State v. 149 Slot MacHines

MURPHY, Chief Judge. Maryland Code (1957, 1982 Repl.Vol.) Art. 27, § 264B, codified under the subtitle “Gaming” and new subheading “Slot Machines”, makes it unlawful “to locate, possess, keep, maintain or operate [in Maryland] any slot machine”, as therein defined. 1 Section 255(b), codified under the subtitle “Gaming”, permits volunteer fire companies, bona fide fraternal, civic, war veterans’, religious or charitable organizations desiring to conduct “a carnival, bazaar, or raffle” for their exclusive benefit to “award prizes in cash or in merchandise by such devices as are commonly designated as paddle wheels, wheels of fortune, chance books, bingo, or any other gaming device ...” (emphasis supplied). The issue in this case is whether the phrase “any other gaming ³⁵⁸ device” in § 255(b) encompasses slot machines otherwise prohibited by § 264B. I On September 28, 1984, Maryland State Police officers, executing search and seizure warrants, seized 149 slot machines from nineteen locations in Caroline, Dorchester, Queen Anne’s, Somerset and Talbot Counties.

The seized devices were in the possession of twenty-four organizations, each of which was either a bona fide fraternal or war veterans’ group within the contemplation of § 255(b). The State subsequently filed forfeiture petitions, which were consolidated and transferred to the Circuit Court for Worcester County. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment, stipulating to the following facts: 1) The machines seized by the police were slot machines as defined by § 264B; 2) each machine was used for gambling; and 3) no individual or group of individuals benefitted financially or received any of the proceeds from the machines’ operation. The State contended that slot machines are inherently illegal to possess under § 264B, and thus, were subject to forfeiture as contraband per se.

The organizations, however, argued that § 255(b) exempts such devices from § 264B’s ban on the possession of slot machines. The trial court (Cathell, J.) granted the organizations’ motions and ordered the State to return the slot machines. The court first determined that slot machines are “gaming devices” within the contemplation of § 255(b). It then found that § 264B did not repeal the exemption to the gaming laws contained in § 255(b), and, as a consequence, the slot machines were not contraband per se when held by organizations to which § 255(b) applies.

Therefore, the court concluded, the State could not seize the machines without instituting criminal proceedings. After the State appealed to the Court of Special Appeals, we granted certiorari prior to decision by the intermediate appellate court to consider the important issue raised in the case. ³⁵⁹ II In 1962, then Governor Tawes appointed a committee to recommend procedures to abolish slot machines. That committee, known as the Emory Commission, focused on the four Southern Maryland counties in which commercial gambling was legal; the committee acknowledged, however, that various nonprofit organizations also had licenses for slot machines in these counties. Emory Commission Report at 9.

The committee report also noted that free play “slot machines are prevalent throughout most of the State____ In fact, there are probably more machines in other parts of the State____” Id. at 13. The Report recommended a statewide ban on any machine that could be used as a gambling device. Id. at 14. The General Assembly responded to this Report by enacting Chapter 617 of the Acts of 1963, now codified as § 264B, which flatly proscribed slot machines in Maryland.

In those jurisdictions that allowed slot machines prior to July 1, 1963, however, § 264B.II phased in this prohibition over five years by gradually decreasing the number of machines that could be licensed in each jurisdiction. Uncodified § 4 of the Act provided “[t]hat all laws or parts of laws, public general or public local, inconsistent with the provisions of this Act are hereby repealed to the extent of any such inconsistency.” During pendency of this legislation in the General Assembly, an amendment was proposed to exempt slot machines operated by various nonprofit organizations in Anne Arundel County; the amendment failed. 1963 House Journal 875, 924. At least three other attempts to amend § 264B to authorize the possession of slot machines by various organizations also failed. H.B. 547 (1973); H.B. 1470 (1972); H.B. 722 (1969).

In 1985 and 1986, the General Assembly did pass such legislation, but then Governor Hughes vetoed it. VI Laws of Maryland 3630 (1986) (Governor’s message vetoing S.B. 218); VI Laws of Maryland 3909 (1985) (Governor’s message vetoing S.B. 774). By ch. 157 of the Acts of ³⁶⁰ 1987, the General Assembly authorized certain organizations in eight counties to operate slot machines. 2 Ill As originally enacted by ch. 679 of the Acts of 1949, what is now § 255(b) contained a limited exemption from the State’s antigambling laws for Caroline County. Since that time, the legislature has amended § 255 numerous times, primarily to expand its geographic reach.

Ch. 478 of the Acts of 1981, however, not only added St. Mary’s County, but also expanded the allowable gambling activities permitted in that county and specifically excluded slot machines. 3 "(b) Generally—(1) This subtitle may not be construed to make it unlawful for any volunteer fire company or bona fide fraternal, civic, war veterans’, religious or charitable organization or corporation to conduct or hold a carnival, bazaar, or raffle for the exclusive benefit of any such volunteer fire company or fraternal, civic, war veterans’, religious or charitable organization or corporation, if no individual or group of individuals benefits financially from the holding of any bazaar, carnival, or raffle or receives or is paid any of the proceeds from any carnival, bazaar, or raffle, for personal use or benefit. (2) The organization or corporation may award prizes in cash or in merchandise by such devices as are commonly designated as paddle wheels, wheels of fortune, chance books, bingo, or any other gaming device. (3) However, carnivals, bazaars, or raffles shall be managed by the members of such group, organization or corporation personally through its members. In Carroll County the use of paddle wheels shall be subject to the restrictions of § 258 of this article.

(d) Gaming devices in St. Mary's County.—In St. Mary’s County, a volunteer fire company or bona fide fraternal, civic, war veterans’, religious, or charitable organization or corporation may conduct or hold a carnival, bazaar, or raffle and may operate gaming devices ³⁶¹ which are commonly designated as paddle wheels, wheels of fortune, chance books, bingo, Nevada cards, stamp machines, or any other gaming device, excluding slot machines as defined in § 264B of this article, if no individual or group of individuals benefits financially from the operation of the gaming devices, or receives or is paid any of the proceeds from the operation of the gaming devices for personal use or benefit____ All proceeds from the operation of paddle wheels, wheels of fortune, chance books, bingo, Nevada cards, stamp machines or any other gaming device shall be used solely for the legitimate charitable, benevolent, or exempt pin-poses of the volunteer fire company or bona fide fraternal, civic, war veterans’, religious, or charitable organization or corporation and may not be used to personally benefit any member or members____ The operation of gaming devices shall be personally managed by members of the volunteer fire company or bona fide fraternal, civic, war veterans’, religious, or charitable organization or corporation.” IV In determining whether the phrase “any other gaming device” in § 255(b) encompasses slot machines, we must ascertain the intent of the General Assembly in enacting the two sections. Bridges v. Nicely, 304 Md. 1, 10 , 497 A.2d 142 (1985); Police Comm’r v. Dowling, 281 Md. 412, 418 , 379 A.2d 1007 (1977). In other words, we seek out the legislature’s objective, goal, or purpose. Kaczorowski v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, 309 Md. 505, 513 , 525 A.2d 628 (1987).

In doing that, we look at the statutory language and we look at that language in the context in which it appears, including related statutes, pertinent legislative history, and “other material that fairly bears on the fundamental issue of legislative purpose or goal____” Id. at 515 , 525 A.2d 628 . Furthermore, we construe statutes, if at all feasible, so that no word or phrase is rendered surplus or meaningless. City of Baltimore v. Hackley, 300 Md. 277, 283 , 477 A.2d 1174 (1984);