LITIGATING THE MANDALAY BAY MASS MURDER CASE

What follows is an anatomy of a premises security case featuring the horrific mass murder outrage at the Mandalay Bay Casino Resort on October 1, 2017. Unfortunately, Americans remain at risk when patronizing hospitality industry venues throughout our land.

When Americans prepare for a trip to say, Atlantic City or Las Vegas we don't expect to become victims of crime. Probably the only thing we consider losing might be money set aside for gambling!

Yet, in the recent downturned economy, many hospitality destinations have less security and law enforcement personnel available than at any time in the last several decades. In my work first in law enforcement and then later within corporate security for major leisure/resort corporations, I had a front-row seat to the downsizing and dismantling of reasonable security teams and systems. Budgets continue to get cut; security expenditures of under 1% of revenue had become a SOP and much too commonplace for leisure site security operations when the standard was once 2% to 3%.

Criminals read the papers and watch television too. They know police and security resources have been trimmed; they know that visitors to such places as hotels/motels, casinos, nightclubs, and sports arenas are more tempting targets with a diminished probability of fast response and in-depth investigations.

It is quite likely that mass-killer Steven Paddock knew he could get away with murder at the Mandalay Bay massacre in Las Vegas on October 1, 2017. What was the foreseeable risk? Was the security offered by defendants MGM and Live Nation reasonable? If so, how do you prove it?

In order to bring justice for injured victims plaintiff’s attorneys require the professional services of a security expert in the field of casino hotel security and law enforcement. That includes obtaining the correct data on the actual risk at the defendant’s premises and a determination if the defendant’s provided reasonable security and surveillance to meet that threat.

We often don't know just how prevalent and widespread criminal activity is. An FBI study estimated that only 20 percent of serious crime is reported to authorities. (Sutor, Police Operations) Police departments can also support illusions that crime-fighting records are better than they are. While a detective in a major U.S. city decades ago it was common practice to classify crimes at the lowest possible level. Senior law enforcement management promoted and condoned "taking advantage of the gray area." Was an inner-city aggravated assault accurately classified as such or simply a "minor dispute - adjusted"? In my expert security consulting during this last decade, I note the practice continues and has sometimes elevated to an art form. In my text on "Police Operations," I provide analytical measures to determine how accurate a police department's crime reporting system is. In any event, we're not getting as clear a picture of the criminal malady as we could.

Private companies in hospitality/leisure have even more compelling reasons to under-report crime at their properties. Publicized on-premises crimes adversely affect their image and can deter guests from choosing their venues. Although multi-billion dollar companies do not deliberately wish to put the public at risk, by cutting security and protecting their profit margins, they often do.

Thirty years ago, when I was in charge of security at a casino in Atlantic City (that what is now owned by the world's largest gaming company), it was industry standard to budget from 2-3% of revenues for security/surveillance and guest/asset protection. But security didn't generate revenue. Eventually, I moved into upper management, and the dictum was: “Reduce expenses and increase profits!” Thus, the more costly security professionals were let go. Now, staff became low paid, inexperienced, and often non-professional guards, many from third world countries who were not versed in the complexities of public safety and loss prevention. Because of these conditions, a novel new legal concept of “abatement of security” was successfully raised by an attorney, who himself was a plaintiff, to prevail in a negligent security case I consulted in as an expert. (Binns v Harrah’s)

When company management diminishes security in places where there is a foreseeable risk, the legal name for the action is called: willful ignorance. In plain language, it means looking the other way and ignoring foreseeable risk when you suspect that something is amiss. And in Atlantic City and Las Vegas, it's become something of concern where we've seen reduced security and surveillance expenditures. For example, a Dateline NBC segment focused on three casino hotels sued for negligent security. A spokesman for the hotels said the level of crime in the facilities was "insignificant."

During discovery, however, the plaintiff's attorney did not rely on “spoliated” in-house records but, acting on my advice, acquired Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) reports from local police. That data showed more than 10,000 police calls and actions at one casino during a 5 year period, including four homicides in a single year. Not so insignificant

More recently, there is ample data and evidence to show that foreseeable risk prevalent at the Mandalay Bay Casino Resort on October 1, 2017, was substantial and ignored. The public would be shocked to see how few qualified security professionals were protecting them and how few operators were watching security camera monitors. (Refer to my article: “The Casino Surveillance Mystique.”)

Steven Paddock killed 58 innocents and injured 851 more as they were enjoying a country music concert on that fateful day. As of this writing, some improvements such as emergency response teams, metal detectors, undercover detection squads and enhanced camera coverage are being made by Las Vegas casinos, but it is too little, too late!

It's not merely slot machines, the old “one-armed bandits” that guests have to concern themselves with today. And perhaps now, with the horrific massacre at the Mandalay Bay Casino Resort, is the leisure industry's wake-up call. I'd challenge management to revisit security issues with this perspective: save the lives of customers and protect profits with reasonable security measures instead of suffering lawsuit after lawsuit; getting foul publicity and inviting people to go elsewhere to play!

Andrew P. Sutor is a security consultant and expert witness at Sutor & Associates, LLC. He can be reached at [email protected] or 609.822.2626.

Abbreviated Bibliography:  FBI Uniform Crime Reports, US Department of Justice; "Police Operations", Sutor, West Publishing Co.; Handbook: "Security Standards for the Hospitality Industry", Sutor, (2013); DATELINE NBC Video: "Hidden Camera Investigation Uncovers Security Gaps"; “Litigating Premises Security Cases,” John Leighton (2006); “The Casino Surveillance Mystique”, Sutor (2018)