If you have issues viewing or accessing this file contact us at · Pennsylvania .Crime.·Commis'sion . ." 1989REPORT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA PENNSYLVANIA CRIME COMMISSION 1989REPORT 138666U.S. Department of JusticeNational Institute of JusticeThis document has been reproduced exactly as received from theperson or organization originating it. Points of view or opinions stated Inthis document a e those of the authors and do not necessarily representthe official position or policies of the Nalionallnslitute of Justice.Permission to reproduce this copyrighted material has beengranted by ennsy1vaniaCrime Commissionto the National Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS). Further repr duction outside of the NCJRS system requires permissionof the copynght owner. Printed in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania1100 E. Hector StreetConshohocken, PA 19428(215) 834-1164

PENNSYLVANIA CRIMECOMMISSIONMichael}. Reilly, Esq. - ChairmanCharles H. Rogovin, Esq. - Vice-ChairmanTrevor Edwards, Esq. - CommissionerJames H. Manning, Jr., Esq. - CommissionerArthur L. Coccodrilli - Commissioner*EXECUTIVE STAFFFrederick T. Martens - Executive DirectorG. Alan Bailey - Deputy Executive Director/Chief CounselWillie C. Byrd - Director of InvestigationsGerald D. Rockey - SAC, IntelligenceSTAFF PERSONNEL Sharon L. BeermanNancy B. ChecketDaniel A. ChizeverRoss E. CoganThomas J. ConnorTerri Cram boChristopher J. DeCreeMichael B. DiPietroJoseph P. DoughertyWilliam F. ForanJ. R. FreemanEdgar GaskinPerrise HatcherBarbara A. HinesStephen B. HohenwarterPaul S. JamesJames F. KanavyRichard C. KedziorSteven R. KellerJill E. KhouryNancy S. KushnerDavid S. Laustsen - Legal InternGino L. LazzariGeraldine Lyons - Student InternDoris R. MallinJoseph A. MartinezMargaret A. MillhouseRussell J. MillhouseEdward J. MokosMarkA. MorinaGertrude F. PayneWasyl PolischukWillie M. PowellEdward M. ReckeLois RyalsJohn V. RyanRichard L. SchultzPaulJ.SpearRobert W. StackCatherine StarrGregory A. ThomasJoseph Toner - Student InternRichard W. \Villiamson *The Commission acknowledges the dedicated service of former Commissioner Gerald C. Paris, Esq. i

