Could a banned South Carolina video gambling machine become legal by being converted to another use in 2000?

Plain-English summary

South Carolina's law enforcement chief asked whether a video gambling machine would remain illegal if it was changed to play PAC-MAN or serve as an internet gambling device. The June 2000 AG letter said it would. Citing state Supreme Court decisions, it said the machines became contraband subject to forfeiture and destruction on July 1 regardless of their use or operability. Changing their parts or apparent purpose did not cure their status under the rule the letter applied.

The AG also urged the Law Enforcement Division to reconsider allowing owners until July 8 to remove machines from the state. He said the court ruling gave no basis for a grace period past July 1 and urged confiscation from that date. These were statements about the 2000 transition, not a current enforcement deadline.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2000. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later
AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current
legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy
mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Did changing a poker machine into an arcade game make it legal?
A: The AG said no for the machines at issue. The cited court rulings treated possession as unlawful regardless of intended use or operation.

Q: Did a machine have to remain operable to be contraband?
A: No. The letter quoted the court's statement that the machines were subject to forfeiture and destruction regardless of operability.

Q: Did the AG support an extra week to remove machines in 2000?
A: No. He urged the agency to reconsider its July 8 allowance and said confiscation should begin July 1.

Background and statutory framework

The letter relied on Westside Quik Shop v. Stewart and Condon, State v. 192 Game Machines, and Squires v. S.C. Law Enforcement Division. It treated the prohibition as covering the video gambling machines themselves, not merely their current game software or configuration.

Citations and references

• Westside Quik Shop v. Stewart and Condon and State v. 192 Game Machines, on contraband status despite conversion.
• Squires v. S.C. Law Enforcement Division, on seizure of gambling devices despite changes to their assembled form.

Official title

Inquiring as to whether video gambling machines would still be illegal per se if they are converted to other uses such as PAC-MAN or as a device for Internet gambling.

Requester

Robert M. Stewart, Chief, South Carolina Law Enforcement Division

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/june-27-2000/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/00june27stewart.pdf

Original opinion text

The State of South Carolina

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
CHARLIE CONDON
ATTORNEY GENERAL

June 27, 2000

Robert M. Stewart, Chief
South Carolina Law Enforcement Division
P. 0. Box 21398
Columbia, South Carolina 29221-1398
Dear Chief Stewart:
Captain Drakeford inquired by telephone yesterday as to whether video gambling machines would still be illegal per se if they are converted to other uses such as PAC-MAN or as a device for Internet gambling. This letter is to confirm our oral advice yesterday. The Supreme Court in Westside Quik Shop v. Stewart and Condon made the answer to SLED's question very clear. In Westside, the Court stated that ·'on July L ... these machines will become contraband subject to forfeiture and destruction regardless of their use or operabilitv." (Emphasis added). Citing, State v. 192 Game Machines, 338 S.C. 176. 525 S.E.2d 872 (2000). Consistent with the Westside ruling is our opinion to you. dated May 8. 2000, wherein we advised that '1he General Assembly did not intend to play games here .... An illegal video game machine will remain illegal regardless of what parts are removed therefrom or what parts remain thereof.'' And as the Supreme Court said earlier in Squires v. S.C. Law Enforcement Division. 249 S.C. 609. 155 S.E.2d 859 (1967). ·'we think it would abort the legislative purpose to hold that an assembled gambling device is the only one that is condemned and subject to seizure and destruction .... '' Finally, the Supreme Court in State v. 192 Game Machines anticipated that the video gambling industry would attempt to circumvent the statute by converting gambling devices to other types of machines. There. the Court summarized the gambling operators· argument as follows: .. Today, with the advent of the computer. a video game machine is simply a box containing a computer which can be configured to play a variety of games. from poker to PAC-MAN: therefore. the machine itself should not be considered illegal. .. The Court rejected this argument, stating that .. possession of these machines is illegal regardless of their intended use or operation.''

Chief Stewart
Page 2
June 27. 2000

I

bt

Accordingly. all law enforcement agencies should be forewarned: any attempt to circumvent the law making video gambling machines illegal contraband as of July 1 by converting those machines to other uses will not work. The applicable rule is once a video gambling machine. ahvays a video gambling machine. An illegal machine cannot be rendered legal by ruse or ploy. No matter what you call it or hmv you fiddle vvith it a poker machine is a poker machine. With respect to your decision to give owners and operators until July 8 to remove their machines from South Carolina, I would strongly urge you to reconsider. After Westside, there is no basis for any legal argument that an extension or grace period beyond July 1 is warranted. If your decision is based upon the possibility that you might be sued. this Office will, of course. represent you as we did in Westside. Eight months notice is long enough and the machines should be confiscated beginning July 1. Sincerely,

()k~
Charlie Condon
Attorney General
CC/an
cc:

All Local Law Enforcement Agencies