Iowa Department of Public Safety releases statement on sports wagering investigation
- Thread starter NorthernHawkeye
- Start date
Why they settle will have little to do with costs. The last thing they want is what defense lawyers have obtained through discovery to go public
There clearly people that need to be fired. With Cause.
Yes, I’m sure you think that.
You’ve blamed the two democratic prosecutors, said it’s to early to discuss Bird, and say there is no reason to investigate despite the deposition testimony, which you apparently refuse to read.
So lets boil this down further - and reference to Aurorahawk on football board -
1. Is legal council told them ok to use goefence without a warrant (who was that and what was that based on)
2. Is claiming Iowa law that has casino's must keep software to ensure no coaches or players use and to have geolocation and that they must self regulate. Then claiming due to this law it allows DCI to use geofence without a warrant (even though that is clearly not what the law states).
3. They went and got a warrant for additional geofencing after the 1st one (which raises the question why they needed a warrant for additional geofencing when they are trying to state it was already legally allowed).
So yes Northern, Iowa is F'd. And the legal council who told DCI geofencing is allowed without a warrant is morons. Waiting for the next drop from legal council stating thats not what they advised.
1. Is legal council told them ok to use goefence without a warrant (who was that and what was that based on)
2. Is claiming Iowa law that has casino's must keep software to ensure no coaches or players use and to have geolocation and that they must self regulate. Then claiming due to this law it allows DCI to use geofence without a warrant (even though that is clearly not what the law states).
3. They went and got a warrant for additional geofencing after the 1st one (which raises the question why they needed a warrant for additional geofencing when they are trying to state it was already legally allowed).
So yes Northern, Iowa is F'd. And the legal council who told DCI geofencing is allowed without a warrant is morons. Waiting for the next drop from legal council stating thats not what they advised.
Last edited:
According to Northern Hawkeye no judge has ruled so don't expect a big settlement. LOL
However, you have the court case saying no.
Iowa Supreme Court Reverses Itself on Lawsuits for Constitutional Rights Violations
Overturning a recent precedent, the court ruled that Iowans have no right to sue for money damages when government officials violate their rights.
That’s some bullshit.According to Northern Hawkeye no judge has ruled so don't expect a big settlement. LOL
However, you have the court case saying no.
Iowa Supreme Court Reverses Itself on Lawsuits for Constitutional Rights Violations
Overturning a recent precedent, the court ruled that Iowans have no right to sue for money damages when government officials violate their rights.statecourtreport.org
He didn’t refuse to read it, it’s just that there are big law type words in it, and it’s counter to the narrative he’s pushing.
So sue them in federal court.According to Northern Hawkeye no judge has ruled so don't expect a big settlement. LOL
However, you have the court case saying no.
Iowa Supreme Court Reverses Itself on Lawsuits for Constitutional Rights Violations
Overturning a recent precedent, the court ruled that Iowans have no right to sue for money damages when government officials violate their rights.
On what grounds? This was a state case. Lawyers can correct me if I’m wrong, but you have to have standing to file suit in federal court and can’t just use it as a workaround to sue state or local officials without a legal justification.
I missed all the drama on this. Can somebody give me the cliff notes and why it’s political? Seems like a cut and dried situation of shitty overreach.
Fourth amendment violations
Civil remedies are also available. Persons who have been illegally arrested or who have had their privacy invaded will usually have a tort action available under state statutory or common law, or against the Federal Government under the Federal Tort Claims Act.432 Moreover, police officers acting under color of state law who violate a person’s Fourth Amendment rights are subject to a suit in federal court for damages and other remedies433 under a civil rights statute.434 Although federal officers and others acting under color of federal law are not subject to this statute, the Supreme Court has held that a right to damages for a violation of Fourth Amendment rights arises by implication and that this right is enforceable in federal courts.435
Although a damages remedy might be made more effectual,436 legal and practical problems stand in the way.437 Law enforcement officers have available to them the usual common-law defenses, the most important of which is the claim of good faith.438 Such “good faith” claims, however, are not based on the subjective intent of the officer. Instead, officers are entitled to qualified immunity “where clearly established law does not show that the search violated the Fourth Amendment,”439 or where they had an objectively reasonable belief that a warrantless search later determined to violate the Fourth Amendment was supported by probable cause or exigent circumstances.440 On the practical side, persons subjected to illegal arrests and searches and seizures are often disreputable persons toward whom juries are unsympathetic, or they are indigent and unable to sue. The result, therefore, is that the Court has emphasized exclusion of unconstitutionally seized evidence in subsequent criminal trials as the only effective enforcement method.
