Comments on: Nevada casino security guards illegally detain man after taking photos

By: Chris

Chris — Mon, 16 Aug 2010 10:01:23 +0000

casino security can detain and arrest another individual if he has commited a misdemeanor in his or her presense, believes the individual to have commited a felony, though not in his or her presense, or believes imminent harm is about to occur to him or her or another person due to the individuals actions. Know what your talking about before you post nonsense on the www. A casino is PRIVATE PROPERTY, those that patronize said establishment are beholden to their code of conduct, rules and regulations; don’t go into another persons home and wontonly take photographs without asking of the privilage first.

By: Bergman

Bergman — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 10:25:50 +0000

The fact he is standing on their private property grants them no rights to interfere with his private property. It would be equally reasonable to claim that because he owns (and is standing on) the soles of his shoes, then he cannot ever trespass.

By: Robin L.

Robin L. — Tue, 05 Jan 2010 22:33:51 +0000

@Pctahlequah You know what also draws out the process of escorting someone off the property? Preventing them from leaving and calling the police to come explain to you that they didn’t break any law. Seems to me it was the security guards in this story blowing things out of proportion and escalating a situation that was about to resolve itself.

By: Pctahlequah

Pctahlequah — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 17:43:33 +0000

Photography policies in casinos are designed for two things; to protect the casino from someone who is “casing” the establishment for a possible robbery or cheating and to protect the privacy of our guests. My casino’s policy on taking photos:
Guests cannot take pictures of live table games or an electronic game that is opened for repairs.
No pictures of cashier areas, to include employees on the gaming floor providing change for guests.
No pictures of Back of House access points.
No pictures of Surveillance camera placement.
No pictures of other guests without that guest’s permission.
For the most part, we have no issues with guests violating this policy. We display works of art on our gaming floor, and guest are welcome to take pictures of it, as long as none of the above rules are violated. If a guest is suspected of having done so, we will advise them of our policy and ask to see the photos. If they decline, that is their right, but they will be banned from the property and escorted out. We try to do this as quickly and courteously as possible, but sometimes we have someone like the man who wrote this article that just blows everything out of proportion and refuses to listen to reason. This draws the process out.

By: Steve M

Steve M — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 14:42:00 +0000

Most people understand Casinos prohibit Photography for three reasons. A, to protect their layout and camera placements from being studied, To protect against cheating and C, to protect their patrons from being exposed while in their establishment. I mean what if Mr X was out with Ms. B while X is Maried to C. Get what I mean?

But if you do get off any shots, they are yours and cannot be confiscated or demanded to be deleted. The Photographer however can be asked to leave and banned for life from said establishment.

