U.S. attorney moves to seize slots at Indian casino

SEATTLE - U.S. Attorney Katrina C. Pflaumer made an unusual court appearance Tuesday to ask that a judge order the seizure of all 108 slot machines on the tiny Shoalwater Bay Indian Reservation.

If the tribe refuses a court order to turn over the machines for safekeeping pending a trial, federal marshals should be authorized to seize the gambling machines from the casino near Tokeland, on the Washington coast, Pflaumer said.

"The government has a strong interest in stopping the spread of illegal gambling," she said.

The head of her civil enforcement division, assistant U.S. attorney Brian C. Kipnis, assured U.S. District Judge Barbara Jacobs Rothstein that nothing would be done to seize the slots without a court order.

Scott Crowell, a lawyer for the Shoalwaters, argued that the tribe, one of the smallest in the state, was entitled to offer slot machines, video poker and other electronic gambling devices because state officials refused to consider allowing those machines in negotiations under the 10-year-old federal Indian Gaming Regulatory Act.

The one-armed bandits should remain with the tribe and in use until the issue is resolved, Crowell said.

"The tribe looks to the revenue stream from these machines for its survival," he said.

After the court hearing, Shoalwater Bay chairman Herbert Whitish said unemployment within the 170-member tribe had gone from as high as 70 percent to near zero since the slots were smuggled onto the reservation in March.

The casino near the northern end of Willapa Bay is jammed on weekends and busy almost every day but Monday. A limited casino with gambling that did not require state approval was losing $20,000 to $25,000 a week, and "now we're able to pay our bills," Whitish added.

Rothstein, who said she would rule later, questioned both sides closely about a similar case in U.S. District Court in Spokane against the Colville Confederated Tribes and Spokane Tribe of Indians, which have a total of nearly 1,800 slots in six casinos.

Lawyers for both sides said Tuesday they had reached an interim agreement for those machines to remain in operation for as long as 90 days while that case is pending.

Under the deal to be submitted for court approval Wednesday, the tribes agreed not to add or remove slots from their casinos and to give the U.S. Marshals Service an inventory.

Marshals would then go to each casino, verify the inventory, formally seize the slots and then turn them over to the tribes as custodians until the case is resolved.

Pflaumer said after the court hearing she did not consider a similar deal for the Shoalwaters because some of the Eastern Washington slot machine operations date from 1984, while "this tribe tried to manufacture a status quo."

She said she has carried a caseload and made routine court appearances in nearly five years as U.S. attorney but tries to avoid high-profile cases "because I do not want to distract attention from them."

Pflaumer said she appeared this time because she is the lead contact between her office and Indian tribes in Western Washington.

Throughout the country and especially in parts of the West, slot machines have been one of the thorniest issues to arise under the federal Indian gambling law.

Tribal casinos operate slots legally in Arizona, New Mexico, Kansas, Oregon and other states.

Law enforcement authorities have assailed video pulltab and electronic bingo devices as illegal forms of slot machines in Wisconsin, Oklahoma and Idaho.

In Minnesota, a battle has arisen over Indian casino slots that are linked to similar devices in 11 other states for "progressive" payouts.

In California, where all but one tribe has refused to sign a state gambling compact under the federal law, more than two dozen have casinos with slots and the state is moving to seize those machines.

The federal law requires that a state negotiate with tribes on any form of gambling that is allowed within that state.

Washington state law specifically bans slots, but lawyers for the Shoalwaters, Spokanes and Colvilles said they should be allowed to operate the devices anyway because of exceptions within the law - an argument frequently heard elsewhere.

archive