Pennsylvania State Police, Bureau of Liquor Control Enforcement v. Legion Post 304 Home Association
Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court
164 A.3d 612 (2017)
- Written by Abby Roughton, JD
Facts
Legion Post 304 Home Association (Legion) (defendant) offered patrons a game called Bonanza Bingo, in which patrons could purchase $1 tickets and then compare the tickets to a master board to see if they had won any prizes. The master board had “Bingo” printed at the top, with five numbers below each letter and a “free” space in the middle. A bartender changed the numbers daily based on a random drawing from a deck of cards. In August 2013, Officer William Rosenstock of the Pennsylvania State Police Bureau of Liquor Control Enforcement (the police) (plaintiff) inspected Legion and learned that Legion’s small-games-of-chance and bingo licenses had expired in April 2013 and that Legion was still conducting such games, including Bonanza Bingo. Rosenstock cited Legion for violating Pennsylvania’s Local Option Small Games of Chance Act and Bingo Law. An administrative-law judge (ALJ) dismissed the citation on due-process grounds and noted that Bonanza Bingo was a lawful form of bingo. The Liquor Control Board (the board) reversed the ALJ’s decision in part, finding, among other things, that Legion had violated Pennsylvania law by offering Bonanza Bingo after its bingo license had expired. The board also concluded that Bonanza Bingo was lawful under the Bingo Law. The police appealed to the trial court, arguing that Bonanza Bingo was not authorized under the Bingo Law, because the statutory definition of bingo encompassed only “call bingo,” which involved a card or board with a “free” space and rows of figures that were covered by the player based on numbers called by an announcer. According to the police, Bonanza Bingo was closer to a pull-tab or strip-ticket game, i.e., a game involving tickets with numbers or symbols in which one or more of each set of tickets had been predesignated as a winner. The trial court rejected the police’s argument, and the police appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Leavitt, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.