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIAPENNSYLVANIA CRIME COMMISSION 1100 E. HECTOR STREETCONSHOHOCKEN, PENNSYLVANIA 19428(215) 834-1164April 25, 1989Honorable Members of the General Assembly: The availability of narcotics, particularly cocaine and its derivative, "crack," remains the most compellingcriminal problem confronting the Commonwealth. No matter where one lives, the availability of cocaine and otherillicit controlled dangerous substances represents a real threat to the quality of life in these communities. Whether itbe in urban areas such as Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, or Allentown, or in rural hamlets and villages in Lancaster, York,01' Pike counties, narcotics continue to represent the most feared crime problem. The Commonwealth ofPennsylvania has responded accordingly, and additional resources have been allocated to address this problem. Howthese resources are deployed and the measures that will be used to assess the wisdom of these decisions is certain to bean issue that this Legislature and the public will be asking in years hence.The Crime Commission, in assessing the narcotics problem in Pennsylvania, has determined that theavailability of cocaine is far more prevalent today than a year ago. Crack production and distribution is a "cottageindustry" populated by young, amateur entrepreneurs and more professional organizations that are competing for ashare in this highly lucrative market. Violence, the natural outgrowth of a competitive market, is most visible in oururban centers where the pool of disenfranchised youth are attracted to the lure of enormous profits. Theimplications of this phenomenon poses some challenging and serious policy questions to the law enforcementcommunity. The Crime Commission hus addressed these in the companion report submitted to this Legislatureentitled "Organized Crime Narcotics Enforcement Symposium."Notwithstanding the scope and dimensions of the narcotics problem in the Commonwealth, there have been anumber of notable prosecutions of organized crime in the Commonwealth. The conviction of Nicodemo Scarfo andhis cohorts for murder and racketeering clearly demonstrated the efficacy of a coordinated, focuseu lawenforcement offensive. Scarfo's penchant for violence and his inability to garner the loyalty of the members of thisLa Cosa Nostra Family, resulted in members of this Family violating the Code of Omerta - the sanction for whichis death. The government proved "beyond a reasonable doubt" the existence of La Cosa Nostra and that Scarfocontrolled this criminal enterprise through murder and violence. The incapacitation of this LCN Familydemonstrated the effectiveness that can be achieved when prosecutors and investigators work in concert and towarda mutually-agreed upon goal.The Crime Commission, in furtherance of its mandate to investigate and expose organized crime in theCommonwealth, held public hearings in Media, Pennsylvania. These hearings focused on traditional racketeeringactivities - gam bling, narcotics, and loansharking - in Chester, Pennsylvania, and the inevitable interrelationship between and among these activities. Contrary to the popular view that gambling, more particularly thevideo poker industry, is a benign form of criminality, the Commission demonstrated its relationship with thenarcotics and loansharking rackets. The involvement of both the Philadelphia and Gambino LCN Families in theChester gambling market was clearly described, and the limits of the criminal sanction in divesting racketeeFs oftheir control over these activities was amply demonstrated.To fulfill its mandate in a more professional and focused manner, the Pennsylvania Crime Commissionreorganized its resources and established Resident Agencies in the major urban centers of the Commonwealth.Through the Resident Agency concept, the resources of the Commission are more equitably distributed bothdemographically and functionally. Major urban centers which were heretofore only marginally serviced by theCommission, now receive the full-time attention of Resident Agents. The remainder of the Commission'sinvestigative resources have been centralized at headquarters and work closely with an expanded and skilledintelligence cadre. The Chester investigation is an example of what can be accomplished through an intelligencedriven investigative effort. \Vith this structural reorganization, the Commission is accomplishing "more with less"and is beginning to "shoot with a rifle as opposed to a shotgun." It is anticipatE:d that this structural reorganization,coupled with the enhanced functioning of an increasingly sophisticated intelligence program, will bring a morefocused and efficient approach to the Commission's investigative efforts.Respectfully submitted,Michael J. Reilly, ChairmanCharles H. Rogovin, Vice-ChairmanArthur Coccodrilli, CommissionerTrevor Edwards, CommissionerJames H. Manning, Jr., Commissioneriii

CONTENTS INTRODUCTIONiiiMessage to the General AssemblyDRUG MARKETS AND DRUG ENFORCEMENT: AN OVERVIEW1THE VIDEO POKER INDUSTRY: A BENIGN INVESTMENT WITH MALIGNANT IMPLICATIONS5RACKETEERING IN A PENNSYLVANIA CITY: A CLASSIC CASE STUDY*9UPDATE AND STATUS OF ORGANIZED CRIME GROUPS14Status of the Scarfo La Cosa Nostra Family14The Bufalinos: Past, Present, and Future of a Crime Family19Western Pennsylvania La Cosa Nostra22The Junior Black Mafia: A Philadelphia Phenomenon25African-American Illegal Numbers Operations in Philadelphia26Jamaican Narcotics Networks27Hispanic Vice Activities in Philadelphia and Erie28Outlaw Motorcycle Gangs30Asian Organized Crime in Philadelphia31LESSONS TO BE LEARNED FROM ORGANIZED CRIME PROSECUTIONS33A. Convictions of the Scarfo La Cosa Nostra Family33B. The Narcotics Corruption Trial of the "Five Squad"34C. The "Pizza Connection II" Indictments35D. The Murder Conviction of Roland Bartlett35 * Synopsis of Final Reportiv

E. The Landmesser Case: Breakup of a Nationwide Gambling Network36F. LarJcaster and York Counties: An Update36G. China White: A Synthetic Drug that Yielded Death3739 LAW ENFORCEMENT EDUCATION Educating Law Enforcement on RICO39Organized Crime Narcotics Enforcement Symposium *39Examining Mafia Operations in the United States3940APPENDICES A. Reorganization of the Pennsylvania Crime Commission40B. Testimony Before the United States Congress: "Organized Crime: 25 Years After Valachi"41C. Testimony Before Pennsylvania House Judiciary Committee in Support of Electronic Surveillance44D. Organized Crime in Pennsylvania: Law Enforcement's Response45.INDEX50 *To Be Published Separately v

