared to tell them to look at the new amended NRS 207.200.

2.) if you are familiar to that casino that trespassed you, they probably will just trespass you again, for another 2 years.

3.) Mr Nersesian isn't sure exactly what this means to anyone who signed an agreement not to return as part of any settlement. My only trespass falls into this category, but I have another year and a half to figure out how that will effect me.

In the end, I don't think it is spectacularly great news as casinos will just be re-trespassing player every 2 years and maybe even more on the lookout for previously trespassed players.

Edit: I now see that DGenBen previously announced this in the cosmopolitan thread. My apologies as I did not see that. Probably should have it's own thread anyway, although I really don't think it is as great of news as Munchkin and Mr Nersesian think it is.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nyIxxjvLR54

See, this is a good kewlJ thread. That's what I like to see from him. More Vegas/gambling news, and fewer tall tales. I have removed some trolling in the thread, and please do NOT troll kewlJ here. Stick to the 10000 other kewlJ threads up on the forum right now.

Anyway, someone else sent this to me on Friday. My first thought was, "Oh, this is useless. They'll just re-ban you if you set foot on the property again."

However, there are several applications to this to where it can be a positive for APs:

1) You have physically changed a lot since you were banned, and now can play at these properties again without fear or arrest. This is especially true if you never gave your name to them, but even if you did, you can still play without a card and not fear arrest for being associated with the previous trespass.

2) You simply desire to be able to visit the property and not gamble there anymore. This is the situation for many Vegas-based APs. Because the strip is often where the "action" is in Vegas, banned APs run into the frustration of not being able to socialize with friends at the casinos, clubs, and restaurants located in properties where they've caught a ban. Now they can do so again, without fear of arrest.

3) You did something stupid to get banned, and just want to run under-the-radar plays. Again, now you can do this without fear of arrest.


However, this won't do you much good if you desire to do anything on property which requires showing ID. This means you might as well not try to book a room at one of these properties (they can re-ban you before you check in -- or even after), and you can't play something like WSOP if you're banned from Caesars, as the system will immediately flag you upon registration.

This is overall very good news for APs.

I do agree with Bob, by the way, that you should definitely print out a copy of the statute and have it in your pocket, just in case you are detained and told you're under arrest.

And it probably is better that you wait some time before setting foot on these properties, as you want all of the casinos to get the memo about the amended statute.

Here is the revised statute NRS 207.200: https://casetext.com/statute/nevada-...st-trespassing


Here is the important part of 207.200:

Quote:

---

1. Unless a greater penalty is provided pursuant to NRS 200.603, any person who, under circumstances not amounting to a burglary:

(a) Goes upon the land or into any building of another with intent to vex or annoy the owner or occupant thereof, or to commit any unlawful act; or

(b) Willfully goes or remains upon any land or in any building after having been warned during the previous 24 months by the owner or occupant thereof not to trespass, is guilty of a misdemeanor. The meaning of this subsection is not limited by subsections 2 and 4.

---

Here is SB412, the bill which amended the law on June 13, 2023: https://trackbill.com/bill/nevada-se...-1091/2408171/

Here is the relevant text from that bill:

Quote:

---

Existing law generally provides that a person who, under circumstances not amounting to a burglary, willfully goes or remains upon any land or in any building after having been warned by the owner or occupant thereof not to trespass is guilty of a misdemeanor. (NRS 207.200) Section 36.5 of this bill requires that such a warning by an owner or occupant must have been given during the previous 24 months.

---

Here's the official Nevada legislature site, and the overview of SB412, which shows it almost unanimously approved on June 5, and then signed by the governor on June 13: https://www.leg.state.nv.us/App/NELI...10421/Overview



Don't expect some security thug to want to read any of this, though. If arrested for trespassing, and not been given the order not to return in the past 24 months, immediately demand a visit by Gaming.

My brother, who also plays blackjack for a living in Las Vegas and I, were discussing this amended trespass law this morning. He has never been trespassed, so it doesn't affect him at this time. Additionally, I was a bit surprised to learn that he has had only 6 backoffs, 0 trespasses, and 0 entries into the databases (that we know of). This is his 8th year and 6 backoffs. That is outstanding.

So he said something I hadn't thought of. He said because of this new amended law, some players that return to a property they have been trespassed, will likely be arrested, especially in the first few months. Those charges would eventually be dropped, but probably not until after spending a night or 2 in jail. And that could provide an opportunity for a false arrest legal case. This immediately made me think of a member of this forum (who sometimes posts rants) that once mentioned he was looking for an opportunity to sue casinos. Here ya go fella.

The larger issue is whether lifetime trespass bans are even valid. It's hard to get an answer to that, unless the state's statute has something to say directly on point, which it looks like Nevada's now does.

In California for example, it would seem that the length of the ban depends on what the person did in the first place to warrant exclusion. The below cited section refers to someone who commited a crime in the first place and was excluded at the same time.

Penal Code 602:

(t) (1) Entering upon private property, including contiguous land, real property, or structures thereon belonging to the same owner, whether or not generally open to the public, after having been informed by a peace officer at the request of the owner, the owner’s agent, or the person in lawful possession, and upon being informed by the peace officer that they are acting at the request of the owner, the owner’s agent, or the person in lawful possession, that the property is not open to the particular person; or refusing or failing to leave the property upon being asked to leave the property in the manner provided in this subdivision.

