Iowa Department of Public Safety releases statement on sports wagering investigation

[AuroraHawk]

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

The relevant question is "does the AG's office assign legal counsel to provide legal guidance/opinions to DPS/DCI?"

I have on very good authority that the AG's office assigns legal counsel to assist various Departments in Iowa's government structure.

Thus, even if the AG isn't "in charge of" (your words) DPS, that doesn't answer the question of whether legal counsel under the employ of the AG's office was the "legal counsel" referenced in the press release yesterday.

I do find the timing interesting. Plumb and Boles make very public statements questioning the validity of the process. Bird interviewed and she advises that she has no reason to question what was done but that questions should be addressed to DPS/DCI. Then DCI feels "compelled" to issue a public statement that it conferred with unnamed "legal counsel" who assured them that what they were doing was just fine.

Who is the legal counsel that provided them with the opinion? Outside, private attorneys? Someone from the AG's office? Staff counsel for DPS/DCI (I don't know if they employ staff counsel)? County attorneys? Constitutional experts from GIAOT?

 

[MitchLL]

The relevant question is "does the AG's office assign legal counsel to provide legal guidance/opinions to DPS/DCI?"

I have on very good authority that the AG's office assigns legal counsel to assist various Departments in Iowa's government structure.

Thus, even if the AG isn't "in charge of" (your words) DPS, that doesn't answer the question of whether legal counsel under the employ of the AG's office was the "legal counsel" referenced in the press release yesterday.

I do find the timing interesting. Plumb and Boles make very public statements questioning the validity of the process. Bird interviewed and she advises that she has no reason to question what was done but that questions should be addressed to DPS/DCI. Then DCI feels "compelled" to issue a public statement that it conferred with unnamed "legal counsel" who assured them that what they were doing was just fine.

Who is the legal counsel that provided them with the opinion? Outside, private attorneys? Someone from the AG's office? Staff counsel for DPS/DCI (I don't know if they employ staff counsel)? County attorneys? Constitutional experts from GIAOT?

Appears we have a couple entities that are in "dance class".

My question is who's the eventual scapegoat?

Bird will never admit wrongdoing or authorization.

 

[bunsen82]

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

She may not be in charge of DPS, but she is clearly gave a strong opinion that they had not violated the law or the constitution. Thus it is giving the perception she may have given guidance or otherwise or knows who gave the guidance that geofencing is allowed without a warrant. Now she is in charge of people who may have gave the legal opinion. What is funny is you aren't as smug as you are when you put up this article yesterday . Things don't seem to be improving from what it looks like and this statement just created more questions than answers.

 

[bunsen82]

Appears we have a couple entities that are in "dance class".

My question is who's the eventual scapegoat?

Bird will never admit wrongdoing or authorization.

There would need to be an email or written documentation from Bird to take a fall in my opinion.

 

[AuroraHawk]

My question is who's the eventual scapegoat?

To me, the press release yesterday (which deviated from standard operating procedure) screamed "We're not going to be the fall guys on this; we conferred with and secured opinions from legal counsel. If what was done is ultimately determined to be unlawful or even if it is just plain unpopular with Iowa's citizenry, we're not going to hesitate to lay this at the feet of the lawyers who gave us guidance."

Who's going to step up to the plate and say "I'm the attorney who provided that legal counsel and my analysis is spot on"? Anyone? Thus far, that attorney or attorneys isn't saying a word . . . .

 

[pistachio1999]

To me, the press release yesterday (which deviated from standard operating procedure) screamed "We're not going to be the fall guys on this; we conferred with and secured opinions from legal counsel. If what was done is ultimately determined to be unlawful or even if it is just plain unpopular with Iowa's citizenry, we're not going to hesitate to lay this at the feet of the lawyers who gave us guidance."

Who's going to step up to the plate and say "I'm the attorney who provided that legal counsel and my analysis is spot on"? Anyone? Thus far, that attorney or attorneys isn't saying a word . . . .

Okay, but who is the guilty party? If you were my attorney and I take your advice and I get sued for doing whatever it was you advised me on, are you legally guilty (potentially) or is it me even though relying on your professional advice?

 

[MitchLL]

To me, the press release yesterday (which deviated from standard operating procedure) screamed "We're not going to be the fall guys on this; we conferred with and secured opinions from legal counsel. If what was done is ultimately determined to be unlawful or even if it is just plain unpopular with Iowa's citizenry, we're not going to hesitate to lay this at the feet of the lawyers who gave us guidance."

Who's going to step up to the plate and say "I'm the attorney who provided that legal counsel and my analysis is spot on"? Anyone? Thus far, that attorney or attorneys isn't saying a word . . . .

