Iowa Department of Public Safety releases statement on sports wagering investigation

[NorthernHawkeye]

Iowa releases statement defending sports wagering investigation

"The Department traditionally does not comment on active investigations or litigation in an effort to ensure these matters are appropriately addressed by our justice system rather than the media," the department said in a statement.

www.kcci.com

 

[SI_NYC]

Iowa releases statement defending sports wagering investigation

"The Department traditionally does not comment on active investigations or litigation in an effort to ensure these matters are appropriately addressed by our justice system rather than the media," the department said in a statement.

www.kcci.com

They went with the BS canned answer. 'We don't comment on active investigations.' This is the same crap PD across the states give when there is a request for the body cam footage from officers. They delay delay delay by hiding behind the open investigation angle.

 

[EpenesaEpenesa]

I thought they didn’t comment on open investigations. They’re ****ed

 

[AuroraHawk]

Oh boy . . . the story is evolving. Now it's "we conferred with legal counsel before we did anything with the geofencing."

If accurate, I can't wait to read who served as "legal counsel" and provided them with the opinion.

For the criminal law practitioners in the crowd, would those communications be protected/privileged or discoverable as part of the criminal case?

Moreover, who serves as legal counsel for the Department of Public Safety and/or the Division of Criminal Investigation? Do the county attorneys take on that role, does DPS/DCI have staff counsel or would the Attorney General's office get involved to offer opinions? This portion of the statement suggests that legal counsel other than county attorneys were involved: "conferred with legal counsel to ensure lawful access to and use of the technology. Two county attorney offices also reviewed all relevant investigative information before making the ultimate decision to file charges."

 

[bunsen82]

Iowa releases statement defending sports wagering investigation

"The Department traditionally does not comment on active investigations or litigation in an effort to ensure these matters are appropriately addressed by our justice system rather than the media," the department said in a statement.

www.kcci.com

Still didn't tell us anything. Tell us the process of the investigation, when the geofence was used, when they were given warrant information. Tell us if a dorm and athletic building were geofenced without a warrant. But please go the canned message, and say lawyers have looked at it. The issue is other lawyers, and DCI employees have a differing opinion. So which one is right.

 

[AuroraHawk]

From the DPS' release:

"The evolution of gaming has given rise to emerging technologies that help regulate the industry and enforce the law. Iowa Administrative Rule 491-13.5 requires “the sportsbooks to implement location detection procedures to reasonably detect and dynamically monitor the location of a player attempting to place any wager” and to notify accountholders about information being gathered and shared.

Additionally, Iowa Code section 99F.7A requires sports wagering licensees to “employ reasonable steps to prohibit coaches, athletic trainers, officials, players, or other individuals who participate in an authorized sporting event that is the subject of sports wagering, from sports wagering.”

Analytical software programs developed by the licensees that provide mapping and anonymized data points were made available to the DCI to help identify anomalies suggesting suspicious or criminal activity that could undermine sports gambling in Iowa and ensure regulatory compliance."

Iowa Administrative Rule 491-13.5 imposes a duty upon sports books.
Iowa Code Section 99F.7A imposes duties upon sports wagering licensees.
DCI got its hands on geofencing software that had been developed by sports wagering licensees.
The release says that the software was "made available to the DCI to help identify anamolies suggesting suspicious or criminal activity that could undermine sports gambling in Iowa and ensure regulatory compliance."

With the caveat that I'm simply reading the release and haven't done an exhaustive analysis, my reading of the release suggests that sports books and sports wagering licensees are legally obligated to police themselves and implement measures to monitor gambling activity. What I don't see in the cited Administrative Rule or the cited section of the Iowa Code is conferring the authority to DPS/DCI to employ such technology whenever and wherever it wanted to do so.

 

[Drinkin Buddy]

So are we to presume that the the two County Attorney offices that conferred with Iowa DPS are Story and Johnson?

They've got one thing right: the courts will decide on the constitutionality of methods.

Everything else right now is an administrative CYA meant to distance the governor from this mess.

 

[bunsen82]

From the DPS' release:

"The evolution of gaming has given rise to emerging technologies that help regulate the industry and enforce the law. Iowa Administrative Rule 491-13.5 requires “the sportsbooks to implement location detection procedures to reasonably detect and dynamically monitor the location of a player attempting to place any wager” and to notify accountholders about information being gathered and shared.

Additionally, Iowa Code section 99F.7A requires sports wagering licensees to “employ reasonable steps to prohibit coaches, athletic trainers, officials, players, or other individuals who participate in an authorized sporting event that is the subject of sports wagering, from sports wagering.”

