In a nutshell. Slade v. Caesars doesn’t give the state power to enforce arbitrary exclusions as crimes. It supports private property rights, not state criminal authority. This was a civil case, not a criminal one. It cannot be used as criminal precedent. That's what people don't understand. It simply answered, can the CASINOS trespass for any reason. The answer is YES, but that doesn't matter one bit. The casinos can tell me the sun is pink, I don't give a fuck. They're not the ones prosecuting me and enforcing the statute. If there's no penalties, there's no law. Them trying to get the government involved to do their dirty work won't get through in the higher courts. If they want to prosecute, THEY need to sue and good luck with that.
The question continues to be which I have always said; can the government enforce exclusions that we're done for any reason by a private business or actor? The answer is NO. It would easily breach the 14th amendment. Due process is violated. Equal protection is violated. You can even say the first amendment is violated. Protected non-verbal speech is a protected right. The state cannot criminalize a person for merely thinking strategically during a legal activity.
Don't believe me? Here you go.
Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989): Nonverbal conduct can be protected speech under the First Amendment.
Roberts v. United States Jaycees, 468 U.S. 609 (1984): The right to associate and engage in expressive conduct is fundamental.
Hell, you can even make the argument that NRS 207.200 is void for vagueness. The law’s lack of clarity invites unconstitutional discretion and infringes upon freedom of expression, association, and just operating peacefully inside a gaming establishment.
How is due process violated? Easy. The government is intervening in private party actions trying to enforce criminal penalties to non-threatening, non-disorderly, and non-disruptive behavior such as returning to a casino open to the public, despite engaging only in legal behavior. There was no criminal act, no cheating, no disorderly conduct, and no disruption. This use of the trespass statute is an abuse of prosecutorial discretion. Here's some case law.
United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739 (1987): Government action depriving liberty must be justified by a legitimate purpose.
Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702 (1997): Substantive due process protects individuals from arbitrary and oppressive state actions.
What about equal protection? This has always been my main argument. How is that violated? Easy. The Equal Protection Clause requires the government to treat similarly situated persons alike. The state wants to criminally prosecute you for using a lawful strategy (card counting), while other gamblers who were not card counting are permitted to remain. This differential treatment is not based on a rational or lawful distinction, which the clause has to be. More case law.
City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, 473 U.S. 432 (1985): Arbitrary enforcement based on irrational distinctions violates equal protection.
Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982): State classifications must further a legitimate state interest.
There is no valid governmental interest served by prosecuting someone for peaceful and lawful mental behavior. Could the CASINOS say they are protecting the businesses of the state and therefore have a public interest in defending it due to the amount of tax money they bring in, which Nevada heavily relies upon? No, but they could try. They could probably get away with that at the lower court level, but not at the high courts. If the government criminally enforces arbitrary bans without due process, you could argue that it's not just economic policy, it’s state-sanctioned arbitrary discrimination.
Yes, a Nevada court could say protecting business/tax interests meets rational basis under equal protection.
But no, that doesn’t give the state a free pass to enforce arbitrary exclusions through criminal law unless it’s tied to a legitimate public interest and the person had clear notice and due process.
Here's the best part. This is for every state, even the redskin nigger faggots. Some you might win at the lower court level, others like Illinois where they've had supreme court 'precedent', which was civil similar to Nevada, you would have to win at the higher courts.
Thank me later
Reply With Quote