It looks to me like the attorneys for the ISU guys are taking the lead at this point.

The State entities are likely have multiple back room conversations.

 

[MitchLL]

Okay, but who is the guilty party? If you were my attorney and I take your advice and I get sued for doing whatever it was you advised me on, are you legally guilty (potentially) or is it me even though relying on your professional advice?

Unless there are audio recordings or written memos/notes...it ain't the attorneys on the hook.

BTW...we watch a lot of TV cop shows and I stayed at a Holiday Inn last nite.

 

[Jimmy McGill]

I know I never would have authorized the warrant without specified facts, and a limited scope.

Geofencing dorms and other facilities crosses the line so far it is beyond comprehension.

 

[bunsen82]

So will the County attorneys be the next ones to CYA. I would say that's the next step in this process.

 

[AuroraHawk]

Okay, but who is the guilty party? If you were my attorney and I take your advice and I get sued for doing whatever it was you advised me on, are you legally guilty (potentially) or is it me even though relying on your professional advice?

https://www.legis.iowa.gov/docs/ico/chapter/669.pdf

 

[NorthernHawkeye]

What is funny is you aren't as smug as you are when you put up this article yesterday .

How so?

 

[bunsen82]

How so?

Northern, I thought you said you were going to wait for the verdict to come out, until then go sit at the kiddie table and let the adults have a conversation.

Also funny how you are no longer defending that Bird may well be overseeing or even a remote off shot gave the legal advice to DPS. Don't you think that would thus go back to Bird??

 

[NorthernHawkeye]

Northern, I thought you said you were going to wait for the verdict to come out, until then go sit at the kiddie table and let the adults have a conversation.

Also funny how you are no longer defending that Bird may well be overseeing or even a remote off shot gave the legal advice to DPS. Don't you think that would thus go back to Bird??

I am waiting.

I've never defended anyone?

Bird runs an entirely different office than DPS. That's a fact.

Do facts bother you?

 

[bunsen82]

I am waiting.

I've never defended anyone?

Bird runs an entirely different office than DPS. That's a fact.

Do facts bother you?

Does Bird oversee individuals who give legal advice, that potential gave the legal advice to DPS? Is that a potential fact? Also how would Bird know everything was on the up and up, if nothing was under her supervision? She should have known squat. she knows more than she should.

 

[NorthernHawkeye]

Does Bird oversee individuals who give legal advice, that potential gave the legal advice to DPS? Is that a potential fact? Also how would Bird know everything was on the up and up, if nothing was under her supervision? She should have known squat. she knows more than she should.

We know what Bird has indicated. The rest is just speculation on your part. Just let this play out. It will eventually be resolved one way or another.

“I don’t have any concerns about that, no,” said Bird. “So, those cases aren’t in our office and my understanding was the investigation was done by DPS so I think they would be the ones that could answer that question.”

 

[bunsen82]

We know what Bird has indicated. The rest is just speculation on your part. Just let this play out. It will eventually be resolved one way or another.

“I don’t have any concerns about that, no,” said Bird. “So, those cases aren’t in our office and my understanding was the investigation was done by DPS so I think they would be the ones that could answer that question.”

I am glad Bird doesn't have any concerns, about a department she shouldn't have any concerns about . . . amirite?

 

[bunsen82]

So I swear Northern said he was going to wait til the trial to come to decision, why does he keep posting in these threads????

 

[NorthernHawkeye]

So I swear Northern said he was going to wait til the trial to come to decision, why does he keep posting in these threads????

A trial?

 

[bunsen82]

A trial?

Court case, legal dispute, lawsuit, lol

Where a judge will give his opinion on the legality of the search.

 

[EvilMonkeyInTheCloset]

 

[QuadCityHawkeye1976]

Brenna Bird knew about this and did nothing.

 

[sober_teacher]

Brenna Bird knew about this and did nothing.

That is TBD still - tho admittedly i'm skeptical.

I have more questions about what sparked the investigation in the first place: one of the stories that came out a couple weeks ago said someone had reported concerns...

1) was it a private citizen or state official who raised those concerns? if the latter, then who was it and did they have any information to support those concerns?
2) Why were Iowa/ISU only schools targeted, why not UNI or any of the community colleges?
3) How much rope was Sanger given his investigation? Was he allowed wide latitude or did he go rogue? How large was this investigation?
4) At one point did the AG/Governor's office get brought in on the investigation, or did they only learn of it once charges were filed?

 

[ozzie8]

Brenna Bird knew about this and did nothing.

She knew. They're just so use to getting away with this bullshit, she probably didnt think twice about it

 

[AuroraHawk]

Who is the legal counsel that provided them with the opinion? Outside, private attorneys? Someone from the AG's office? Staff counsel for DPS/DCI (I don't know if they employ staff counsel)? County attorneys? Constitutional experts from GIAOT?