Alternatives to the Exclusionary Rule
: Analysis and Interpretation of the of the US Constitution
law.justia.com
No court has ruled as to whether the investigative action taken was illegal. Time will tell on this.
Because Iowa's governor and AG are Republicans and because the DCI is a state agency, in the minds of liberals, they make it political. Liberals do this in spite of the fact that the governor and AG (she isn't the head of the DCI) do not interfere with investigations.
Right, but you could use that to sue in state court - I’m asking for what grounds you could file suit in federal court instead.Fourth amendment violations
Civil remedies are also available. Persons who have been illegally arrested or who have had their privacy invaded will usually have a tort action available under state statutory or common law, or against the Federal Government under the Federal Tort Claims Act.432 Moreover, police officers acting under color of state law who violate a person’s Fourth Amendment rights are subject to a suit in federal court for damages and other remedies433 under a civil rights statute.434 Although federal officers and others acting under color of federal law are not subject to this statute, the Supreme Court has held that a right to damages for a violation of Fourth Amendment rights arises by implication and that this right is enforceable in federal courts.435
Although a damages remedy might be made more effectual,436 legal and practical problems stand in the way.437 Law enforcement officers have available to them the usual common-law defenses, the most important of which is the claim of good faith.438 Such “good faith” claims, however, are not based on the subjective intent of the officer. Instead, officers are entitled to qualified immunity “where clearly established law does not show that the search violated the Fourth Amendment,”439 or where they had an objectively reasonable belief that a warrantless search later determined to violate the Fourth Amendment was supported by probable cause or exigent circumstances.440 On the practical side, persons subjected to illegal arrests and searches and seizures are often disreputable persons toward whom juries are unsympathetic, or they are indigent and unable to sue. The result, therefore, is that the Court has emphasized exclusion of unconstitutionally seized evidence in subsequent criminal trials as the only effective enforcement method.
Alternatives to the Exclusionary Rule
: Analysis and Interpretation of the of the US Constitution
DOJ comes in when cops violate people’s civil rights.
I presume cops aren’t the only government workers that could violate someone’s civil rights.
That’s not the same thing tho - we’re talking specifically about a private citizen filing suit in federal court. My admittedly very limited understanding of how this sort of thing works is that you have to have a legal rationale to file suit in federal court instead of state.
The court did except the state withdrawing the charges . . .
"“Due to this newly discovered evidence, the State no longer believes further prosecution in this matter is in the interests of justice,” filing with prejudice.
The state didn't even let the judge make the final decision because they knew it was outside the bounds and was an illegal search (meaning it wasn't a valid search to continue the case with) this isn't rocket science. The judge accepted their motion. So yes the judge did make a ruling- he accepted the states stance that they did not have legal searches to continue.
You've tried this stretch before. And it's just that, a stretch.
The court accepted the dismissal. That's it. They didn't rule on the legality of DCI's action.
Its not a stretch. It is a factual claim. The state said due to new evidence (the illegal searches) the information found was no longer in the interest of Justice. The Judge accepted that motion. The states lawyers stance is they know it was illegal, thats why they dropped the charges. Otherwise they would have continued the case. If they were legal, why didn't the state continue . . . . I will wait patiently for your response.
Northern digging in to defend an investigation that was so botched the State had to drop the case with prejudice is near peak GIAOT.
