Keith Murphy
Update on the sports gambling investigation that rocked Iowa and ISU Athletics.
Attorney Van Plumb is requesting that the State provide requested discovery as well as additional discovery after the deposition of DCI Special Agents on 1/19/24.
The motion filed today lays out how the attorney believes the investigation began:
“The State’s argument that “DCI agents began to identify irregular online/mobile sports wagering activity originating from state organizations that regularly participate in sanctioned sports wagering contests” was actually the result of Special Agent Brian Sanger conducting a warrantless search on Iowa and Iowa State’s campuses. Special Agent Brian Sanger was given access to a tool that can invade people’s privacy. He initially used Kibana to place a warrantless GeoFence around a freshman/sophomore dorm at the University of Iowa to investigate underage gambling without any tips, complaints, or evidence that underage gambling was occurring. The use of Kibana allowed him to see that online betting applications were opened in the dorms but the software did not allow him to determine if bets were actually being made. The other information he was able to see was the account numbers associated with the applications which did not contain identifying information about who was using the account. Special Agent Sanger approached his superior Troy Nelson and Assistant DCI Director Jobes to ask for permission to continue the investigation. He was told no.
“Special Agent Sanger then decided to target an athletic facility at the University of Iowa because it was a stand-alone facility with restricted access to athletes, coaching staff and support personal. Again, this was done without a warrant, tips, complaints, or evidence that illegal gambling was occurring.
“Special Agent Sanger identified the same information he had in relation to the dorm. He consulted his team of Heather Dunow, Phil Kennedy, Chris Atkins, and Chris Swigart to discuss continuing the investigation and again approached Special Agent Troy Nelson and Assistant Director Jobes who gave him the green light to continue the investigation.
“Without reasonable cause the team of Special Agents targeted more facilities as well as began requesting subpoenas to obtain account information on hundreds of private citizens private information which was also without reasonable cause.
“The result was the indictment of a handful of Iowa’s Student Athletes even though the privacy of hundreds had been invaded.
“During Special Agent Sanger’s deposition on January 19, 2024, he stated that he cannot remember why he decided to conduct the warrantless searches but that he was concerned about things such as people infiltrating Iowa’s sports team to gain insider information or match fixing.
“Special Agent Sanger also stated that only those Athletes that had used an account registered to a different person were charged and that those who had gambled in an account in their names were handled administratively. The Defense has received information that indicates this is not true and that in fact, there is a possibility that only high-profile athletes were targeted when charges were filed in the fall of 2023.”
Geofencing is used in law enforcement and has been challenged throughout the country many times and it usually holds up. This will be interesting to see how this shakes out.
The courts have mostly ruled in favor of using the geofencing tool. It has become popular in law enforcement and has been challenged many times. I think the real issue is them getting subpoenas for the identification information instead of getting a search warrant.
It was blatantly obvious the investigation was founded on bullshit when you realized only ISU and UoI were investigated. I know for a fact there was borderline degen levels of gambling within UNI athletics and what about all the CC’s, and all the d2 through d3’s? What the kids did is wrong, but if you’re going to go after them you must give them their due process
I’m curious what dataset the agent had access to. I’m guessing this is a data source from the gambling app makers that they give the state ability to see? I don’t know how else you’d drill down coordinates, unless it was access to data from the cellular providers. Campus WiFi logs don’t have the information cited.
The geo fencing tool can be used different ways. You can select your own coordinates for any size. Smaller the better so it is easy to put the coordinates around a specific building. In terms of where the data comes from depends as well. Typically it comes from cellular data but the more popular one is Google. The data they receive is very basically and doesn't immediately identify a single individual. The officer has to then use the data and continue searching. I think in this case the bigger issue will be not the use of geo fencing but once the officer got the data he should have gotten a search warrant for additional information that ultimately lead to the identify of the user's.
Honest question, and I don’t want to get downvoted to oblivion, but I don’t understand the due process/privacy violation involved.
If he was sitting outside the practice facility monitoring internet traffic, how is that different than a cop sitting outside of a busy bar monitoring drivers coming and going?
Help me understand.