Turns out that I was just retained to handle a case in which my client's opponent is represented by a law firm who is also involved in defending one of the athletes (I won't mention the firm or the athlete). During a phone call this morning, I raised the question in the quoted section above and was assured that it is a question to which he (and other attorney/firms) are seeking an answer.

 

[bunsen82]

Turns out that I was just retained to handle a case in which my client's opponent is represented by a law firm who is also involved in defending one of the athletes (I won't mention the firm or the athlete). During a phone call this morning, I raised the question in the quoted section above and was assured that it is a question to which he (and other attorney/firms) are seeking an answer.

My guess is it is more than just who gave the advise, it is also what the specific advice was, does it match with the actions taken and is there a viable information that up to this point we have not been privy to. Based on the their defense of said action, I don't believe it is concrete support to allow an unlawful search.

Now one thing I was thinking yesterday, is you had posted there had been a warrant for a previous case in March and why would there be a difference. They could state the difference is the players and coaches gave them the authority due to the code, even though I don't believe it does. The other issue is they then geo fenced an entire dorm complex. Right there is a major violation. After that search, they should have killed it, but then went to the sports complex building. I can rationalize maybe the semi direction they were going, but it is clearly based on faulty advice.

 

[AuroraHawk]

For those who are constantly banging the drums against "governmental overreach." How're you feeling about the attempted legislation? As for @NorthernHawkeye, you feel OK about comments made by the DCI agent serving in the Iowa legislature? Essentially, that, so long as the conduct results in a conviction, the means are justified?

 

[AuroraHawk]

Is it just me or does it seem like the current Iowa legislature is very intent upon eliminating existing procedures for governmental entities to be audited or subject to oversight?

For those who are constantly banging the drums against "governmental overreach." How're you feeling about the attempted legislation? As for @NorthernHawkeye, you feel OK about comments made by the DCI agent serving in the Iowa legislature? Essentially, that, so long as the conduct results in a conviction, the means are justified?

View embedded media

 

[EpenesaEpenesa]

For those who are constantly banging the drums against "governmental overreach." How're you feeling about the attempted legislation? As for @NorthernHawkeye, you feel OK about comments made by the DCI agent serving in the Iowa legislature? Essentially, that, so long as the conduct results in a conviction, the means are justified?

View embedded media

He made a complete ass of himself

 

[AuroraHawk]

He made a complete ass of himself

Strikes me as someone being from a party which claims to be "all about freedom" and "Constitutional protections" but doesn't believe that those freedoms and protections apply to others.

I'd love to have the chance to sit across the table and have the opportunity to cross-examine him under oath at a deposition. I hope that Van Plumb, Chris Sandy and Matt Boles eviscerate them all. Take off the gloves and don't pull any punches. Bring everything into the light . . .

 

[sober_teacher]

Strikes me as someone being from a party which claims to be "all about freedom" and "Constitutional protections" but doesn't believe that those freedoms and protections apply to others.

I'd love to have the chance to sit across the table and have the opportunity to cross-examine him under oath at a deposition. I hope that Van Plumb, Chris Sandy and Matt Boles eviscerate them all. Take off the gloves and don't pull any punches. Bring everything into the light . . .

I remain convinced this investigation had strong backing from state government. There’s just so much about the origins of the investigation that seem shady to me.

 

[EpenesaEpenesa]

Strikes me as someone being from a party which claims to be "all about freedom" and "Constitutional protections" but doesn't believe that those freedoms and protections apply to others.

I'd love to have the chance to sit across the table and have the opportunity to cross-examine him under oath at a deposition. I hope that Van Plumb, Chris Sandy and Matt Boles eviscerate them all. Take off the gloves and don't pull any punches. Bring everything into the light . . .

They definitely are. You could hear the disdain he has for the defense in that ridiculous tirade

 

[BrotherHawkeye]

I remain convinced this investigation had strong backing from state government. There’s just so much about the origins of the investigation that seem shady to me.

In answering that question, What would be interesting to know is whether those involved were fired or disciplined. That might tell you something.

 

[MitchLL]

In answering that question, What would be interesting to know is whether those involved were fired or disciplined. That might tell you something.

If there's a settlement, someone is getting scapegoated.

Just won't be an elected Republican.

 

[BrotherHawkeye]

If there's a settlement, someone is getting scapegoated.

Just won't be an elected Republican.

You could be right. It could also just go away without anyone being thrown under the bus. That would be a sign that this "investigation" was not a rogue act by one or two line guys, but had higher level approval, and everyone just wants it swept under the rug. Messing with athletes of the two highest profile programs in the state was a terrible idea, whoever was involved. Now, i's like a bad penny, it will keep reappearing.

