In 1985, the state of Nevada passed its first "anti-device" law, making computer play, hidden video camera play, etc., illegal for blackjack players. This law was immediately criticized by attorneys as being unconstitutional due to its "vagueness."

When a blackjack player by the name of Philip Anderson was busted for using a concealed computer in a Las Vegas casino shortly after the anti-device law went into effect, the law was challenged in court. And it was challenged on the basis of its being unconstitutional precisely because it was too vague. To no one's surprise, the player won his case. The judge acknowledged that the law was simply too vague to be legitimate.

What do we mean by "vague?" The law simply states that no player may use a "device" as an aid in making betting decisions in a casino. But it doesn't define what it means by "device." Therefore, according to this Nevada law, a rabbit's foot could be construed as such a device, and having one on your person at the gaming tables could be construed as felony cheating. The Daily Racing Form could be illegal to read in the casino's race book, because it's a device used in making betting decisions. Roulette and baccarat players could be forbidden to write down past results, as such players have traditionally done, as the pens and paper could be construed as "devices" that were being used to aid in their decision-making. As the law was worded, no distinction was made between computer devices, electronic devices, intelligent devices, hidden devices, or any other types of devices. All "devices" used in the casino for aiding a player in betting decisions were simply declared cheating devices. These were the types of arguments made by Philip Anderson's attorney, and the judge agreed and threw out the case.

The state appealed the verdict to the Nevada Supreme Court. And guess what? The Nevada Supreme Court refused to make a ruling on the anti-device law's constitutionality. Why? Let's see ... If the supreme court ruled that the law was unconstitutionally vague, then the law would have to be removed from the books. Players would again be allowed to use concealed computers, communication devices, high-tech electronic devices, etc. Keith Taft would be back in business. But if the court ruled that the law was not unconstitutionally vague, then the judges would have to explain the logic of their decision, and such a decision defied all logic.

So, the court stated that it simply would not rule on the constitutionality issue, and the law still stands. Many attorneys to this day believe that a serious court challenge could quash the Nevada law as written (and many other states have copied Nevada's anti-device law verbatim into their statutes). But few players have much desire to take a stand in court and face a possible prison sentence.

Let's just say the Nevada justice system is somewhat biased toward the casinos' side of the issues. A cynic might believe that this is because judges are elected in Nevada, and the casinos provide the majority of the funds for the judges' election campaigns. A judge who rules against the casinos in any big case might find his campaign fund a bit thin when the next election rolls around.

Article Source: http://www.ArticleBlast.com