Everyone knows that the court didn't not make a ruling on the legality of the search. Even you know this. So stop playing games. Prosecutors drop charges all the time. And judges accept dismissals all the time.
In his motion, Matchan wrote that GeoComply “has failed to respond” to his inquires this week.
“The state no longer believes further prosecution in this matter is in the interest of justice,” he wrote.
Iowa Department of Public Safety Commissioner Stephan Bayens said in a statement Friday that the decision to drop the cases was "disappointing." He said Story County prosecutors "repeatedly shared with us their belief that the Division of Criminal Investigation’s actions were legal."
Bayens acknowledged there had been controversy over the investigation and charges.
"We love our college sports here in Iowa, myself included," he said. "Had this situation not involved college athletes, the public perception may have been entirely different."
Prosecutors drop charges against former Iowa State athletes in gambling investigation
An assistant Story County attorney cited evidence that DCI investigators used gambling tracking software inappropriately
www.desmoinesregister.com
I haven't defended anything.
I'm simply contending that the courts have not ruled on the legality of the search.
I further take issue with posters turning this into a political issue. It's not!
Why did the state drop this charge . . . . what was the reasoning??? The defense claims they were illegal searches, it appears the state agrees which is why they dropped the charges . . . with prejudice. On its face they had enough information for the charges, the only reason they don't is if the searches were illegal to start with. Geocomply unless forced doesn't want to come out and say yes we dropped the license because the state of Iowa completed illegal searches with our software that was outside the scope of our agreement and open up their company to liability. Are you really this dense???Everyone knows that the court didn't not make a ruling on the legality of the search. Even you know this. So stop playing games. Prosecutors drop charges all the time. And judges accept dismissals all the time.
In his motion, Matchan wrote that GeoComply “has failed to respond” to his inquires this week.
“The state no longer believes further prosecution in this matter is in the interest of justice,” he wrote.
Iowa Department of Public Safety Commissioner Stephan Bayens said in a statement Friday that the decision to drop the cases was "disappointing." He said Story County prosecutors "repeatedly shared with us their belief that the Division of Criminal Investigation’s actions were legal."
Bayens acknowledged there had been controversy over the investigation and charges.
"We love our college sports here in Iowa, myself included," he said. "Had this situation not involved college athletes, the public perception may have been entirely different."
Prosecutors drop charges against former Iowa State athletes in gambling investigation
An assistant Story County attorney cited evidence that DCI investigators used gambling tracking software inappropriatelywww.desmoinesregister.com
Baynes is covering his ass. Don't worry more will come out in the civil suits.
Come on. There are many posts where you defend the state. Most are in the original two threads on this topic - one OT and one on the FB board.
You practically ran to the boards to post the State releasing a statement months ago saying it did nothing wrong. That’s defending the state.
That turned out to be incorrect - they botched this.
I agree with you on the political issue. The State shit the bed because they shit the bed, not because they are GOP.
You are incorrect.
This is one of my very first posts on this subject.
How about responding to an actual example I posted: you running to the board to post the State’s press release that it claimed it did nothing wrong?
Reasonable people understand that going out and finding material that defends the State and posting it here is … defending the State.
And yet watch, he will refuse to state the reason that the state dropped its case. Relying on someone in the agency who was at fault stating they believed it was legal, not the attorneys trying the case, who dropped the case (on the belief they were illegal).
It was an article pertinent to an active discussion on this board. Why is posting that article an issue for you?
It’s not. Shocking that the State would say it did nothing wrong.
But don’t claim you weren’t defending the State when you found the article and posted it.
That's nonsensical.
I post on a variety of subjects to spur discussion. That's the purpose of message boards.
So you were just posting the State’s position but not taking a position?
Have one now?
I’m aware. What I’m trying to say - and maybe I’m not explaining this well; is that in order for someone to have a lawsuit proceed in federal court versus state or local, they have to have legal standing, that this isn’t strictly a local/state issue.
I couldn’t just sue my local PD in federal court without a good legal reason for example. It would likely get tossed and I’d be told to try again in state court or not at all.