It may be a Republican this time, but it will be a Democrat next time. It's a non-partisan problem that surfaces from time to time. Who remembers the film tax credit debacle that arose under Culver's time in office. That's not meant justify anyone's conduct, only to point out that bureaucratic overreach happens without regard to political affiliation.

 

[sober_teacher]

You could be right. It could also just go away without anyone being thrown under the bus. That would be a sign that this "investigation" was not a rogue act by one or two line guys, but had higher level approval, and everyone just wants it swept under the rug. Messing with athletes of the two highest profile programs in the state was a terrible idea, whoever was involved. Now, i's like a bad penny, it will keep reappearing.

It may be a Republican this time, but it will be a Democrat next time. It's a non-partisan problem that surfaces from time to time. Who remembers the film tax credit debacle that arose under Culver's time in office. That's not meant justify anyone's conduct, only to point out that bureaucratic overreach happens without regard to political affiliation.

You could sell me on overreach if they’d also investigated UNI, for all 3 public universities. That it was selective heavily implies to me that there was an agenda.

Bird and Reynolds were also very quick to voice support of the investigation.

 

[BrotherHawkeye]

You could sell me on overreach if they’d also investigated UNI, for all 3 public universities. That it was selective heavily implies to me that there was an agenda.

Bird and Reynolds were also very quick to voice support of the investigation.

I don't understand what the agenda would be. Pick on some college athletes from the 2 major schools in the state? To what end? If it was to make a quick strike, make some headlines, and move on, boy, we're those involved clueless. In whose world would that be a popular decision, unless you want about 3/4, if not more, of the population pissed off. Whoever was involved in signing off on this, it was a royally stupid idea and even more poorly executed (if that's even possible). Athletics is the one thing that generally transcends partisan politics. People of both political stripes are going to rally around their respective teams. Heck, this fiasco may be the one thing that both Hawkeye fans and Cyclone fans empathized with each other on.

 

[sober_teacher]

I don't understand what the agenda would be. Pick on some college athletes from the 2 major schools in the state? To what end? If it was to make a quick strike, make some headlines, and move on, boy, we're those involved clueless. In whose world would that be a popular decision, unless you want about 3/4, if not more, of the population pissed off. Whoever was involved in signing off on this, it was a royally stupid idea and even more poorly executed (if that's even possible). Athletics is the one thing that generally transcends partisan politics. People of both political stripes are going to rally around their respective teams. Heck, this fiasco may be the one thing that both Hawkeye fans and Cyclone fans empathized with each other on.

There are a few options - someone had an axe to grind regarding sports gambling; it hasn’t been legal in Iowa all that long. Both Iowa and ISU have been in crosshairs from state republicans over “woke” policies.

If there was no agenda at all, why not include UNI in the initial probe? Or heck, just publicly announce there’s an investigation into underage gambling at public universities and see what unfolds.

The way they curiously didn’t look at uni at all, how they very quickly zeroed in on student athletes, how they overcharged and almost immediately pled most of the cases involved; as well as what came out in discovery phase that led to charges getting dropped…something is rotten here.

Had the ISU players not fought back; none of this would be getting a second look.

 

[ObeseMuffins]

What's going on with the Iowa government. They are just so incompetent.

 

[BrotherHawkeye]

There are a few options - someone had an axe to grind regarding sports gambling; it hasn’t been legal in Iowa all that long. Both Iowa and ISU have been in crosshairs from state republicans over “woke” policies.

If there was no agenda at all, why not include UNI in the initial probe? Or heck, just publicly announce there’s an investigation into underage gambling at public universities and see what unfolds.

The way they curiously didn’t look at uni at all, how they very quickly zeroed in on student athletes, how they overcharged and almost immediately pled most of the cases involved; as well as what came out in discovery phase that led to charges getting dropped…something is rotten here.

Had the ISU players not fought back; none of this would be getting a second look.

I don't know, except the splash from UI and ISU is way bigger than UNI, which would not add much to the splash, just a little additional ripple. Targeting athletes for retribution doesn't add up to me, but you could be right. It seems if they wanted to do that, there would have been more painful, and less politically damaging ways to go about it.

To me the biggest irony in all of this is this weird relationship between the state and gambling, which has been around for long time. Just one example, but fitting for this, betting on sports by athletes - BAD. Playing the state-sponsored lottery to win tickets to Iowa or ISU games - GOOD. And to add some extra icing, featuring kids in the ads that promote this lottery game. "Hey mom and dad, can you play the lottery so we can win some tickets to the Hawkeye game?!". Bizarre.