Analytical software programs developed by the licensees that provide mapping and anonymized data points were made available to the DCI to help identify anomalies suggesting suspicious or criminal activity that could undermine sports gambling in Iowa and ensure regulatory compliance."

Iowa Administrative Rule 491-13.5 imposes a duty upon sports books.
Iowa Code Section 99F.7A imposes duties upon sports wagering licensees.
DCI got its hands on geofencing software that had been developed by sports wagering licensees.
The release says that the software was "made available to the DCI to help identify anamolies suggesting suspicious or criminal activity that could undermine sports gambling in Iowa and ensure regulatory compliance."

With the caveat that I'm simply reading the release and haven't done an exhaustive analysis, my reading of the release suggests that sports books and sports wagering licensees are legally obligated to police themselves and implement measures to monitor gambling activity. What I don't see in the cited Administrative Rule or the cited section of the Iowa Code is conferring the authority to DPS/DCI to employ such technology whenever and wherever it wanted to do so.

But does that allow DCI to geofence and gather information from that without a warrant? This was still a fishing expedition.

 

[AuroraHawk]

"conferred with legal counsel to ensure lawful access to and use of the technology."

This statement has two parts:
1. DPS/DCI conferred with legal counsel to ensure lawful access to [the geofencing software].
2. DPS/DCI conferred with legal counsel to ensure lawful use of [the geofencing software].

My reaction? Before acquiring the [geofencing software,] DPS/DCI are contending that "legal counsel" opined that it was lawful.

I sure hope that they are pressed to identify who that "legal counsel" may be.

 

[AuroraHawk]

So are we to presume that the the two County Attorney offices that conferred with Iowa DPS are Story and Johnson?

They've got one thing right: the courts will decide on the constitutionality of methods.

Everything else right now is an administrative CYA meant to distance the governor from this mess.

Read the way the sentence is structured . . . (1) DPS/DCI conferred with legal counsel about acquiring the software and using the software and (2) two county attorneys also reviewed the investigative information before filing charges. My take? The "legal counsel" referenced in (1) is not the same as the county attorneys referenced in (2).

 

[bunsen82]

This statement has two parts:
1. DPS/DCI conferred with legal counsel to ensure lawful access to [the geofencing software].
2. DPS/DCI conferred with legal counsel to ensure lawful use of [the geofencing software].

My reaction? Before acquiring the [geofencing software,] DPS/DCI are contending that "legal counsel" opined that it was lawful.

I sure hope that they are pressed to identify who that "legal counsel" may be.

Look at all the cases going after geofencing that has occurred with a warrant. I see no cases of geofencing being used without a warrant, meaning it is most likely unconstitutional. So who stated it was legal to geofence without a warrant? Better hope that lawyers office doesn't come out and say we never gave that opinion.

 

[AuroraHawk]

But does that allow DCI to geofence and gather information from that without a warrant? This was still a fishing expedition.

If there is a particular section(s) of the Iowa Administrative Rules or Iowa Code that specifically authorized DPS/DCI to geofence, one would think that the authors of the press release would have cited to that particular section(s). Citing to sections imposing duties on other entities is, at this stage, curious to me.

 

[AuroraHawk]

So who stated it was legal to geofence without a warrant?

That's a question that I'd like to see answered.

 

[Drinkin Buddy]

What I don't see in the cited Administrative Rule or the cited section of the Iowa Code is conferring the authority to DPS/DCI to employ such technology whenever and wherever it wanted to do so.

But does that allow DCI to geofence and gather information from that without a warrant? This was still a fishing expedition.

"Show me the man and I'll show you the crime." - Lavrentiy Beria, the most ruthless and longest-serving secret police chief in Joseph Stalin’s reign of terror in Russia and Eastern Europe,

 

[MitchLL]

This statement has two parts:
1. DPS/DCI conferred with legal counsel to ensure lawful access to [the geofencing software].
2. DPS/DCI conferred with legal counsel to ensure lawful use of [the geofencing software].

My reaction? Before acquiring the [geofencing software,] DPS/DCI are contending that "legal counsel" opined that it was lawful.

I sure hope that they are pressed to identify who that "legal counsel" may be.

Logically, you would think a State Agency would "consult" with another State Agency for legality of anticipated actions.
I doubt they're asking for advice from Story and/or Johnson County.

My guess...Brenna Bird/AG office. And this is a massive story with implications, so BB.
I think we'll see some pitbull attorneys really pushing this.
Could be a relatively quick lawsuit settlement to prevent political embarrassment and the stipulation that very few details will be released.
JMO

 

[bunsen82]

To me it still looks like the state of Iowa is F'd and this release did nothing to clear it up, if anything made it even clearer that the geofence was done without a warrant. They admit to its use, then try to say the legal duties of others to justify it use. Whether from faulty legal advice or incompetence- this was done illegally. Good luck Iowa.

