SLED Gets It Wrong: South Carolina Court Reverses Seizure of Dragon’s Ascent Gaming Machine

By James Seidel | CC News Network

In a significant legal defeat for the South Carolina Law Enforcement Division (SLED), the state’s Court of Appeals has ruled against the agency, overturning a previous decision that deemed the Dragon’s Ascent gaming machine an illegal gambling device. The ruling exposes SLED’s misinterpretation of state law, raising broader questions about the agency’s enforcement actions and its ongoing crackdown on gaming machines in South Carolina.

The decision, filed February 5, 2025, marks a major win for SC Games of Skill, LLC, the company that operated the machine, and underscores judicial skepticism toward SLED’s expansive definition of “gambling” under state law. The case originated from a SLED-led raid at LG’s By the Creek, a restaurant and bar in Hanahan, where special agents seized a Dragon’s Ascent machine under the claim that it constituted an unlawful gambling device.

But in a clear rebuke, the Court of Appeals found that SLED’s interpretation of the law was fundamentally flawed.

The Case: SLED Oversteps Its Authority

The case centered on Dragon’s Ascent, a skill-based video game where players control a turret to shoot moving dragons on the screen. Players can adjust shot values, strategize their attacks, and earn points based on accuracy. Unlike traditional gambling games, Dragon’s Ascent is designed entirely around skill, without a randomized chance component.

However, SLED agents claimed that the game qualified as an illegal gambling device because players could redeem credits for cash—an argument that ultimately failed in court.

At the magistrate level, the court acknowledged that skill predominated over chance in Dragon’s Ascent, but still ruled against the game, citing its use for “gambling.” The decision was then appealed to the circuit court, where the ruling was overturned, determining that if a game is one of skill, then it cannot be considered illegal gambling under South Carolina law.

SLED pushed the case to the Court of Appeals, arguing that any game where money is exchanged could be classified as gambling—regardless of whether skill or chance is involved. But the appellate judges disagreed, ruling that the law does not support SLED’s interpretation and reversing the magistrate’s decision.

Judicial Smackdown: What the Court Actually Said

At the heart of the ruling is Section 12-21-2710 of the South Carolina Code, which prohibits gambling machines. SLED claimed this statute bans not just games of chance, but any device that can be used for gambling, even if skill is involved.

However, the Court of Appeals flatly rejected SLED’s argument, citing clear legal precedent that distinguishes between games of skill and games of chance. The court ruled that SLED’s interpretation ignored decades of case law and contradicted fundamental principles of statutory construction.

Judge Blake Hewitt, writing for the court, emphasized that SLED’s interpretation was overly broad and that the legislature had never intended to outlaw skill-based games. The ruling concluded:

“The circuit court erred in ending its analysis with the skill versus chance inquiry. We therefore reinstate the magistrate’s order finding that this Dragon’s Ascent machine was used for illegal gambling. The circuit court’s decision is REVERSED.”

This direct repudiation of SLED’s legal argument raises serious concerns about the agency’s approach to gaming enforcement and its tendency to exceed its legal mandate.

SLED’s History of Overreach: More Questions Than Answers

This is not the first time SLED has faced legal pushback over its enforcement tactics. The agency has aggressively targeted gaming establishments in recent years, often seizing machines without clear legal justification.

South Carolina’s courts have repeatedly curbed SLED’s broad enforcement claims, raising concerns that the agency is pursuing personal or political agendas rather than simply enforcing the law.

The case also exposes deeper issues of accountability within SLED, which has recently been embroiled in controversies regarding selective enforcement and misuse of investigative powers.

Given SLED’s pattern of legal misinterpretations, this ruling could trigger further challenges to the agency’s authority and its handling of similar cases.

A State That Executes, Yet Fails to Interpret Its Own Laws?

This ruling comes at a time when South Carolina has been aggressively stepping up its execution policies—a stark contrast to the state’s inability to correctly interpret its own legal statutes.

Since reinstating executions, South Carolina has carried out multiple death sentences at Broad River Correctional Institution—the state’s primary death row facility. The most recent execution took place in November 2024, with additional scheduled executions in 2025.

Yet, while the state can justify executing inmates, it cannot properly define a legal gaming machine? This ruling raises a larger question about the competency of South Carolina’s legal and enforcement institutions. If SLED cannot even interpret a gambling statute correctly, what does that say about its ability to oversee matters of life and death? Whoops, did we just say that? 

What Happens Next?

With the Court of Appeals’ decision now in place, SLED has lost its legal argument, but the broader implications of this ruling remain unresolved.

• Will SLED appeal this ruling to the South Carolina Supreme Court?
• Will gaming operators now pursue lawsuits against SLED for wrongful seizures?
• Will legislators step in to clarify South Carolina’s gaming laws to prevent future overreach?

The court’s ruling is clear: SLED got it wrong. But whether the agency will accept its defeat—or attempt to retaliate with new legal maneuvers—remains to be seen.

For now, this case stands as yet another example of SLED’s troubled enforcement record, raising serious concerns about the agency’s role in shaping the legal landscape of South Carolina.

Final Thought: The Bigger Picture

While this ruling protects the rights of gaming operators, it also exposes the deeper failures of law enforcement oversight in South Carolina. From botched gaming investigations to questionable handling of death row cases, the state continues to show a pattern of legal inconsistency.

With this case now decided, all eyes will be on how SLED responds—and whether South Carolina’s justice system can truly uphold the law without bias or overreach.

Connect with CC News Network

Over 1,500,000 Million likes of Tiktok alone!

Join Our 100,000+ Social Media Fans:

• Follow Us on X: @CCNewsNetwork
• Follow Us on TikTok: @CCNewsNetwork
• Facebook: CC News Network
• Talk Radio: 97.7FM WVFF – Listen to Our Hit True Crime Talk Radio Show
• Follow Us on Amazon Books: Click here to follow
• Hire Us on Cameo: @CC News Network
• Follow Us on Spotify: @CC Records
• Follow Us on Bluesky: @ccnewsnetwork.bsky.social
• Follow Us on Mastadon: @CrimeandCask
• New Book Development: J6’r Autobiography