MDawg
MDawg
Joined: Sep 27, 2018
  • Threads: 18
  • Posts: 2285
May 3rd, 2021 at 2:46:03 PM permalink
Keep in mind one thing further. At the end of the day, even if you were trying to establish that your person was searched wrongfully, the judge (or jury) might just in the end try to define your case as pivoting only on whether or not it was reasonable to detain you. Remember you are dealing with a trial court level judge - not necessarily an expert in the nuances of the law, and maybe resigned to letting a higher authority settle something as fine tuned as whether the private actor had the right to search your person, or whether you are entitled to damages even if you were searched contrary to statute.
I tell you itís wonderful to be here, man. I donít give a damn who wins or loses. Itís just wonderful to be here with you people.
darkoz
darkoz
Joined: Dec 22, 2009
  • Threads: 251
  • Posts: 7883
May 3rd, 2021 at 3:29:19 PM permalink
Quote: MDawg

Keep in mind one thing further. At the end of the day, even if you were trying to establish that your person was searched wrongfully, the judge (or jury) might just in the end try to define your case as pivoting only on whether or not it was reasonable to detain you. Remember you are dealing with a trial court level judge - not necessarily an expert in the nuances of the law, and maybe resigned to letting a higher authority settle something as fine tuned as whether the private actor had the right to search your person, or whether you are entitled to damages even if you were searched contrary to statute.



Once again, the Defense attorney stipulated to the court at the beginning of trial that no crime was committed!

I'm certain he wanted to remove any questions as to why the police were not called ever for the incident.

MDawg, there is no statute I can think of that gives a shopkeeper the right to search patrons who they admit were never breaking the law.

The problem with your shoplifting example is that shoplifting is a crime.

Using other people players cards is not

Any shoplifting storekeeper statutes will give storekeepers an opportunity to decide IF a crime was committed.

None will give storekeepers the right to detain people for actions known to be legal
For Whom the bus tolls; The bus tolls for thee
DRich
DRich
Joined: Jul 6, 2012
  • Threads: 75
  • Posts: 7273
Thanks for this post from:
AxelWolf
May 3rd, 2021 at 3:56:01 PM permalink
Quote: darkoz

Once again, the Defense attorney stipulated to the court at the beginning of trial that no crime was committed!

I'm certain he wanted to remove any questions as to why the police were not called ever for the incident.

MDawg, there is no statute I can think of that gives a shopkeeper the right to search patrons who they admit were never breaking the law.

The problem with your shoplifting example is that shoplifting is a crime.

Using other people players cards is not

Any shoplifting storekeeper statutes will give storekeepers an opportunity to decide IF a crime was committed.

None will give storekeepers the right to detain people for actions known to be legal



I believe they may be able to detain you on the suspicion that a crime was committed as long as they release you when they have determined a crime was not committed.
Living longer does not always infer +EV
unJon
unJon
Joined: Jul 1, 2018
  • Threads: 14
  • Posts: 2419
May 3rd, 2021 at 4:15:45 PM permalink
Quote: darkoz

Once again, the Defense attorney stipulated to the court at the beginning of trial that no crime was committed!

I'm certain he wanted to remove any questions as to why the police were not called ever for the incident.

MDawg, there is no statute I can think of that gives a shopkeeper the right to search patrons who they admit were never breaking the law.

The problem with your shoplifting example is that shoplifting is a crime.

Using other people players cards is not

Any shoplifting storekeeper statutes will give storekeepers an opportunity to decide IF a crime was committed.

None will give storekeepers the right to detain people for actions known to be legal



Basically agree with DRich and MDawg. Stipulating that a crime was not committed is not the same as having a reasonable suspicion at the time that a crime was committed.
The race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong; but that is the way to bet.
unJon
unJon
Joined: Jul 1, 2018
  • Threads: 14
  • Posts: 2419
May 3rd, 2021 at 4:17:10 PM permalink
Helpful if you answer MDawg question if you know:

1) Under what statute or common law theory did you sue the casino?

2) Did casino point to a statute or common law principle that stood for the proposition that it was ok they detained you?
The race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong; but that is the way to bet.
darkoz
darkoz
Joined: Dec 22, 2009
  • Threads: 251
  • Posts: 7883
May 3rd, 2021 at 4:23:36 PM permalink
Quote: DRich

I believe they may be able to detain you on the suspicion that a crime was committed as long as they release you when they have determined a crime was not committed.



Perhaps if they actually determined a crime was not committed!!!

They never contacted any of the players who's cards I had. After all, they were my people and they kept me notified. The Casino never reached out to them.

Therefore there was no investigation to determine if I was using the cards with or without permission.