------------------------ DRUG MARKETS AND DRUGENFORCEMENT: AN OVERVIEWThe MarketThe drug problem is the number one organizedcrime problem in Pennsylvania.-1987 Report For the purposes of this assessment, theCommission examined the narcotics market in termsof the substances most available in Pennsylvania.The Pennsylvania Crime CommissionThis prognosis has not changed today. Throughoutevery city, town, village, and hamlet, the availabilityof narcotics, and in particular cocaine and itsderivative "crack," threatens the quality of life in this Commonwealth. Rural communities, once perceivedas safe havens from urban crime, are now confrontedwith a scourge that has reached epidemic proportions.As the Commission stated in its 1988 Report,Lancaster has become "a hub for cocaine traffickingin central Pennsylvania." One year later this finding proved quite prophetic. Seizures of cocaine andheroin in this once serene county have increasedsignificantly, subsequent to the creation of a Cov.ntyNarcotics Task Force.!CocaineThe cocaine market is highly competitive, resultingin an extraordinary level of violence. Cocaine isrelatively inexpensive with a kilo, which is 90 percentpure, selling for approximately 16,000; an ounce 1,000; and a gram 80. The market is characterizedby both independent entrepreneurs and new criminalorganizations, such as the Junior Black Mafia,Jamaican Posses, and Hispanic organizations. LaCosa Nostra (LCN) members do not appear to besignificant players in this market. The extraordinarylevels of violence are a result of the highly competitivenature of the market, the youthfulness of theparticipants, "rip-offs," the entree of new criminalorganizations and, of course, fear of informants.Other communities throughout the state areconfronted with a similar problem, the likes of which will not be solved through law enforcement alone.Demand reduction, in the long term, is the onlylasting answer to supply reduction. Until that dayarrives, however, law enforcement can and mustmaintain an aggressive, proactive enforcementposture. It can only occur when law enforcement understands the nature, scope, and dimensions of theproblem, and is capable of implementing strategiesthat wiH effectively impact that problem.Measurements of effectiveness which must beconceived early, must be integrated into the strategiesemployed in order for there to be a rational basis for allocating and redirecting finite resources."Crack" - A Cocaine DerivativeA relative newcomer to the drug market inPennsylvania is "crack," a derivative of cocaine. Crackproduction is primarily a "cottage industry" insomuchas the manufacture of crack occurs within homes andbuildings, utilizing rather unsophisticatedlaboratories. An ounce of cocaine which costsapproximately 1,000, can be converted to crackwhich can return approximately 2,800; a 180percent return on the initial investment. The level ofviolence associated with this market is relatively highwhen contrasted to other vice markets. The crackmarket is particularly attractive to youth who canearn as much as 100 per day soliciting customers orwarning of police surveillance.The Nature of the Narcotics Problelnin PennsylvaniaThe Crime Commission, as part of its mandate to inquire into the nature of organized crime and publiccorruption in the Commonwealth, has monitored thechanging nature of the drug problem and itsrelationship to what is commonly referred to as"organized crime:' It is within this context that theCommission has addressed the problem. 2 HeroinIn contrast to the cocaine market, the heroinmarket is far better organized and far less violent. Itrepresents a monopolized market, with involvementby Asian crimina! organizations, as well as Europeangroups such as the Mafia. The price of a kilo of heroinis approximately 100,000; an ounce, 13,000; and agram, 1,200. The higher cost is indicative of amonopoly, insomuch as monopolies drive prices up,ISeizl!res of cocaine and heroin in Lancaster County were valued at 800,000 and 19,000 respectively, in a five-month period.'The Commission sponsored a three-day symposium in May 1988 atVillanova University, which has been published under separate cover,entitled Organized Crime Narcotics Enforcement.1

