DIA: Poker tourney could lead to prosecution

CARTER LAKE - More letters hit the fax machines at the Iowa Department of Inspections and Appeals and Pottawattamie County Attorney's Office Wednesday concerning the legality of Chez Paree holding a Texas-style poker tournament in Carter Lake. And DIA Director Steven Young said his reading of Iowa law gives his office the authority to initiate an action to prosecute any planned opening.
Pottawattamie County Attorney Matt Wilber has stated several times his belief that such a poker tournament is legal under Iowa law - not as gambling but as a winner-take-all-contest.

Wilber said he does not condone such an event, but believes it would be a waste of taxpayer money to fight the expected Jan. 7 tournament.
Wilber said he believes the Iowa Code leaves a loophole for such a tournament - a loophole he has encouraged area legislators to close.
Young sees it differently and told Wilber so in a two-and-one-half page letter which he copied to the Attorney General, Department of Criminal Investigations, Department of Commerce-Alcoholic Beverages Division, his own agency's Social and Charitable Gambling Unit and Consumer Safety Bureau and area legislators.
"In my opinion, legislators need to understand this Department's reading (as supported by affected state agencies) of the law, which does not create the loophole your office suggests needs to be filled," Young's letter reads.
Young reaffirms his already-stated belief that the tournament would be illegal.
In an e-mail to The Nonpareil, Young wrote that Iowa Code section 99B.19 states, "Upon request of the Department of Inspections and Appeals or the Division of Criminal Investigation of the Department of Public Safety, the attorney general shall institute in the name of the state the proper proceedings against a person charged by either department with violating this (gambling) chapter, and a county attorney, at the request of the attorney general, shall appear and prosecute an action when brought in the county attorney's county."
Young indicated no such referral has been made at this time.
Wilber said he believes his office holds the authority to bring criminal prosecution and, at this point, he has no intent to do so against the Chez Paree.
"What you have here are two different legal opinions," he said. "And I would rather turn in my license than argue a case I don't agree with."
In his letter to Wilber, Young says that the contested section - 99B.11 of the Iowa Code - does not authorize any form of casino gambling, such as poker. Part of the section permits "cribbage, bridge, chess, checkers, dominoes, pinochle and similar contests, leagues or tournaments."
Young writes, "To my knowledge, cribbage, bridge, checkers and dominoes have never been construed in Iowa as similar to poker, and this section has never been construed as authorizing anything more than parlor games."
Young also writes of section B.12 of the code that allows "gambling in a game of poker, so long as the monetary and bona fide social relationship requirements are satisfied." Among the requirements are monetary limits and that the game be among friends.
"Iowa Code section 99B.12 evidences clear and unmistakable legislative intent expressly limiting the circumstances under which gambling in the form of a game of poker, is authorized. Your analysis appears to overlook this important connection," Young writes.
In responding to Young, Wilber says he is reminded of a story he reads to his children - "The Emperor's New Clothes."
"In that tale, all of the government officials are afraid to tell the emperor that he is naked for fear of offending him," Wilber writes. He goes on to say that a little boy eventually shouts out about the emperor's nudity.
"No one wants to play the part of the little boy in that story, but sometimes it has to be done," he said.
Wilber writes he agrees that sections B.11 and B.12 need to be taken together, but he says section 12 pertains to gambling between individuals and B.11 does not pertain to gambling at all, but to contests.
"The plain meaning of 99B.11 is that the activities permitted by that section are effectively outside of Iowa's gambling laws because those contests are not gambling," Wilber writes.
"(Section) 99B.11 provides that a contest can be conducted which offers and pays awards to contestants, and which requires contestants to pay entry or participation fees. Such a contest cannot be held at an amusement concession, or on school grounds, it cannot use a gambling device and it must be conducted in a fair and honest manner." Wilber states.
He argues that as long as the poker tournament abides by these rules he does not intend to stop it.
Wilber said it is like a bowling tournament. "You pay an entry fee. If you win, you get money. If you leave early, you get nothing."
He said as long as the proposed tournament follows that format, he will not prosecute.
"I would have no problem prosecuting if people were throwing money into a pot and the winner took each pot. To me, that is clearly gambling."
In his letter to Wilber, Young further indicates that section B.9 requires that any gambling in public places requires issuance of a license, which the tournament group, represented by attorney David Richter, does not possess.
Young also writes that he has conferred with "other affected state entities" who "confirm my reading of the statute." The entities are not named in the letter.
Wilber said the first part of section B.9 exempts contests under section B.11 from the license requirement. And he sees the proposed tourney fitting that description.
"The standard is reasonable doubt," he said. "I have doubt, and I am a reasonable person. How can I take it to a jury?"
Young also states that Richter "continues to publicly mischaracterize the (DIA's) response on his request as a failure to provide clear guidance on why his proposed poker tournament is illegal." Young continues, "A simple reading of that letter (a Sept. 21 letter sent by the DIA to Richter) provides the direction he now wishes to apparently disavow."
In that letter, the DIA's attorney writes, "The department has denied your request and the bases for the denial are set forth in the order."
A phone call to Richter was not returned as of this morning.