Nevada Enhances Casino Notification Procedures for Excluded Individuals
Nevada’s Plan for Faster Notifications on Black Book Incidents
Regulators in Nevada are aiming to improve the way casinos respond when they encounter individuals listed on the state’s notorious exclusion list, known colloquially as the Black Book. During a recent workshop, officials from the Nevada Gaming Control Board (NGCB) discussed proposed changes to ensure casinos promptly notify authorities whenever a banned person is detected in a gaming venue.
New Rules to Speed Up Casino Reporting Processes
The suggested revisions focus on enhancing communication between casinos and regulatory bodies. Instead of delays or contacting multiple agencies, casinos would be required to immediately alert the Board upon spotting someone on the exclusion list. Mike Somps, a senior legal adviser for the state, highlighted the shift away from distributing printed Black Book lists to relying solely on the online version available via the NGCB website, which casinos already access.
Under the current framework, casinos must inform both law enforcement and the Board when removing banned individuals. The updated rules propose that notifications be directed exclusively to the Board, though casinos must continue removing the excluded persons from their premises. Ryan Sullivan, chief of Enforcement, noted that reporting in Black Book cases tends to lag behind other incidents such as cheating. He emphasized the importance of swift alerts so regulators can act while the individual might still be present, as delayed reports often mean investigations start after suspects have left, complicating enforcement efforts.
Balancing Swift Reporting with Caution on Detainment
Board Chair Mike Dreitzer expressed support for the enhanced reporting requirements, suggesting they are an appropriate step for 2025. However, Board member George Assad questioned why the proposal does not mandate that casinos detain individuals on the exclusion list until authorities arrive.
Kristi Torgerson, head of Enforcement, explained that while casinos have the ability to detain such persons, making this compulsory could lead to risks, including mistakenly holding individuals who are not actually banned. She stressed the necessity of properly identifying a person before any detainment occurs and recommended that casinos follow their existing security protocols. If the situation warrants detaining someone, regulators approve, but Torgerson also pointed out prior instances where overzealous staff made errors trying to enforce these rules.
Chandler Pohl, legal representative for MGM Resorts International, sought clarification on regulatory expectations, specifically whether casinos should detain excluded persons or simply report them. Torgerson reiterated the priority: confirming the individual’s identity, refusing them entry, and notifying the Board. Detainment is not required unless the circumstances specifically call for it.