-- --- - - - - - - -thus consumption down. The heroin addictpopulation has remained relatively stable approximately 500,000 nationally and 20,000 inPennsylvania.superiority and territory. Criminal partnerships asopposed to monolithic structures, such as that whichis often used to describe La Cosa Nostra, appear todominate the cocaine/crack market. Thesepartnerships are quite fluid and relationships arepredicated on business "allegiances" andopportunities, as opposed to familial lineages. Thissuggests that the immobilization of one entrepreneur,group, or organization will not have the intendedimpact that might be expected if the market weremonopolized. For example, if one group controlledthe crack market and was immobilized, the impact onthe availability of crack would be severe. With adecentralized, competitive market, the impact isdispersed, with little effect on the availability ofcrack.MarijuanaThe marijuana market, which is rather benigntoday as opposed to that of 20 years ago, is still aviable revenue producer. A pound of marijuana costsapproximately 1,700 and an ounce, 120. 1bday, alarge proportion of marijuana is domesticallycultivated. Little violence is associaterl with thismarket, suggesting a monopoly may exist.MethamphetamineThe implications of such a market structure, ofcourse, is important particularly in terms ofmeasuring the effectiveness of law enforcement.Anest and seizure data do not capture the nuances ofthe narcotics markets, and are relatively irrelevant inassessing the impact of enforcement on the market.This market was particularly active in the early1980s when Pennsylvania was considered the "methcapital of the world." Today, as a result of significantprosecutions of La Cosa Nostra members andmembers of Outlaw Motorcycle Gangs such as thePagans, the threat has subsided.Criminal Organizations andNarcotics TraffickingSynthetic DrugsThe evolution and proliferation of new criminalorganizations in the cocaine market has resulted in anapparent increase in violence. Such emergingcriminal organizations include the Junior Black Mafia(JBM) , Jamaican Posses, and Hispanic/ Colombiannetworks. The heroin market, which has remainedrelatively stable over the past two decades, is stillcontrolled by the Sicilian Mafia and the Asiansyndicates. The rate of violence associated with heroinis relatively low when compared to that of the cocainemarket. Moreover, La Cosa Nostra, one of the moreestablished and mature criminal organizations is arelatively minor player when it comes to the cocainemarket. It appears that the emergence of these newercocaine organizations and their desire to capture ashare of the market has resulted in a high level ofviolence.The future of drugs is, of course, the syntheticmarket. Such a market allows for the production ofdrugs with the same psychic effects as heroin, cocaine,etc., using licit substances. The synthetic market ispresently open for exploration and represents whatcould be referred to as a venture capital market. The"China White" investigation in Pittsburgh isillustrative of the narcotics problems of the future.Organized Crime, Violence, andNarcoticsThe Commission, in the course of its investigationsinto drug markets in Pennsylvania, has examined theextent to which these markets are organized. Thisquestion is central to developing strategies in narcoticsenforcement. While there is little argument thatnarcotics trafficking represents a "public order"problem, once order is established the problem willmore than likely represent an "organized crime"problem. It is certainly true of the heroin market, andmay be valid in describing the marijuana market.With respect to the cocaine market, however, anotherpicture emerges.Criminal Organizations andMethamphetamine TraffickingThe Philadelphia LCN Family and the PagansMotorcycle Gang clearly maintained a monopoly onthe trafficking of methamphetamine in Philadelphiaand other areas of Pennsylvania. The monopoly wasexercised in large part through their control over theimportation of a precursor, P2P, used to manufacturemethamphetamine. With the virtual immobilizationof the Philadelphia LCN Family and the PagansMotorcycle Gang, their monopoly has been effectivelycurtailed.In the cocaine market, particularly that involvingcrack, violence is a very real part of the daily milieu.Because there are few monopolies in the market,relatively high levels of violence are more prevalent.Criminal entrepreneurs and organizations are usingviolence primarily to establish market2-I