(2) This subdivision applies only to a person who has been convicted of a crime committed upon the particular private property.

(3) A single notification or request to the person as set forth above shall be valid and enforceable under this subdivision unless and until rescinded by the owner, the owner’s agent, or the person in lawful possession of the property.

(4) Where the person has been convicted of a violent felony, as described in subdivision (c) of Section 667.5, this subdivision applies without time limitation. Where the person has been convicted of any other felony, this subdivision applies for no more than five years from the date of conviction. Where the person has been convicted of a misdemeanor, this subdivision applies for no more than two years from the date of conviction. Where the person was convicted for an infraction pursuant to Section 490.1, this subdivision applies for no more than one year from the date of conviction. This subdivision does not apply to convictions for any other infraction.

A private business has the right to exclude anyone, so long as the exclusion doesn't rise to some level of unconstitutional discrimination. But for how long is an issue that is unclear in many jurisdictions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MDawg

The larger issue is whether lifetime trespass bans are even valid. It's hard to get an answer to that, unless the state's statute has something to say directly on point, which it looks like Nevada's now does.

---

Okay, finally something we can have a reasonable useful discussion about.

I have been arguing for several years now that trespasses are not what they appear to be. I am basing that on a case, I believe involving Jerry's Nugget in North Las Vegas, where a player was arrested after returning after he had been trespassed. The judge ruled that the player had to be given the opportunity to leave again, before being arrested for trespassing each and every time.

In other words (by my understanding), if a player were to return to a casino after a trespass, they had to remind him he is trespassed and give him the opportunity to leave before he could be arrested. But it is one of those situations where being right isn't enough. The player would likely be arrested by casino personnel and police either not understanding the law or intentionally not complying, and would have to go through the hassle of going to court, maybe spending time in jail before the charges were dropped. So just way more hassle than it is worth, which is what I think this new amended trespass law will amount to.

Just too much hassle. This is were casinos and the industry win, even when they are in the wrong. They just harrass and intimidate. Who wants to go through all that. Better to apply thing and do what you need to do to not be in that situation in the first place than to try to fight it, even when in the right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MDawg

The larger issue is whether lifetime trespass bans are even valid. It's hard to get an answer to that, unless the state's statute has something to say directly on point, which it looks like Nevada's now does.

---

Okay, finally something we can have a reasonable useful discussion about.

I have been arguing for several years now that trespasses are not what they appear to be. I am basing that on a case, I believe involving Jerry's Nugget in North Las Vegas, where a player was arrested after returning after he had been trespassed. The judge ruled that the player had to be given the opportunity to leave again, before being arrested for trespassing each and every time.

In other words (by my understanding), if a player were to return to a casino after a trespass, they had to remind him he is trespassed and give him the opportunity to leave before he could be arrested. But it is one of those situations where being right isn't enough. The player would likely be arrested by casino personnel and police either not understanding the law or intentionally not complying, and would have to go through the hassle of going to court, maybe spending time in jail before the charges were dropped. So just way more hassle than it is worth, which is what I think this new amended trespass law will amount to.

Just too much hassle. This is were casinos and the industry win, even when they are in the wrong. They just harrass and intimidate. Who wants to go through all that. Better to apply thing and do what you need to do to not be in that situation in the first place than to try to fight it, even when in the right.

---

You need to know the judge's jurisdiction/court to know if the case above would mean anything. If it was just the county judge dealing directly with the charges then it really doesn't matter. If he appealed it to a higher court then it might have some bearing.

If the casino has you arrested for being trespassed 2+ years prior then I would think they would have a civil liability. The officer and whomever he works for (government entity) would likely not be on the hook for a civil case. Given this - it seems unlikely that they would arrest you once the law is known and surely it would become known rather quickly by the people who make the trespass call. They would just trespass you again and given they would know who you are it would be effective.

This is my understanding but I'm not an attorney or a LV AP nor do I know that much about the specifics of this stuff. (Queue Redietz finding something to jump on)

Hey, long day, but made it out for a nice walk. The highlight was a guy who asked me for money for a loaf of bread. I had about three or four dollars in change on me. I let him talk, for about twenty minutes. Obviously actively schizophrenic, but, quite a stream, something about others putting glue into him to turn him into something called a monkey pod, and, next, a detailed story of his personal history. Impeccable vocabulary, very well traveled, generally a likeable guy who, I guess, just needed someone to talk to. He ended our conversation, said he wasn't on drugs or anything, wasn't buying any. I said, yeah, I can see that. The gist is that that guy was a lot more interesting than, say, something about, again, trespassing in a casino. I mean, what the heck when it comes down to something like that, in the first place?

What, Dan's now going to try to track down Blackhole at GF's to see that he, too, wants to come back? Ha. I guess, given that Crimm is pretty well played-out, no longer interest in "dessert", well, then there can't be much time left on either his "clock". Reminds of being banned by Druff, Druff, for warning off a newbie. In hindsight, I saved that guy years of the KJ sort of stuff.

Ah, great dessert, tonight, guys! Really enjoyed it.

I guess, for those who didn't understand the above, the question was who goes where they aren't welcome? Businesses don't have the natural right to expect to serve only the welcome? Part 2, that I am unwelcome for pointing out the truth? Ha.