Laserfiche WebLink
416 <br />REGULAR MEETING MARCH 12, 1979 <br />Mr. Masters asked Corporal Horvath if it was his belief that <br />that table is not played on and Corporal Horvath said yes. <br />Mr. McMahon asked if the table in the.back room is a pool table. <br />Corporal Horvath said it is a pool table reworked as a dice table. <br />Mr. McLaughlin asked Corporal Horvath if the pool table in the <br />back room is a dice table now and Corporal Horvath said yes. <br />Mr. McLaughlin then stated that the City Ordinance to be used. in <br />this matter is 1- 18 -a.- The letter issued from the Controller's <br />Office indicated that Mr. Brinson is in violation of that City <br />Ordinance, in that he has conducted that activity in an unlawful <br />manner. Mr. Mullen's letter stated that the conduct of this pool <br />hall in such a manner so as to permit gambling on the premises <br />contrary to the laws of this state and federal laws falls within <br />the Municipal Code. Thac is a pretty broad statement and cannot <br />be backed up. There are no federal laws violated here. The only <br />federal law involving gambling provides that a person involved in <br />some kind of conspiracy to conduct a gambling operation with five <br />or more persons involved is violating the law. Mr. Brinson is <br />guilty of no violation of federal laws. No claim can be made to <br />show, on the basis of the evidence submitted., that any federal or <br />state laws are being violated. Mr. Brinson has never been charged <br />at any time during the entire investigation with any violation of the <br />gambling laws of the State of Indiana. Others may have violated <br />the law but that is not an issue in this matter. We are dealing <br />with the matter of Mr. Brinson and whether he is conducting activities <br />in an unlawful manner. There is a specific statute in the State of <br />Indiana covering promotion of professional gambling. Violation <br />of this law constitutes a Class D felony. Mr. Brinson has never <br />been charged by the Police Department or the St. Joseph County <br />Police or the State Police at any time with that charge, which has <br />been on the books and available to them. None of those arrested <br />resulting in a conviction was found guilty of Professional Gambling. <br />The police reports and arrest records show no one arrested for <br />professional gambling,, since that was not an appropriate charge. <br />An unlawful gambling charge is a misdemeanor. Unlawful gambling <br />was the charge made against Charles Rucker as noted on the docket <br />sheet. Mr. McLaughlin said the Board must consider factual <br />evidence. There is nothing in the record to substantiate Mr. <br />Master's impression, through the notification given, that John <br />Brinson is operating that pool hall in an unlawful manner. He is <br />not. He has not violated the laws of the State of Indiana and <br />cannot be charged with a "federal law violation. The case is not <br />there. We are dealing with a set of charges and we have attempted <br />to answer those charges. We are not coming in here to say that <br />John Brinson is a bad boy. We have an ordinance which sets out <br />several things. Perhaps it is an old ordinance and has not been <br />used. There is no evidence to support any proposition that the <br />pool table in the pool hall is used for gambling. The only thing <br />relevant to the pool hall license renewal is the playing of pool <br />in the front room. On the basis of the evidence and the charges, <br />there is no case for the denial of the renewal of the license. <br />There are no violations of any laws by Mr. Brinson. Mr. McLaughlin <br />said he would ask for the renewal of the pool hall license. <br />Mr. Masters said the denial of the renewal of Mr. Brinson's license <br />was based upon observation of officers of the South Bend Police <br />Department that there was unlawful gambling going on under the laws <br />of Indiana.. He said when you can establish that gambling and <br />unlawful activities are being conducted in a licensed premise that <br />supports the inference that the activity is condoned by the license <br />holder and requires that action be taken to stop it. On those grounds, <br />renewal of the license can be denied. He said evidence had been <br />presented of a consistent policy of unlawful activities which have <br />