Racketeering and Drug Traffickingtransient, and the youth involved represent a neverending reserve labor force for criminal entrepreneursand organizations. The Commission has found that itis not unusual for children in their teens to earn asmuch as 100 a day for participating in thesedistribution networks. Youth gangs and youngerchildren are more involved in the cocaine market thanwas the case two years ago.The Commission's various investigations intoracketeering throughout Pennsylvania revealed adiscernible pattern emergill1g. Racketeers who have-been involved in gambling and loansharking are alsoinvolved in narcotics rackets, particularly cocaine.The Commission, in its investigations into the illegalvideo poker industry, has found that there aredefinitive business partnerships between video pokervendors and narcotics traffickers, and loansharkingeprevails in virtually all cases investigated. In effect,the Commission found that it is often impossible toisolate narcotics trafficking from the other rackets all of which can be found. to exist throughoutPennsylvania.Synthetic Drugs and Drug Enforcement"Sealing the borders," a phrase which, to someextent, reflects the frustration with the drugepidemic, is often used to illustrate the extent towhich society must go to resolve the illicit narcoticsproblem. Unfortunately, this response ignores theemergence of a relatively new market that is domesticin origin: synthetic or "designer" drugs.-Corruption and Narcotics TraffickingHistorically, organized criminal groups relied uponviolence and/or corruption to establish a monopolyover an illicit service or product. Police are often usedto eliminate competition and ensure market.,uperiority. The corruption phase is often preceded byhigh rates of violence. As the market stabilizes, andcriminal organizations establish their position ofdominance, corruption follows. This is referred to assystemic corruption, in which the criminal justicesystem is ui;ed to maintain monopolistic control over aecriminal market.In Pittsburgh, such a drug called "China White;'was on the market. It resulted in at least 18 deaths.These deaths, all of which occurred because the "mix"of the licit substances far exceeded the tolerance levelof the physiological composition of the user,demonstrates the effect of synthetic substances thatcan be produced and marketed domestically. Tobelieve that "sealing the borpers" will resolve the drugepidemic ignores the demand side of the equation.Opportunistic corruption, on the other hand,appears to l:Jharacterize the current market; that is,opportuniti'es to seize money and not report it, "ripoff" drug dealers for their drugs (or money), andaccept bribes to avoid arrest, represent the most likelyetorm of corruption occurring. Such was the case in thetestimony of the Philadelphia police officers who weremembers of the elite "Five Squad."Measuring Program Success or FailurePennsylvania has made a financial commitment tonarcotic enforcement. The 1989-1990 proposed statebudget recommends an additional 9.4 million fordrug law enforcement, bringing total state spendingfor drug law enforcement to 20.6 million. Next year,the Pennsylvania Legislature will assess this allocationand its impact on the problem of drug use and abuse.Without a sophisticated measurement apparatus, thetraditional standards of measurement will be applied.Arrests, prosecutions, convictions, and perhapsseizures of drugs and/or money will serve as the onlystandards for assessing the success (or failure) of theprograms implemented. These measurementstandards, unfortunately, will not aid the Legislaturein determining the effectiveness of law enforcement.Other unconventional measures of effectiveness willbe needed.The apparent lack of systemic corruption inPennsylvanial may explain in part, the high rates of.,violence assoeiated with the cocaine market.Cocaine Trafficking and YouthAnother dimension of the cocaine and crack marketis the high number of youth, particularly in the innercities, (where the jobless rate for the most-disenfranchised minorilties is the highest), who areattracted to the lure of "quick money." Unlike otherrackets, such as numbers gambling and loansharking,the number of teenagers and young adults who areactive in the cl:: caine market is relatively high. Thisaccounts for the reason there are relatively higherttrates of violence in the cocaine/crack markets;youthfulness and violence are statistically related.Unlike more established and mature criminalmarkets, such as gambling, the cocaine market (asdistinguished from the heroin market) is quite For example, one measure of success that must beconsidered immediately is the impact thatenforcement will have on the rates of violenceassociated with drug trafficking. These rates ofviolence have served, to some extent, as the catalystfor measuring government's apparent failure tocontain the drug problem, so it only seems logical thatthis data be used to assess "success,"3

require an intelligence component that can routinelyand continually assess these indicators. Absent such acomponent, measures of effectiveness in drugenforcement are likely to say nothing relevant aboutimpact; and the Legislature will ble in no better aposition tomorrow to evaluate impact, than it istoday.Another measurement criterion that must beconsidered is the impact of enforcement on thecriminal organization. Unfortunately, statistical datais not collected in terms of organizations. Rather, it iscollected and analyzed as it relates to individuals.Thus, it will be necessary, early on, to develop ameasurement program that incorporatesorganizational impact statements and summaries inan assessment of effectiveness.' Corruption Control MechanismLastly, as a means of assessing mccess, the ultimateconsumer of this enforcement activity is thecommunity. How enforcement activity has enhancedthe quality of life in the community is evidencedperhaps by a decrease in predatory crime, and therenewed confidence in business and residentialinvestment. Other indicators of enforcement impactmay be the amount of time it takes to purchase aparticular narcotic, the difficulty in locating a drugsource, and the cost to the drug user. These data mustbe incorporated into an evaluation program in orderto determine enforcement impact. The history of drug enforcement is replete withcases of corruption. Anytime the state embarks on aprogram of drug enforcement on the scale that isoccurring in Pennsylvania, there remains a very reallikelihood that corruption will occur. It is thusimperative that both proactive internal affairsprocedures be established to monitor the activities ofnarcotics units, and that an intelligence component distinct from the command structure of theenforcement element, be established. In so doing, astructural arrangement is established that creates thenecessary "checks and balances" in what is anextremely sensitive and volatile investigative area.These unconventional standards of measurement '. 4

