State v. Machines, Civil 3473

• Court: Supreme Court of Arizona
• Writing for the Court: ROSS, J.
• Citation: 40 P.2d 748,45 Ariz. 118
• Parties: STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellant, v. FIFTEEN SLOT MACHINES, Appellee
• Docket Number: Civil 3473
• Decision Date: 28 January 1935

40 P.2d 748

45 Ariz. 118

STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellant,
v.
FIFTEEN SLOT MACHINES, Appellee

Civil No. 3473

Supreme Court of Arizona

January 28, 1935

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of the County of Maricopa. Henry C. Kelly, Judge. Reversed and remanded, with the direction that the demurrer be sustained.

Mr. Renz L. Jennings, County Attorney, Mr. A. David Latham, Deputy County Attorney, and Mr. Arthur T. La Prade, Attorney General of the State of Arizona, for Appellant.

No appearance for Appellee.

OPINION [40 P.2d 749]

[45 Ariz. 119] ROSS, J.

The trial court disposed of this case as it did case No. 3472, State of Arizona v. Gambling Equipment, ante, p. 112, 40 P.2d 746, just decided. The proceedings in the two cases are very much alike. They differ in this very material respect: In case No. 3472 the gambling equipment was seized under a search warrant and was thereafter in custodia legis. In the present case the slot machines were seized by the sheriff and taken away from the operators or owners without any warrant or process whatever. The owners or operators were not arrested or charged with any offense. These slot machines were never in custodia legis, as was the gambling equipment in case No. 3472.

The statutes authorize a peace officer to arrest a person who is committing a crime in his presence (section 4937, Rev. Code 1928), but we know of no law that authorizes such officer to seize the means with which the crime was committed, except as evidence against the criminal. The law does not provide for the seizure of gambling devices nor for their forfeiture or destruction. One who plays the gambling games denounced, or maintains or keeps a place where they are played, or leases a building or house for a gambling resort, may be punished by fine or imprisonment or both. Sections 4671-4676, Rev. Code 1928. But his property cannot be condemned or taken or confiscated, the law not having so provided. State of Arizona v. Gambling Equipment, supra.

The owners and operators of the slot machines demurred to the complaint on the ground that it appeared upon the face thereof that the court did not have jurisdiction over the subject-matter of the action or the parties.

[45 Ariz. 120] The whole proceeding was extra judicium. We have no law authorizing the sheriff to take possession of or seize gambling implements simply because they are such. He may arrest the one violating the gambling law upon a warrant, or without a...