By: Rgf

Rgf — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 03:43:22 +0000

I think that there are two sides to every story. I think in this story, there was a misunderstanding by the security guards of what the picture was going to be used for. I believe that if a public visitor is allowed to go inside a private place, the casino, then there is an inferred or implied permission to access the casino. From this viewpoint it would be easy to infer or imply that permission was granted to that person to take pictures. There were no signs to prohibit it. So if someone, off the street, was allowed to enter a private place by inferance because the door is open and it says welcome, and the person walks inside for the legitimate purpose i.e.; to visit, to enjoy or entertain themselves, or have a meal, etc. inside, it would be very easy believe that taking picture would be perfectly fine. Granted, the security guards, might have developed a suspicion of what this visitor was doing with the camera, but they did not know if it was a felony or misdemeanor. They would have had to ascertain with more information about what this visitor was doing, why they were doing it, and for what purpose. but it didn’t entitle them to detain the person for a certain period of time inside the casino. They might have wanted to determine if there was any probable cause for a specific felony with what information they had obtained. and exercise proper legal choices for action. They might have been thinking that if, the photograph from the camera would have fallen into the wrong hands, perhaps a conspiracy plot , that it could be suspicious as a felony. Or the camera might have been used to shine a bad light on the place or people, which would just be a misdemeanor. This in turn could have been shared with other people, to produce bad publicity, and perhaps give a competitor a favorable advantage.
It is interesting to note, that all casinos have surveilance cameras posted every where 24/7 inside their businesses, and I am sure we all know that pictures are taking of us all the time. But is it really legal? Do casinos really have the right to take pictures of us, if no felonies have been committed, not even probable cause or suspicion. Do they really have a legal right to do this inside a casino. Is there any difference between a visitor taking a picture of people or things versus the casino management , inside a casino. This raises alot of questions about whose civil rights are really violated. Are the federal, state, county and laws that are on the books now, favor big businesses, or the small guys. What do you think? handed with the general public.
It appears that there are more than one standard being used measure the right to take pictures. Who is right? Big business, or the small guy?, From the view of the small guy, the visitor, he might only be thinking about taking a picture as a momento, of a good memory. But, in the eyes of corporate america he is considered a crook and a criminal. By whose laws? Corporate america?
I believe the visitors intentions were legitimate. There were no signs conspicuously posted that prohibited taking pictures inside the casino. Is it right for the casino surveilance cameras also to take a picture of the same wall murial? Also, is it legal for the casino to take unauthorized pictures of every patron in the casino, without their expressed written permission first?
Security guards probably thought that they were doing the right thing. But were they? Does this person look suspicious? Do I trust this person? By thinking this way all the time, innocent people can be considered suspects and real criminals, can actually get away, and go unnoticed. It has happened. Is it possible that some security guards can possibly live on the thrill of the rush, getting into a situation, wearing their uniform, badge, and gun, to do things that they normally wouldn’t do. There was probably a combination of many different factors, which led the visitor and the security guard to meet on that fatefull day, and react the way they did. Both people believed they were right in their own mind. But what really did happen? Ultimately, I feel it is a combination of strong egos, and a breakdown in communication that led to the showdown. Sometimes there isn’t much time to think, since it can happen so quickly.

By: Kurt

Kurt — Mon, 23 Feb 2009 22:41:55 +0000

“You have no constitutional rights to photograph on private property, so it’s not like you are ruining it for everyone else.”

Maybe not, but the photographs are still yours even if you took them while committing a crime.

About the most the security guards can do in this case is to ask someone to leave.

In many cases the security guards may be committing the crime. I’m not familiar with NV law, but in most states security guards would be making a ‘citizens arrest’ if they were to detain someone. In most states this can only be done for a felony *actually witnessed by the arrestor*. Even in this case strict liability is usually applied to any arrestor. In addition, the guards could be charged with false imprisonment/arrest or even kidnapping depending on the state. In most places physical resistance (and in many places including deadly force) are legal to use in preventing false arrest (for example, where I live it’s even legal to use physical force against a police officer committing false arrest/detainment). I can imagine situations in casinos of security guards/patrons getting shot or other violent actions. Very, very, very risky. The casinos really need to calm down.

By: JMc

JMc — Mon, 23 Feb 2009 20:16:13 +0000

Vegas has changed over the years. When there 8-odd years ago, they made it clear no photography in the casino area. But when I was there 2 years ago, everyone had cell cameras, regular cameras, and even a few video cameras filming everywhere. I saw this in several casinos, and no floor people seemed to take any heed of this. (althoguh no one was filming table type games, it was all touristy-stuff).

But agreed, unless they say no cameras/recording devices, the people have done nothing wrong. (and unless you’re going to confiscate all cell phones, you can’t really stop it…)

By: genewitch

genewitch — Sat, 21 Feb 2009 09:59:22 +0000

greg: uh, in my post i proved that you most certainly can take pictures on the floor.

They just don’t want some random rubbernecker taking pictures. i never even got a dirty look for taking the pictures i did. And that was in multiple casinos under different management.

So, no. Then again, i’ve never been harassed for taking pictures – which is what this blog is about.