DCI Special Agent Mark Ludwig……
- Thread starter joelbc1
- Start date
If they show up at your door. Do not answer the door. If you answer the door, do not let them in or do not step out of the front doorway to talk to them. I know a certain someone very knowledgable in this are and she said DON'T answer the door to begin with.
Officials/politicians at the top of the food chain seldom face consequences.
Reynolds/Bird will not face scrutiny.
But I agree that on Tuesday evening, there were some serious discussions in Des Moines on how to answer to this and who will "take the fall".
Reynolds/Bird will not face scrutiny.
But I agree that on Tuesday evening, there were some serious discussions in Des Moines on how to answer to this and who will "take the fall".
These people are pieces of shit. Part of the plea agreements was they(college kids)couldn’t sue the DCI. Why would the DCI put that in there if they were clean? A judge would hopefully throw those agreements right the **** out
Last edited:
Seems like evidence of their knowledge that what they were doing was illegal and actionable.
I hope you never make a penny either. Dumb statement. You can hate attorneys until you need one.
What has been alleged is not judicial abuse. It is abuse of another kind, however.
You’re missing the point. They unlawfully gathered personal information without a warrant. It’s like they bugged your phone and computer without a warrant or any complaint against you or any reasonable suspicion that you broke the law. What they did is far more serious and illegal than any underage gambling. They violated innocent people’s rights…
You think OJ should not have been found liable in a civil court to pay financial damages to the Estates of Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman?
There are very good reasons why the burdens of proof are different in a civil courtroom and a criminal courtroom.
Any time LEO/ the government violates the rights of the citizens, it is more serious…
Yes. Still...I've always found this a fascinating "contradiction" in some cases.
I can understand, for example, a car accident where the accused is found not guilty of vehicular homicide despite clearly being involved in an accident. There may not be enough evidence for conviction on the VH charge but there's clear admission and understanding that they were involved in the incident. It's just a matter of degree of responsibility.
In the case of OJ, the criminal verdict basically said "he didn't kill them". So what would the basis be for a civil suit? He was found not to be guilty of their death. Is there an implication that he somehow was responsible indirectly?
Whats yours? For a guy who wants to represent America in his profile pic, you sure seem pretty open to surveilling American citizens. You want the DCI/DPS/Counties to know what you are doing on your phone? Why are you into the idea of personal data collection on phones being utilized by governments of any magnitude utilizing it to inference crime?
Well, they violated people’s rights, but I’m not so sure they violated innocent people’s rights. They violated the rights of people who were not suspected of wrongdoing, but that doesn’t make them innocent.
It still doesn’t justify what they did. Clearly a 4th Amendment violation.
You could have stopped at "they violated people's rights". That's really all that matters. All are presumed innocent until proven guilty.
Yes, they violated people’s rights and it doesn’t matter if they’re innocent or not. Plenty of cases get thrown out due to fruit of the poisonous tree. And the search was definitely a poisonous tree.
Remind me again as to what illegal activity Noah Shannon was engaged in?
Did you miss the part where he testified under oath as to what he did?
He admitted under oath what he did, and what he did was unlawful. So there has been no adjudication, but an admissible admission of unlawful conduct. Those other hammers will drop eventually.
That he set up the geofence without a warrant, tips, complaints or evidence that illegal gambling was occurring.
Last edited:
The criminal verdict was not "OJ didn't kill Brown and Goldman." The jury in LA was asked (not word for word) "Has the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt that OJ killed Brown and Goldman?" The jury answered "no."
In a civil case alleging wrongful death, the burden of proof is by a preponderance of the evidence. You can still have a reasonable doubt and find in favor of the Plaintiff.
Big difference. And, FWIW, the evidence was overwhelming. In a civil court, not a close call.
It's up for debate as to whether a warrant was needed. The courts will settle this.
State Senator Dan Dawson of Pottawattamie County, who is also a DCI agent himself, countered Petersen's point.
Dawson argues that while people can be worried about privacy, geofencing without a warrant is fine in this case.
Iowa coach and lawmakers discuss DCI sports betting probe
Wednesday marks the third straight day there is new perspective on the Iowa DCI Sports wagering probe. This time the conversation continues with state lawmaker
cbs2iowa.com
While anything is possible and you never actually know what a jury will do, if I was playing texas hold 'em, I would push all my chips into the middle of the table on Noah Shannon's case.It's up for debate as to whether a warrant was needed. The courts will settle this.
State Senator Dan Dawson of Pottawattamie County, who is also a DCI agent himself, countered Petersen's point.
Dawson argues that while people can be worried about privacy, geofencing without a warrant is fine in this case.
