Janelle Irwin Taylor
A House bill seeking to crack down on illegal gambling operations in the state has cleared its second committee, but concerns remain about unintended consequences and a potential lack of clarity.
The bill (HB 189) cleared the House Appropriations Committee after debate established some potential drawbacks, including ensnaring unknowing employees into legal trouble.
Broadly, the bill increases penalties for operating an illegal gambling house or establishment with illegal slot machines, establishes fines for violations and prohibits advertising unauthorized betting establishments.
The bill sponsor, Rep. Michelle Salzman, said the bill addresses reports of adult arcades and internet cafes that have “sneakily infiltrated our communities” and seeks to cut off “financial lifelines for drug trades and human trafficking.” She said it aims to protect consumers who may fall victim to the addictive properties of gambling on machines that lack consumer protection.
While the bill cleared the committee, it did so with some pushback. Several members raised concerns, including Reps. Dan Daley, Christopher Benjamin, Mike Gottlieb and Patricia Williams.
Williams said she hopes to come to some compromises so she can support the bill, but for now is leery of the “unintended consequences.”
Daley likewise had concerns, particularly that the language is “too broad” and would catch “too many folks in the net.”
Gottlieb said his concerns centered on language pertaining to managers, because some establishments may have gaming machines that violate statute but low-level managers who aren’t aware.
Salzman defended her bill, noting that it specifically adds the word “knowingly” to statute regarding charges against managers in establishments where illegal slot machines are located.
But Benjamin noted that just because a person might be able to reasonably defend themselves and either beat or have charges dropped, a felony interaction could still prove detrimental to their lives.
“Yes, I can defend myself but there used to be a saying that, you might beat the charge, but you can’t beat the ride,” he said, adding that one felony arrest, even if it’s later dropped, can still come up on background checks or when individuals are applying for things like home loans or school volunteer opportunities.
“I don’t think we should be doing that to folks who have no idea of what’s going on,” he added.
A representative from the amusement machine industry also pushed back noting similar unintended consequences and bill language fallacy.
Jonathan Zachem, a subject matter expert representing the Amusement Machine Association of Florida, said the “unintended consequences” to “some of the small actors” would be a drain on local resources, including police, judiciary and prosecutorial budgets.
That’s because, he said, managers who were ignorant of any gaming violations may clog criminal justice systems fighting charges. He also added that gaming devices all have similar cases and screens and can be modified, adding to concerns that those in violation of state gaming statute may not know they are.
Still, supporters see a need for enhanced penalties and enforcement.
“What we don’t want is unregulated gambling in our state,” said Rep. Randy Fine. “People are always trying to push the envelope … it’s our job to make sure that we’re holding the line.”
Salzman likewise defended the bill.
“If you put money in the machine and you expect to get money back, that’s a slot machine,” she said, highlighting her perception that the bill is quite clear.
She said the state gaming commission gives establishments warning before issuing any fines or before seeking arrests, thus alleviating concerns about unsuspecting night managers getting ensnared in legal trouble. Salzman also said the bill is needed to give law enforcement teeth “so that they can go after bad actors.”
Salzman’s bill would increase the penalty for keeping a gambling house from a second-degree misdemeanor to a third-degree felony.
The bill would also establish a first-degree misdemeanor for statute violation, with an increased penalty to a third-degree felony if the person is acting as a manager or has a prior conviction for violating the slot machine statute. The penalty rises to a second-degree felony if the person is acting as a manager, the violation involves five or more slot machines and/or has two or more convictions for violating the slot machine statute.
It defines manager as “a person who, at any business, establishment, premises, or other location at which a slot machine or device is offered for play” has the authority to “operate or hold open” the establishment, supervise other employees or has an ownership interest.
It also adds penalties for trafficking in slot machines for “any person who knowingly sells, purchases, manufactures, transports, delivers, or brings into this state more than 15 slot machines or devices or any part thereof.” The penalty for such violation would be a first-degree felony.
The bill would also impose fines for trafficking slot machines, including $100,000 for a violation that included more than 15 slot machines or devices, but fewer than 25; $250,000 for 25-49 slot machines or devices; or $500,000 for 50 or more.
Fines collected under the bill would be placed into the Pari-mutuel Wagering Trust Fund for use on enforcement efforts by the Florida Gaming Control Commission.
Other penalties would be established for the sale or attempted sale of five or more slot machines — a second-degree felony — and for knowingly transporting for hire five or more persons “into our within this state when he or she knows or reasonably should know such transportation is for the purpose of facilitating illegal gambling” — a first-degree misdemeanor.
If that number reaches 12 or more, the violation would be a third-degree felony.
The bill would also establish rules against advertising illegal gambling operations and would preempt local counties, cities or other local government entities from enacting or enforcing an ordinance or local rule “relating to gaming, gambling, lotteries, or any activities” already defined in statute.
Salzman’s bill has now cleared two committees and heads to a third, Judiciary.
The House bill is comparable to another in the Senate (SB 1046). That bill has cleared one of three committee stops.