 

[AuroraHawk]

Logically, you would think a State Agency would "consult" with another State Agency for legality of anticipated actions.
I doubt they're asking for advice from Story and/or Johnson County.

Agreed.

My guess...Brenna Bird/AG office.

I'm not so sure. I'd like to know whether DPS/DCI employs staff counsel. Simply by way of example, I am aware that Iowa's DNR employs staff attorneys to handle matters under the DNR's scope of authority. I wouldn't be surprised if DPS/DCI employs staff counsel as well.

EDIT: I just exchanged texts with someone who has long been employed as an attorney in Iowa government (not in AG's office) and asked who he thought would have provided DPS/DCI with the opinion that it was a constitutionally permissible search. I'll just write this . . . I sure hope to hell that the criminal defense lawyers and journalists in this state push to get straight answers. It is a political hot potato and there may be "political folks" who would prefer for this story to die a very quick death. I think that the story has evolved to the point where "legality of the search" is going to take a back seat to public perceptions of right versus wrong. Even if legal authority existed for the search (and I'm not concluding one way or the other), public perception is that it was an overreach and unduly invasive. And if you are the person at the top of a particular department and you are perceived to engage in governmental overreach, that may create some tough waters to navigate.

 

[MitchLL]

B

Agreed.

I'm not so sure. I'd like to know whether DPS/DCI employs staff counsel. Simply by way of example, I am aware that Iowa's DNR employs staff attorneys to handle matters under the DNR's scope of authority. I wouldn't be surprised if DPS/DCI employs staff counsel as well.

Hopefully more and more details become public.

 

[Drinkin Buddy]

That's a question that I'd like to see answered.

Still waiting to hear anything about a Geofencing Warrant signed off by a State of Iowa court. And probable cause in a specific, not general, manner.

 

[bunsen82]

Still waiting to hear anything about a Geofencing Warrant signed off by a State of Iowa court.

They received 1, but after an initial geofence had been done. Funny why they had to get a warrant for that geofence when it is legally allowed without one.

 

[Drinkin Buddy]

They received 1, but after an initial geofence had been done. Funny why they had to get a warrant for that geofence when it is legally allowed without one.

Precisely. Post facto.

So if they wiretapped all of the lines running in and out of the buildings, based on a hunch and without a warrant, and then received a warrant based on warrantless information gathered, would it be legal under the 4th amendment?

 

[uihawk82]

Oh boy . . . the story is evolving. Now it's "we conferred with legal counsel before we did anything with the geofencing."

I would think legal counsel for the DCI, DPS would be the Attorney Gen's office? that is what the Attn Gen is for, or maybe DCI/DPS has their own counsel.

It would be a terrible waste of money to go pay outside high priced $$$$$$ lawyers for counsel.

 

[herk u2]

That's a question that I'd like to see answered.

The way I see they worded it was more legal counsel said they could acquire and use but what was left out was what/why/reason they could use it for. Completely different situations being told you are able to buy and use vs buying and using to do illegal searches. It will be interesting to see what comes out of it. I would think the name/company should come out as part of discovery as they were hired for legal advice not legal representation it seems.

 

[Herky T Hawk]

This smells of, “We investigated ourselves and found no wrongdoing.”

I do like the comment about letting the courts decide though.

 

[MitchLL]

If anyone cares to look at the donor list in Brenna Bird's most recent campaign, it might give you an understanding of why she/her underlings went after "on line" gambling.

Pro tip...On line gambling means you don't have to walk through a casino door to wager.

 

[EpenesaEpenesa]

The state is so ****ed

 

[50kWidowmaker]

Logically, you would think a State Agency would "consult" with another State Agency for legality of anticipated actions.
I doubt they're asking for advice from Story and/or Johnson County.

My guess...Brenna Bird/AG office. And this is a massive story with implications, so BB.
I think we'll see some pitbull attorneys really pushing this.
Could be a relatively quick lawsuit settlement to prevent political embarrassment and the stipulation that very few details will be released.
JMO

Most agencies have internal staff attorneys. I would expect a law enforcement agency to have their own attorneys.

 

[bunsen82]

Agreed.

I'm not so sure. I'd like to know whether DPS/DCI employs staff counsel. Simply by way of example, I am aware that Iowa's DNR employs staff attorneys to handle matters under the DNR's scope of authority. I wouldn't be surprised if DPS/DCI employs staff counsel as well.

