ADVERTISEMENT

Survey of HROT Attorneys

Jimmy McGill

HR Legend
Sep 9, 2018
25,673
45,112
113
Earth
What is your impression on DCI case so far? Am I the only one that thinks they are screwed? Is there a plausible legal defense for them that I"m missing?

I just feel like I must be missing something.
 
What is your impression on DCI case so far? Am I the only one that thinks they are screwed? Is there a plausible legal defense for them that I"m missing?

I just feel like I must be missing something.
Unfortunately, not my speciality of law. I defer to you.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jimmy McGill
I think they shit the bed but time will tell.

I’d love to know how they got from anonymized data to player names. Not much has been disclosed on that piece yet.
 
  • Like
Reactions: torbee
Without a warrant for the initial search, seems like everything is fruit of the poisonous tree. DCI has said their actions were blessed by the county attorneys. I’d like to see those communications.

There’s no way this sees the inside of a courtroom though. Bird allowed the UI football racial discrimination case to get settled swiftly and this is a much worse looking case for the state. One or two DCI agents will get let go as scapegoats and the state will pay a large settlement (hopefully it’s made public).
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jimmy McGill
Online betting companies require register users to consent to share their location data with GeoComply. Given that, do these plaintiffs have a reasonable expectation of privacy in GeoComply's location data? If not, the Fourth Amendment protections, including the warrant clause, do not apply.

And, one step further, qualified immunity requires that there is clearly established pre-existing legal authority that law enforcement cannot tap into this data without probable cause and a warrant.

This is a huge hurdle for the plaintiffs. The raw location data is not private.
 
Online betting companies require register users to consent to share their location data with GeoComply. Given that, do these plaintiffs have a reasonable expectation of privacy in GeoComply's location data? If not, the Fourth Amendment protections, including the warrant clause, do not apply.

And, one step further, qualified immunity requires that there is clearly established pre-existing legal authority that law enforcement cannot tap into this data without probable cause and a warrant.

This is a huge hurdle for the plaintiffs. The raw location data is not private.
Those are good points. But I think the counter point is the selective enforcement of such a fishing expedition. UI and ISU but no UNI, Drake, etc. The plaintiffs could argue the agents had malicious intent, particularly when the one agent admitted no criminal activity was suspected.
 
Online betting companies require register users to consent to share their location data with GeoComply. Given that, do these plaintiffs have a reasonable expectation of privacy in GeoComply's location data? If not, the Fourth Amendment protections, including the warrant clause, do not apply.

And, one step further, qualified immunity requires that there is clearly established pre-existing legal authority that law enforcement cannot tap into this data without probable cause and a warrant.

This is a huge hurdle for the plaintiffs. The raw location data is not private.
The email from the DCI special agent is damning. It shows prejudice and ulterior motives for the investigation.
The state is going to take it in the ass on this one.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT