Cossack v. City of Los Angeles

Citations: 523 P.2d 260; 11 Cal. 3d 726; 114 Cal. Rptr. 460; 1974 Cal. LEXIS 328Docket: L.A. 30233

Court: California Supreme Court; June 21, 1974; California; State Supreme Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Defendants appealed a judgment favoring plaintiffs, who claimed that section 43.05.1 of the Los Angeles Municipal Code was unconstitutional. This section, originally approved by voters in 1939, prohibits specific coin-operated amusement games deemed "pin games," which plaintiffs argued are predominantly games of skill rather than chance. The trial court found substantial evidence supporting that since the introduction of flippers in 1948, pinball machines evolved into skill-based games. The court determined that the relevant subdivisions of section 43.05.1 apply only to games of chance and are thus void under California's Constitution. Additionally, the court ruled that flipper games could be licensed under other sections of the Municipal Code. The trial court also identified further constitutional violations, including a denial of equal protection due to discrimination against flipper games compared to other skill-based activities. Ultimately, the judgment declared section 43.05.1 unconstitutional and prohibited its enforcement.

The trial court correctly determined that both subdivisions of paragraph B of section 43.05.1 of the Los Angeles Municipal Code relate to games of chance and have been preempted by state law. Subdivision 2 explicitly bans the possession of "mechanical devices" for games of chance, and both parties agreed that this subdivision is void due to state preemption. The California Legislature has specifically excluded amusement machines predominantly based on skill from this preemption. Thus, if the questioned machines are games of chance, they are prohibited; if they are games of skill, they are legal unless restricted by subdivision 1 of the same paragraph. The trial court found, with substantial evidence, that the games in question are predominantly games of skill. Additionally, the Attorney General indicated that pinball machines with player-manipulated flippers are games of skill, while those predominantly of chance are not permitted under state law.

Statutory interpretation principles emphasize understanding legislative intent to implement the law's purpose, requiring reasonable constructions aligned with legislative goals. The municipal code's context shows it addresses various gambling forms, with skill games licensed elsewhere. At the time of the ordinance's adoption, all referenced games were purely games of chance, implying that banning skill-based games was not the electorate's intention, as such games did not exist until nearly a decade later.

The trial court noted that the Pin Ball Ordinance does not reference gambling or chance in subdivision 1 of paragraph B, raising questions about the legislative intent behind the ordinance's structure. Enacted in 1939, the ordinance aimed to prohibit games based purely on chance, which were the prevalent form of gambling at the time. Paragraph A defines various types of games, including "Pin Games" and "Marble Games," while subdivision 1 of paragraph B outright prohibits these games. Subdivision 2 serves as a catch-all to include any other potential gambling devices not specifically named.

The court concluded that subdivision 1 exclusively addresses games of chance and does not extend to games of skill. Furthermore, if it were interpreted to prohibit skill-based games, such a prohibition would be unconstitutional due to violations of the equal protection clauses under the Fourteenth Amendment and California Constitution. The court referenced the standard that classifications must be reasonable and not arbitrary, requiring a substantial relationship to the statute's objectives. It cited the case of Looff v. City of Long Beach, where a similar ordinance was deemed invalid for creating arbitrary distinctions among games of skill without reasonable justification. The ruling emphasizes that legislative classifications must be based on significant differences to avoid unlawful discrimination.

The legal document emphasizes that both the class of games and their individual attributes must align with the law's purpose. It argues that games like McLain's balloon-dart and Turner's knife-throwing share significant qualities with exempt games such as archery and baseball, which are classified as skill-based rather than chance-based. The document asserts that a classification lacking a reasonable basis is arbitrary and discriminatory. It concludes that there is no valid distinction to justify a classification in the ordinance, leading to the affirmation of the judgment.

The dissenting opinion from Burke argues that local governments can regulate games like pinball if they are predominantly skill-based. The trial court found that the pinball games in question meet this criterion, and the majority does not dispute this finding. Burke contends that the ordinance was indeed intended to cover these games, as it encompasses both skill and chance games, including various machines that rely on manual dexterity. He highlights that pinball games historically involved skill elements, such as tilt and player control. Ultimately, he maintains that the ordinance can regulate pinball games unless it is found to be discriminatory against them.

Discrimination against pinball games is challenged, with arguments asserting that no reasonable distinction exists between pinball and other games like archery and basketball. However, the author argues in favor of upholding the ordinance regulating pinball games for several reasons. Pinball machines often function as gambling devices or can be easily modified to serve that purpose, posing risks particularly to children. They are seen as a waste of time and money, promoting negative behaviors such as gambling and loitering. Additionally, unlike the other sports mentioned, pinball games do not involve physical activity, failing to promote physical fitness or sportsmanship. Therefore, a rational basis for regulating pinball games is established. The document also notes the identities of the plaintiffs involved, including an operator of coin-operated games, a bowling center owner, and an academic who frequents such establishments. Definitions from the Los Angeles Municipal Code regarding pin games, marble games, and claw machines are included, outlining the characteristics and mechanics of these games.

Horse racing machines are defined as mechanically operated amusement devices that simulate miniature races involving horses or other entities. It is illegal for any individual to keep or operate such machines in public places or businesses if they require payment through coins, tokens, or other valuables for operation. This prohibition extends to pin games, marble games, claw machines, and any mechanical devices used for games of chance that function similarly. Exceptions exist for devices kept solely for sale in mercantile stores, provided they are not operated by the public except for demonstration purposes.

The trial court described 'skill games' as coin-operated electro-mechanical table games where players aim for targets using propelled balls, automatically registering scores without issuing any rewards or tokens. These games, costing several hundred dollars, operate on a small fee per play and emphasize skill development through factors such as coordination and reflexes. Flipper games were exemplified by machines like Williams and Gottlieb's models, consisting of an inclined playing field covered by glass. Players activate the game by inserting coins and are given a limited number of shots to score points, with potential bonuses for high scores.

Each side of the playing surface features a mechanical flipper, which players can activate by pressing a button to strike the ball back into play. If the ball is not flipped, it rolls to the bottom and exits the play area. As the ball interacts with various targets, it triggers electrical contacts that increase the player's score on the display. Each contact also activates sounds resembling bells or gongs and flashes lights, enhancing player engagement. 

According to Article XI, section 7 of the California Constitution, local governments can enforce ordinances that do not conflict with general laws. In 1950, California's Legislature enacted laws regarding gambling devices, specifically outlined in Penal Code section 330b et seq. Section 330b(4) clarifies that pinball and similar skill-based amusement devices, regardless of whether they offer additional chances or free plays, are not classified as slot machines. Similarly, section 330.5 exempts certain machines, reaffirming that skill-based amusement devices fall outside the definition of slot machines under sections 330.1 to 330.4. This legal clarification was assigned by the Chairman of the Judicial Council.