EDIT: I just exchanged texts with someone who has long been employed as an attorney in Iowa government (not in AG's office) and asked who he thought would have provided DPS/DCI with the opinion that it was a constitutionally permissible search. I'll just write this . . . I sure hope to hell that the criminal defense lawyers and journalists in this state push to get straight answers. It is a political hot potato and there may be "political folks" who would prefer for this story to die a very quick death. I think that the story has evolved to the point where "legality of the search" is going to take a back seat to public perceptions of right versus wrong. Even if legal authority existed for the search (and I'm not concluding one way or the other), public perception is that it was an overreach and unduly invasive. And if you are the person at the top of a particular department and you are perceived to engage in governmental overreach, that may create some tough waters to navigate.

So you are stating Bird is more involved than she stated and/or should have responsibility for a dept she is in charge of, who would have thunk it.

 

[obfuscating]

From the DPS' release:

"The evolution of gaming has given rise to emerging technologies that help regulate the industry and enforce the law. Iowa Administrative Rule 491-13.5 requires “the sportsbooks to implement location detection procedures to reasonably detect and dynamically monitor the location of a player attempting to place any wager” and to notify accountholders about information being gathered and shared.

Additionally, Iowa Code section 99F.7A requires sports wagering licensees to “employ reasonable steps to prohibit coaches, athletic trainers, officials, players, or other individuals who participate in an authorized sporting event that is the subject of sports wagering, from sports wagering.”

Analytical software programs developed by the licensees that provide mapping and anonymized data points were made available to the DCI to help identify anomalies suggesting suspicious or criminal activity that could undermine sports gambling in Iowa and ensure regulatory compliance."

Iowa Administrative Rule 491-13.5 imposes a duty upon sports books.
Iowa Code Section 99F.7A imposes duties upon sports wagering licensees.
DCI got its hands on geofencing software that had been developed by sports wagering licensees.
The release says that the software was "made available to the DCI to help identify anamolies suggesting suspicious or criminal activity that could undermine sports gambling in Iowa and ensure regulatory compliance."

With the caveat that I'm simply reading the release and haven't done an exhaustive analysis, my reading of the release suggests that sports books and sports wagering licensees are legally obligated to police themselves and implement measures to monitor gambling activity. What I don't see in the cited Administrative Rule or the cited section of the Iowa Code is conferring the authority to DPS/DCI to employ such technology whenever and wherever it wanted to do so.

F'ing government.

 

[goodbyebobby]

Agreed.

I'm not so sure. I'd like to know whether DPS/DCI employs staff counsel. Simply by way of example, I am aware that Iowa's DNR employs staff attorneys to handle matters under the DNR's scope of authority. I wouldn't be surprised if DPS/DCI employs staff counsel as well.

EDIT: I just exchanged texts with someone who has long been employed as an attorney in Iowa government (not in AG's office) and asked who he thought would have provided DPS/DCI with the opinion that it was a constitutionally permissible search. I'll just write this . . . I sure hope to hell that the criminal defense lawyers and journalists in this state push to get straight answers. It is a political hot potato and there may be "political folks" who would prefer for this story to die a very quick death. I think that the story has evolved to the point where "legality of the search" is going to take a back seat to public perceptions of right versus wrong. Even if legal authority existed for the search (and I'm not concluding one way or the other), public perception is that it was an overreach and unduly invasive. And if you are the person at the top of a particular department and you are perceived to engage in governmental overreach, that may create some tough waters to navigate.

Those waters better sink your boat.

Good thing PJ isn't at the DCI

 

[sober_teacher]

Agreed.

I'm not so sure. I'd like to know whether DPS/DCI employs staff counsel. Simply by way of example, I am aware that Iowa's DNR employs staff attorneys to handle matters under the DNR's scope of authority. I wouldn't be surprised if DPS/DCI employs staff counsel as well.

EDIT: I just exchanged texts with someone who has long been employed as an attorney in Iowa government (not in AG's office) and asked who he thought would have provided DPS/DCI with the opinion that it was a constitutionally permissible search. I'll just write this . . . I sure hope to hell that the criminal defense lawyers and journalists in this state push to get straight answers. It is a political hot potato and there may be "political folks" who would prefer for this story to die a very quick death. I think that the story has evolved to the point where "legality of the search" is going to take a back seat to public perceptions of right versus wrong. Even if legal authority existed for the search (and I'm not concluding one way or the other), public perception is that it was an overreach and unduly invasive. And if you are the person at the top of a particular department and you are perceived to engage in governmental overreach, that may create some tough waters to navigate.