The Casino simply didn't care. Their intent was not to determine if a crime was being committed but to detain people using Freeplay off other cards regardless.

I should point out at that time people were being backroomed for using other players cards approximately two times a day. Because the Casino had allowed it and then changed their minds the use of other players cards was rampant.

They had daily Freeplay for points earned specials where you got $10 Freeplay for earning ten points and quite a few people were "card-flipping" which was a term most people in the Casino coined for switching cards after earning ten points repeatedly.

First it was okay, then came the crackdown.

My point is none of those backroomed ever had the police called. Many card-flippers I didn't know but the ones I did told me.

So the Casino didn't really believe any crimes were being committed.

I was just the first person to launch a lawsuit

EDIT:. Shopkeeper privelige for investigation is usually limited to fifteen minutes. Detainment for an hour is not allowed in any jurisdictions I am aware of.

At any rate the case is over. I personally have moved on
For Whom the bus tolls; The bus tolls for thee
onenickelmiracle
onenickelmiracle
Joined: Jan 26, 2012
  • Threads: 211
  • Posts: 8149
May 3rd, 2021 at 8:03:22 PM permalink
Did the casino offer any tempting settlement before the trial at any point?
darkoz
darkoz
Joined: Dec 22, 2009
  • Threads: 251
  • Posts: 7883
Thanks for this post from:
onenickelmiracle
May 3rd, 2021 at 8:14:54 PM permalink
Quote: onenickelmiracle

Did the casino offer any tempting settlement before the trial at any point?



No, they never offered.

They were quite defiant and wanted to go to court.

I suspect the idea of giving me even more money after all I took them for was just too sickening.

I suspect they paid their lawyers over the years more than they would have paid me in settlement.

On the other hand their attorneys may just be a firm on payroll.

Or some combination therof
For Whom the bus tolls; The bus tolls for thee
Wizard
Administrator
Wizard
Joined: Oct 14, 2009
  • Threads: 1372
  • Posts: 22824
May 3rd, 2021 at 9:21:50 PM permalink
Quote: unJon

2) Did casino point to a statute or common law principle that stood for the proposition that it was ok they detained you?



I watched the video of the back rooming. The security goons said he was "stealing points."

Quote: darkoz

No, they never offered.



Before the judge entered the court there was a court official, whose title I don't know, who called both parties one at a time to some room behind the back door of the courtroom. I think the purpose of this was to try to negotiate a last-minute settlement. When everyone was in the courtroom, waiting for the judge to appear, this same man called both attorneys up front. I couldn't hear what was being said, but I could hear the casino's attorney say something like, "I think my client would agree to that."

Then darkoz's attorney came back. I was sitting next to her. I asked her what that was about. She said this court official said something like, "This is at best a $25,000 matter." I don't recall the exact number, but it was about that. Darkoz's attorney said something to the effect that it was an insulting offer. I told her she was absolutely right. It's easy to say in retrospect $25,000 is more than $0, but at the time I was of the understanding that similar cases in Nevada end up in mid-six-figure judgements.

So, yes, the casino's attorney never offered as far as I know. However, I think they would have agreed to the 25k.
It's not whether you win or lose; it's whether or not you had a good bet.
darkoz
darkoz
Joined: Dec 22, 2009
  • Threads: 251
  • Posts: 7883
May 3rd, 2021 at 9:46:37 PM permalink
Quote: Wizard

I watched the video of the back rooming. The security goons said he was "stealing points."



Before the judge entered the court there was a court official, whose title I don't know, who called both parties one at a time to some room behind the back door of the courtroom. I think the purpose of this was to try to negotiate a last-minute settlement. When everyone was in the courtroom, waiting for the judge to appear, this same man called both attorneys up front. I couldn't hear what was being said, but I could hear the casino's attorney say something like, "I think my client would agree to that."

Then darkoz's attorney came back. I was sitting next to her. I asked her what that was about. She said this court official said something like, "This is at best a $25,000 matter." I don't recall the exact number, but it was about that. Darkoz's attorney said something to the effect that it was an insulting offer. I told her she was absolutely right. It's easy to say in retrospect $25,000 is more than $0, but at the time I was of the understanding that similar cases in Nevada end up in mid-six-figure judgements.

So, yes, the casino's attorney never offered as far as I know. However, I think they would have agreed to the 25k.



Yes it was some last minute court suggestion. Of course the Casino would have been happy with $25,000.

Without going to trial my attorney would have received a smaller portion. Five years of her labor added up to more than just accepting under ten grand or so.

She felt the rewards outweighed the risk
For Whom the bus tolls; The bus tolls for thee

  • Jump to: