It doesn’t change the fact that it’s not violating state law for an NCAA athlete to gamble on sports. It was a bad analogy and you should feel bad for continuing to try to defend it.
ISU Gambling Megathread
- Thread starter Cyclonemaniac
- Start date
I will be very interested to see the state’s response and I hope it, too, is circulated. A judge can’t decide the case on only the defense’s filing. Specifically, I want to see how the state answers the allegations that top athletes were targeted and why it is OK not to have probable cause on what looks to be a fishing expedition. And then, I want to see the judge’s reasoning on whatever he or she rules.
Probably something like we can’t comment on an ongoing case and then settle out of court. They will avoid and deflect as much as possible. Their strategy is damage control and make it go away as fast as possible.
Maybe, but I don‘t think they can do that here. If this is a criminal case, then the state HAS to answer, or the judge will find for the defendant on this motion and the case most likely gets dismissed, not settled out of court. And if that happens, then the civil case gets interesting.
Gonna be a nice lawsuit for our boys. Violation of rights that caused their careers to be lost.
First, the size of the fine shouldn't dictate resources. What's a DUI fine? I did a quick search in Iowa and it is $1,250-$1,500. And if a person spends time in jail, that's a bigger expense for the state.
The states primary purpose of busting people for DUI is not to punish the person driving under the influence, but to save the lives of people who might end up being on the road at the same time. Same goes for investigating sport betting by student athletes. It's less about busting someone for underage betting or using someone else's account, but ensuring the integrity of sport betting.
I have not seen what the cost was for the DCI to perform this investigation. I would be surprised if the initial investigation of placing a GeoFence, requesting account information from the sport books and reviewing a sample of bets was a big expense for the DCI. The cost probably grew as the scope grew (aka 100's of student-athletes and using other peoples ID's). Plus once the DCI found bets by underage student-athletes, the natural next move would be to make sure athletes didn't bet on their own teams or own school's teams- even though those are NCAA rules.
So your saying that if an NCAA athlete is under 21 it is OK to bet on sports? It is against Iowa State Law for around 50% or more of student athletes to bet on sports.
Based on studies done by the NCAA to measure student-athlete gambling, the DCI investigation was like shooting fish in a barrel. AND far more likely to be successful than a DUI roadblock,
NCAA Recent Study - All Students
NCAA Student Athlete Study 2004-14
No, now you’re building a strawman. The reason why a road block is different is because that’s public property. The athletic facilities are private property. Without a warrant, the DCI has no jurisdiction for the athletic facilities, unlike LEOs being able to set up a road block. It’s no different than the DCI setting up a geofence around a private property or house without a warrant.
Not to mention, roadblocks are on public access property. The Geofencing was in private residence/buildings the general public does not have access to. How did initiating the Geofence advance public safety?
GMackey beat me by a minute above
Just googled Iowa code on gambling rules. According to chapter 99, there is a portion of law that indicates the DCI can request and get the information they want from the commission and licensees concerning sports fantasy leagues, without probable cause. Would this apply to other sports betting?
The issue isn’t requesting info from providers. The main issue is the investigation started by surveilling private citizens phone and web traffic without a warrant
Chapter 13 of the Iowa Code gives the Iowa DCI and the gaming commission wide latitude when it comes to enforce gambling rules. Did not realize that Chapter 13 expressively prohibits you from withholding information that is sought by the commission. Nothing about a warrant there.Also, Chapter 13 puts the onus on facilities or those conducting sports betting to set up controls that prohibit athletes from betting on sports they comptee in that allow wagering. I could be wrong and would welcome someone to correct me on my reading of Chapter 13.
I read Chapter 13 of the Iowa Code and cannot find this. Any chance you could give a better citation for the specific wording?
I havent followed this **** show forever, what does this guy have to do with anything?
DCI Agent who started snooping around on his own. Read Keith M’s tweet.
DMR dropped a story an hour ago.
I am leaning that this dude lost $$$ gambling, instituted his own "investigation" and was turned down. Refined it to the "athletic facility" and got approval. When they saw all the mess in IC, they had to do ISU in order to be "fair and balanced".
I am leaning that this dude lost $$$ gambling, instituted his own "investigation" and was turned down. Refined it to the "athletic facility" and got approval. When they saw all the mess in IC, they had to do ISU in order to be "fair and balanced".
DCI agent in Iowa student-athlete gambling investigation accused of 'warrantless' searches
An attorney representing several players charged in Iowa student-athlete gambling probe says agent testimony shows unapproved searches without warrant
www.desmoinesregister.com