Hello everyone ----- I agree with Gene that the debate here over Roulette collecting made for interesting reading. However, it did seem to me that it generated more heat (personal opinions) than light (factual information). Sorry if that seems harsh.

The subject deserves more investigation (particularly since, if taking roulettes is a theft, entering a casino with intent to do so is a felony and that can get you put in jail/prison for a long time!). So, I did some checking up and learned the following:

I called the Nevada Gaming Commission, Enforcement Division, on Friday, and asked about the law in Nevada on removing roulette chips, as well as the Gaming Commission's policy. I was told that the specific statutory regulation of gaming checks does not apply to roulette chips (because they have no cash value) and there are no other regulations regarding roulettes. It is the Gaming Commission's policy that general property/theft laws apply and casinos may either allow or prohibit the removal of roulette chips as they see fit. (More on this below.)

I also called the Casino Control Commission of New Jersey and was referred to their Public Information Office. Unfortunately, I had to leave a voice mail message for them and have not yet heard back.

Before discussing what the Nevada position on the subject may or may not mean, I would like to state that I am an attorney with more than 20 years experience practicing criminal law in the State of California. I was a deputy district attorney for almost 10 years in Orange County (south of LA) and have been in private practice in Marin County (north of SF) since 1985. I no longer do criminal work, but did trial defense and criminal appeals for more than 10 years. What follows is my opinion based on that experience; however, I have no specific experience in either Nevada, New Jersey or any other state which might have casinos which offer roulette.

So, what does Nevada's policy, at least, mean to roulette collectors? Under general principles of common law, "theft" is the taking of the property of another with the intent to permanently deprive the owner of that property. Under California law (and probably that of most other common law states, which include, I believe, both Nevada and New Jersey), for a "theft" to occur, the property taken must also have some value. Thus, anything which is truly worthless cannot be stolen. Furthermore, you cannot "steal" something for which you have paid full value and the owner has voluntarily transferred possession.

Thus, we are left with the question of whether, with the player having "paid" something for a roulette chip and having received "possession" of a chip from the casino in return for that payment, is it stealing to remove the chip from the casino? Putting on my prosecutor hat :-) I cannot imagine trying to convict someone of "stealing" something for which they have paid as much or more than either its current worth or replacement value (certainly wouldn't work in California!). On the other hand, if a casino specifically posts signs which advise that the roulettes (or table chips, for that matter) remain the property of the casino and cannot be removed without permission, it probably is a theft to do so (which is, after all, technically a crime against possession, not ownership -- an esoteric point which I'll explain if anyone wants more detailed information).

Absent such signs and especially in casinos which encourage or support chip collecting (e.g., by issuing LE chips, etc.) and where the buy in is equal to or greater than the cost of the roulette chip (let's say $2 to be safe), I would conclude that removing these chips is not a theft in the absence of a specific statutory provision making it so.

I am less sanguine about roulette games with a buy in less than the cost of the chip. On the other hand, many casinos willingly allow collectors to remove table chips which cost more than the face value of the chip (virtually any factional chip and especially the Chipcos, full color graphics, etc.). So, I'm not sure how roulettes from such casinos should be treated.

As soon as I have a chance to discuss this with someone from Atlantic City, I will post additional information. I hope the foregoing provides some "light" on the subject and would be happy to discuss further with anyone who is interested. ----- jim o\-S