Rivers Casino sued for alleged misuse of surveillance cameras
Two women are accusing the Rivers Casino, an attorney and an Allegheny County police officer of misusing video surveillance equipment there to view their text messages, emails and personal banking information in violation of state wiretap laws.
Two separate lawsuits were filed in Allegheny County Common Pleas Court late last week by Hayley Clerici and Julie Capone, an assistant district attorney, asserting claims the defendants unlawfully viewed their private
information and disclosed it. The complaints also allege invasion of privacy, conspiracy and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
The listed defendants include Holdings Acquisition Co. — doing business as the Rivers — as well as attorney Dennis McCurdy and Scott Scherer, an Allegheny County police sergeant, although he is not identified in his official capacity. Three others, employees who work in the casino’s surveillance operations, are listed as “John Doe.”
According to the lawsuits, Mr. McCurdy represents Mr. Scherer in a custody case in Butler County involving his ex-wife, Ms. Clerici. Mr. McCurdy could not be reached for comment.
A spokesman for the Rivers said he could not commenton pending litigation.
“While a county employee, this matter is a private one, and so we don’t have any comment or statement regarding it,” said Amie Downs, a spokeswoman for Allegheny County.
The complaints allege that on Oct. 12, Mr. McCurdy issued a subpoena to the Rivers requesting copies of video surveillance of Ms. Clerici at the casino on Sept. 21 and Sept. 22.
However, the complaints allege that the surveillance turned over to the attorney included a trip to the casino on Oct. 28 with Ms. Capone, in which both women were using their cell phones to send text messages and emails. In addition, Ms. Clerici alleges that she used an app on her phone to access financial information. No details are provided about what was said in any of the messages.
The lawsuits allege that after Mr. McCurdy received the video surveillance — which they say fell outside of the window of time required by the subpoena — he then disclosed it to Mr. Scherer, who then “disclosed some or all of plaintiff’s protected information to persons in Allegheny County and/or elsewhere in order to ridicule and/or to embarrass plaintiff in light of the sensitive and private nature of her messages, emails and/or financial information.”
“There is an issue of whether the proper procedures were following in issuing the subpoena and how it was served,” said Mark McKenna, the attorney who filed both lawsuits.
The complaints allege violations of the ‘s Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control act, particularly including what it calls the “Rivers Casino’s unlawful zoom surveillance and zoom recording of plaintiff’s” information. It alleges the conduct was “so outrageous as to constitute willful, wanton and reckless conduct, as well as complete disregard of plaintiff’s rights and privacy.”
“Plaintiff did reasonably expect that there would be lawful surveillance of persons present in Rivers Casino, but plaintiff had no basis to expect that surveillance would extend to the close-up viewing and recording of her cell phone including her private text messages, email communications and personal financial information,” Ms. Clerici’s lawsuit said.
Richard McGarvey, a spokesman for the Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board, said that the state’s regulations for surveillance at casinos does not cover the types of allegations made in the current lawsuits.
Instead, he said that the regulations list the areas of the casino where cameras must be placed, how many are required and those types of issues.
“The regulations deal with the protection of the games and players to make sure it’s being done fair, and no one is cheating,”he said.
He did note, though, that the regulations also specify that the casinos’ video surveillance systems must comply with the state’s wiretapping act.
Mr. McGarvey said the board reviews all lawsuits filed against casinos in the state, and he is not aware of any other allegations similar to the ones raised by Ms. Clerici and Ms. Capone.
The board’s enforcement section can choose to review allegations like those to determine if there should be an investigation from a regulatory standpoint, Mr. McGarvey said, but he did not know if that would occur in this case.