Politically, I think there were people who wanted and expected a bunch of dumb college kids to take plea deals and then this story dies that quick death you mentioned.

Then a handful of them decided to fight the charges and now there's god only knows how much that will come out in discovery that quite possibly never come out otherwise.

 

[Steamboat529529]

Agreed.

I'm not so sure. I'd like to know whether DPS/DCI employs staff counsel. Simply by way of example, I am aware that Iowa's DNR employs staff attorneys to handle matters under the DNR's scope of authority. I wouldn't be surprised if DPS/DCI employs staff counsel as well.

EDIT: I just exchanged texts with someone who has long been employed as an attorney in Iowa government (not in AG's office) and asked who he thought would have provided DPS/DCI with the opinion that it was a constitutionally permissible search. I'll just write this . . . I sure hope to hell that the criminal defense lawyers and journalists in this state push to get straight answers. It is a political hot potato and there may be "political folks" who would prefer for this story to die a very quick death. I think that the story has evolved to the point where "legality of the search" is going to take a back seat to public perceptions of right versus wrong. Even if legal authority existed for the search (and I'm not concluding one way or the other), public perception is that it was an overreach and unduly invasive. And if you are the person at the top of a particular department and you are perceived to engage in governmental overreach, that may create some tough waters to navigate.

Now if they had somehow been able to get Nebraska Cornhuskers coming over to Council Bluffs then….. I kid. I can imagine all these college athletes all over the country looking at Iowa when all this happened in the summer and thinking, “Oh boy. We are going to be next.”
But then 49 other states (or however many had gambling platforms) probably realized this was going to be a losing and unpopular endeavor.

 

[fecal particulate]

Most agencies have internal staff attorneys. I would expect a law enforcement agency to have their own attorneys.

I asked the same basic question last week in a different thread and you said it would be county attorneys. Now your suggesting the attorneys were internal DPS/DCI. Do you actually know, or are you guessing with the rest of us?

---

Kind of wondering out loud then, if a DCI agent has a legal question regarding an investigation or potential investigation, who do they ask? Does the DCI have their own internal lawyers to field questions, do they go to the AG, or some other person/entity?

That's why the rogue thing doesn't make much sense to me. Sanger has to be getting some kind of support or guidance along the way.

They go to the county attorney.

 

[AuroraHawk]

So you are stating Bird is more involved than she stated and/or should have responsibility for a dept she is in charge of, who would have thunk it.

I’ll just say that I’m advised that the AG’s office assigns legal counsel to assist various departments. Whether the AG’s office assigns legal counsel to aid/assist DPS/DCI remains uncertain to me. I do not know one way or the other.

 

[bunsen82]

I’ll just say that I’m advised that the AG’s office assigns legal counsel to assist various departments. Whether the AG’s office assigns legal counsel to aid/assist DPS/DCI remains uncertain to me. I do not know one way or the other.

As a previous nursing home administrator that was let go over a faulty online web system for dispensing medications that I personally complained to home office 5 times and was told in no uncertain terms we couldn’t use paper MARS yet got some tags from DIA I fully understand shit rolls uphill.

 

[BrotherHawkeye]

Sounds like some water cooler legal advice to me.

 

[EpenesaEpenesa]

Politically, I think there were people who wanted and expected a bunch of dumb college kids to take plea deals and then this story dies that quick death you mentioned.

Then a handful of them decided to fight the charges and now there's god only knows how much that will come out in discovery that quite possibly never come out otherwise.

That’s exactly what happened. With that said, some of these kids had representation right away. Van Plumb and a few others have been tearing this case apart since last May when this shit started

 

[bunsen82]

I am going to take a similar stance to Tom Brands, that we are really missing the investigative reports that are really going to push the issues, ask the hard questions and dig harder. No offense to those still in the profession but its not the same. Remember the bowl game where we had 4 or 5 reporters at the game???? Maybe this continues to be hidden, but this has been brought up the same concerns for 8 months. Only during a discovery or a bit in November do we get an article or two about it. This is still a relatively minor story, that has massive implications.

 

[NorthernHawkeye]

So you are stating Bird is more involved than she stated and/or should have responsibility for a dept she is in charge of, who would have thunk it.

Bird isn't in charge of the DPS. How many times does this need to be pointed out for you?

 

[50kWidowmaker]

B
Hopefully more and more details become public.

I asked the same basic question last week in a different thread and you said it would be county attorneys. Now your suggesting the attorneys were internal DPS/DCI. Do you actually know, or are you guessing with the rest of us?

---

Staff attorneys as well as county attorneys. I would expect both to be involved at various stages for various reasons.