THE VIDEO P()KER INDUSTRY: ABENIGN INVESTMENT WITHMALIGNAN'T IMPLICATIONSSen. William Roth, Jr., (R-Del.), then chairman ofthe Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, tolda committee hearing in 1985 that there was adistinction between the illegal use of these machines,"rather than the machines themselves." Thisdistinction, he said, "is important because video pokermachines only become illegal when actual cashpayoffs are made to winning players."The hearings highlighted a seizure ofapproximately 500 of the illegal machines worth morethan 1 million. The seizure was the result of a raid inBensalem Township, Bucks County, PA. Such seizuresled Sen. Warren Rudman (R-NH) to conclude duringthe hearings that video poker machines are "slotmachines in sheep's clothing."The Commission has been involved in aninvestigation of the illegal video poker industry in the.Commonwealth. The Commission has determinedthat participants in this particular industry areintricately involved in other rackets, particularlyloansharking and, to a lesser extent, narcotics activity.Corruption of public officials, as was demonstrated inthe 1984 bribery convictions of 33 Philadelphia police.officers, is but one of the obvious consequences ofcriminalizing a behavior that is openly tolerated.The modern high-tech electronic era has providedcriminal organizations with a reliable, consistent, andrelatively risk-free method of producing revenues. Inan attempt to assess some of the economic asp':lcts of.the video poker market, the Crime Commission hasinterviewed tavern owners, vendors, servicingvendors, and racketeers involved in this industry. TheCommission has determined that a video pokermachine that may cost anywhere from 1,400 to 2,800 each, earns 1,000 per week on the average,.depending on how often it is played. 3Pennsylvania law dictates that it is illegal to possessa gambling device, and that any such device used forgambling shall be seized and forfeited to theCommonwealth. The determination of whether amachine is a gambling device per se requires analysisof the three elements of gambling: consideration, aresult determined by chance rather than skill, andreward. If each of these elements is displayed by themachine, then it is a gambling device per se understate law.The illegal video poker industry in Pennsylvaniapermeates the organized crime subculture. Across theCommonwealth, video poker machines are located intaverns and private social clubs. State Police have.seized literally thousands of these machines as illegalgambling devices. Nonetheless, this illicit industry isflourishing.All video poker machines possess the first twoelements, but the reward element is the most difficultto prove. It requires that a law enforcement officerobserve a "play" and "payoff" on the machine beforeit can be seized as a gambling device. This does not,however, establish the machine as a gambling device,per se .Winning a free game or "credit" does not itselfconstitute a reward. It may be considered a rewardwhen coupled with other characteristics of themachines. The ability to knock off free games, thepresence of meters to enable the owner to determinehow many games were knocked off, the ability of aplayer to hold over part of his previous play to thenext game in order to increase his or her chances ofwinning a higher payoff on the next game, and theextremely short playing time involved, leads to theconclusion that the reward of a free game constitutesa thing of value.From a legal perspective, the two crucial featuresin establishing the reward element are a knockdownmechanism and a meter to record the number ofgames knocked off.In Pittsburgh, for example, state troopers seized339 machines in a single raid. Some establishments,such as the McKees Rocks Social Club in suburban Pittsburgh, had as many as 15 video poker machinesoperating at one time. In central Pennsylvania, 189machines were seized in the course of an evening. InApril 1988, State Police seized 400 machines in fournortheastern counties.ttrhe Legal AmbiguityThe legal status of video poker, meanwhile, variesfrom state to state. According to testimony before thePermanent Subcommittee on Investigations of theU.S. Senate, these high-tech versions of the one.rmed bandits are being used for illegal gamblingthroughout the country, causing growing concernamong law enforcement authorities.3New Mexico recently voted down video poker legislation which wouldhave resulted in lIS much as 25 million in additional revenues for the state . 5

If a machine meets the criteria - consideration,chance, and reward (potential for reward) - itbecomes a gambling device, per se, and therefore canbe seized and forfeited even though actual gamblingplay is not shown.competitors who stole locations or "stops" from thisfirm. In one particular instance, the GottilGambinoLeN Family of New York City intervened in a videopoker dispute.The money generated from this racket waslaundered through Atlantic City casinos, and used inloansharking and narcotics operations in both NewJersey and Pennsylvania. Clearly, the relationshipbetween La Cosa Nostra and the video poker industrywas demonstrated in this investigation.Because of the time and resources involved ininvestigating this newest form of illegal gambling, thesophistication of the electronic technology, and thepublic indifferc::nce to such gambling, coupled withthe burgeoning and more

in central Pennsylvania." One year later this finding proved quite prophetic. Seizures of cocaine and heroin in this once serene county have increased significantly, subsequent to the creation of a Cov.nty Narcotics Task Force.! Other communities throughout the state