Iowa coach and lawmakers discuss DCI sports betting probe
Wednesday marks the third straight day there is new perspective on the Iowa DCI Sports wagering probe. This time the conversation continues with state lawmaker
Northern, go take some basic government classes and constitutional law. This is not even close. @Tenacious E who doesn't do criminal law knows this stuff. It is elementary legal education. You are out of your field @NorthernHawkeye
Alfredo Parrish is about to get involved....the State is f'd
This means the State of Iowa can access loads of location data on people whenever they want just because they have a sportsbook account. Worth noting is that you don’t even have to make any bets, you just have to open up the sportsbook app or login to your account and it will log your location.It's up for debate as to whether a warrant was needed. The courts will settle this.
State Senator Dan Dawson of Pottawattamie County, who is also a DCI agent himself, countered Petersen's point.
Dawson argues that while people can be worried about privacy, geofencing without a warrant is fine in this case.
Iowa coach and lawmakers discuss DCI sports betting probe
Wednesday marks the third straight day there is new perspective on the Iowa DCI Sports wagering probe. This time the conversation continues with state lawmaker
Last edited:
Fecal particulate makes an excellent point. I do not believe anyone in the history of mankind has written that sentence before.
And you have no idea what your are talking about. How about I call Johnny Law and have him enter your house without a warrant?
I'm trying to dumb it down for you sport:
An unreasonable search and seizure is a search and seizure executed 1) without a legal search warrant signed by a judge or magistrate describing the place, person, or things to be searched or seized or 2) without probable cause to believe that certain person, specified place or automobile has criminal evidence or 3) extending the authorized scope of search and seizure.
An unreasonable search and seizure is unconstitutional, as it is in violation of the Fourth Amendment, which aims to protect individuals’ reasonable expectation of privacy against government officers. The Fourth Amendment reads: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrant shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
Because of qualified immunity, the exclusionary rule is often a defendant's only remedy when police officers conduct an unreasonable search or violate the defendant's rights. Qualified immunity usually will extend to officers who violate a defendant's constitutional or statutory rights.
Under qualified immunity, an officer can only be sued when no reasonable officer would believe that the officers' conduct was legal. This exception comes from both Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989) - stating an objective standard for reasonableness which "must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene" - and Justice Ginsburg's concurrence in Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (2001) - stating that "an officer whose conduct is objectively unreasonable under Graham should find no shelter under a sequential qualified immunity test.” This rule is to protect government employees executing their working assignments from being personally sued by the defendant.
There are exceptions of search and seizure without a warrant and the exception of good faith, which permit a search or seizure even if it doesn’t conform to the requirement of the Fourth amendment.
See: Fourth Amendment, 18 U.S. Code Chapter 205 - Searches and Seizures
An unreasonable search and seizure is a search and seizure executed 1) without a legal search warrant signed by a judge or magistrate describing the place, person, or things to be searched or seized or 2) without probable cause to believe that certain person, specified place or automobile has criminal evidence or 3) extending the authorized scope of search and seizure.
An unreasonable search and seizure is unconstitutional, as it is in violation of the Fourth Amendment, which aims to protect individuals’ reasonable expectation of privacy against government officers. The Fourth Amendment reads: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrant shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
Remedies
The remedy to unreasonable search and seizure is the exclusionary rule, which prevents the evidence obtained via the unreasonable search or seizure from being introduced in court, as it is referred to as the fruit of the poisonous tree; see Mapp v. Ohio, 347 U.S. 643 (1961). This remedy only applies to criminal trials. For 1) other court proceedings, including “federal habeas corpus review of state convictions, grand jury proceedings, preliminary hearings, bail hearings, sentencing hearings, and proceedings to revoke parole,” 2) impeachment of evidence against the defendant, and 3) civil proceedings, this remedy does not apply. For instance, the defendant cannot ask the evidence obtained via lineups and photographic identifications (showing photos of possible suspects in a one-on-one situation to the victim or witness to identify) to be excluded.Qualified Immunity
Even though the defendant can get evidence excluded, they cannot get a remedy against the government officials who performed unreasonable search or seizure, for the officer has qualified immunity, which is a doctrine that protects government employees when they perform certain actions pertinent to their occupations. A police officer with qualified immunity is protected from being personally sued by the defendant.Because of qualified immunity, the exclusionary rule is often a defendant's only remedy when police officers conduct an unreasonable search or violate the defendant's rights. Qualified immunity usually will extend to officers who violate a defendant's constitutional or statutory rights.
Under qualified immunity, an officer can only be sued when no reasonable officer would believe that the officers' conduct was legal. This exception comes from both Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989) - stating an objective standard for reasonableness which "must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene" - and Justice Ginsburg's concurrence in Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (2001) - stating that "an officer whose conduct is objectively unreasonable under Graham should find no shelter under a sequential qualified immunity test.” This rule is to protect government employees executing their working assignments from being personally sued by the defendant.
There are exceptions of search and seizure without a warrant and the exception of good faith, which permit a search or seizure even if it doesn’t conform to the requirement of the Fourth amendment.
See: Fourth Amendment, 18 U.S. Code Chapter 205 - Searches and Seizures
He's a seasoned attorney who has also served a magistrate (judge). Please share your legal education and training.
