That is quite a conundrum. Especially since:
Typically if gambling is not legal, there are not going to be any public areas dedicated to gambling. Now, if this gaming establishment is out of the jurisdiction in a jurisdiction where gambling is legal, it would make sense, but would greatly increase the need for interagency cooperation. As a further aside, how exactly is the stolen money tracked to said casinos? Did one of the businesses painstakingly write down the serial numbers on every piece of paper currency? Paper currency is hard to track unless you make note of the serial numbers on them and even then it would be up to other businesses to report having received paper currency with the serial numbers matching those that were reported stolen, and quite often most businesses do not write down the serial numbers of the paper currency they receive.
Now, I’ll give you an example of a law that is local to my area, that you might consider not prioritized to stop, and I will also give you my general attitude towards both the lack of prioritization and how I typically would handle such a thing.
Alcohol is prohibited. My local area is under prohibition still. It’s legal outside of my jurisdiction, but not legal in it. It is illegal to own, and to consume.
If they stay out of my jurisdiction, they can own and consume however they wish. I’m okay with that. Once they’re inside my jurisdiction, they are breaking the law, even if they aren’t consuming or in possession of alcohol. So when I encounter an intoxicated individual, I bring them in to jail. Now, is it necessarily an offense that requires arrest? No…but it is one that requires officer discretion. In this case, I could either give them a fine and ticket and then take them home, or I could take them to jail, and then they’ll still get the fine. Those that do not prioritize such an incident will take them home and not write a ticket or fine them. They think they’re doing a good job, being nice and courteous. I did that once. The person I took home then stole a car, ran over somebody, took our agency on a high speed chase, and then wrapped their vehicle around a tree. They didn’t live. The person they ran over didn’t live. Had I taken the person to jail like I had the option to, no further crimes would have been committed, and there would be two people still alive.
Now, gambling may not be something you would think would translate into something that could turn violent, except it can, especially if it is illegal. Money is a big motivator for violent crimes. A casino brings in a lot of money. An illegal casino would bring in a lot of money also, and would probably be run by not so peaceful people. People may be killed for ‘cheating’ the casino. People may be killed for money to go to said casino. People may be killed because they owe the casino. Not being prioritized? Just the knowledge that there is an illegal gambling site in your jurisdiction will greatly increase the crime in the area. Not prioritizing it would lead to an increase in crime as people attempt to gain money at whatever costs in order to gamble or to pay off their gambling debts before something bad happens to them. Based upon my experiences, letting the gambling go would not be an option for me, and after what happened to me from prior experience, neither would quite a few of my officers.
That being said, the only thing needing clarification is the location of said casino and the method of currency tracking whatever business used to track their money to…the casino. Though, if the casino is illegal (and not prioritized) how exactly was the money tracked to it? It would mean that somebody took down at least one illegal gambling den and being police, we write down EVERY serial number on every piece of paper currency we find before submitting it into evidence holding. You may laugh at that, but it is not a laughing matter when you’re counting up 10,000 dollars of mostly single dollar bills AND writing down every single serial number on each bill. And even if we had assistants to help us, we couldn’t allow them to do the writing down for us because we have to maintain chain of evidence. So, you do it solo.
Well, I hope this has been kind of informative for you as well. Still looking forward to writing a report for you once everything is set to do so. You may have now noticed but a lot of things need to be known in order to create a report, even if most things in the report are unknown. I can write a report of an unknown suspect, whereabouts unknown, known associates unknown, unknown description… I just need to know enough things to get the ball rolling, which is where things took place, if in jurisdiction or not, and how that is known.
If you base police work on what I’ve been describing here, you’d think that we are sent out on a call with all kinds of information. We don’t. Here would be a typical dispatch call to be sent to one of those businesses where money was stolen:
8399 would be dispatch. 45 would be Officer Smol Pirate’s number, in a small town it may be his badge number, or it may be his car number. Most of the bigger cities go by car number.
10-4 is typically an acknowledgement. it can mean yes, affirmative, ok, or just acknowledgement that you copied the transmission. 10-74 is en route. Though, this particular code varies, as do most others, in jurisdiction to jurisdiction. It’s bad when you go to another jurisdiction and when you get there you’re listening to the radio and the 10 code used refers to a dead person in your jurisdiction, but in their jurisdiction it means they have a suspect in custody. This actually happened to me once, and I had thought that there was some sort of epidemic or natural disaster. I thought people were dropping like flies, but instead it was a heavy arrest day.
As you can see, you don’t typically get a lot of information. Most information you collect on scene, and throughout the course of the initial investigation. By the end of this particular call, Officer Pirate could have an initial report as long as this post. And a few days later have an addendum about the same size if he practiced due diligence before handing off the case to the detective branch.