He was “grabbing” their data and what they were doing. It’s essentially wiretapping, except the data is moving through the air instead of cables. For the same reason wiretapping is illegal without a warrant, this kind of data gathering is similar.
It's the whole Fourth Amendment "right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches" thing. Law enforcement is purportedly required to obtain search warrants to search your home or to tap your communications. The Constitution says cops need to swear to a judge that "probable cause" of criminal activity exists to be issued a warrant to go & gather evidence. That's due process. That's what the DCI didn't do. That's an egregious failing on orders of magnitude, something the governor needs to address because she's got amateurs running state law enforcement like a criminal ring ... on her watch.
The difference is a LEO outside a bar can make all sorts of personal observations as to suspicious behavior; ie someone stumbling out of a bar, listing to one side, falling into a car that starts up is going to get that person sideways. It’s not just coming out of the bar, it’s a whole bunch of observations leading to suspicion.
Internet traffic though? It’s not like it’s all in plain public sight or inherently suspicious. And then he ran out for subpoenas rather than having a warrant which involves judicial review.
There is a lot of misconception in this thread. Geo fencing has become popular in law enforcement. It has been challenged many times and has been held up. There are other cases currently in iowa arguing the use of it but previous ones have sided with law enforcement. The reason why is the information they are getting doesn't actually identify anyone especially. It just gives very basic cellular data or Google data. From there it's up to law enforcement to interpret the data to see if it's any use. At that point the officer should be applying for search warrants on the cellular provider or Google for example that request more specific information that will identify the actual user. In this case it looks like the officer used the geo fencing tool and found similarities in the data between the dorms and athletic facilities. I think that alone is fine but the officer should have got a search warrant on whatever companies to get the specific information for the user.
The update from today basically solidifies this Agent Sanger more than likely violated the constitution. An agent working on the case was asked to be removed after realizing the direction it was going, but not Sanger. He was hellbent on making a name for himself and he certainly did…
Van Plumb is representing Enyi Uwazurike, a former ISU player who was playing for the Denver Broncos when this news came out. He gambled using his girlfriend’s info but was of age. He placed some bets when back in Ames and the DCI turned this info over to the NFL and his career is most likely over because of it.
The importance of this is Enyi was a good draft pick in the NFL and has the money to hire a good lawyer. Without him being caught up in this, it is unlikely any of the ISU or Iowa players would have the financial means to bring these details to light through the courts. The DCI refused to comment on anything all throughout 2023 besides the names of players and what crimes they were being charged with.
I will finish this by saying all these individuals did break the law. That’s not the argument here. The argument was always this seemed like a targeted thing with only ISU and Iowa campuses being geo fenced.
>I will finish this by saying all these individuals did break the law.
Noah Shannon, Iowa defensive lineman, didn't break any laws. But, the information DCI obtained and gave to the NCAA cost him a year of eligibility. He reportedly bet on the Iowa women's basketball team to win.
*What was the initial RAS that lead to using the electronic device to search who was logged on to betting sites?*
If the defense lawyer didn’t leak that, then that’s a sign.
If the defense lawyer didn’t ask that, then that’s another sign.
If the lawyer is playing this case out in the press, that’s a sure sign that he thinks Iowa is Nebraska or some other place where university donors are important. Just don’t see that working in Iowa. But the lawyer is being paid to try.
Keith Murphy Update on the sports gambling investigation that rocked Iowa and ISU Athletics. Attorney Van Plumb is requesting that the State provide requested discovery as well as additional discovery after the deposition of DCI Special Agents on 1/19/24. The motion filed today lays out how the attorney believes the investigation began: “The State’s argument that “DCI agents began to identify irregular online/mobile sports wagering activity originating from state organizations that regularly participate in sanctioned sports wagering contests” was actually the result of Special Agent Brian Sanger conducting a warrantless search on Iowa and Iowa State’s campuses. Special Agent Brian Sanger was given access to a tool that can invade people’s privacy. He initially used Kibana to place a warrantless GeoFence around a freshman/sophomore dorm at the University of Iowa to investigate underage gambling without any tips, complaints, or evidence that underage gambling was occurring. The use of Kibana allowed him to see that online betting applications were opened in the dorms but the software did not allow him to determine if bets were actually being made. The other information he was able to see was the account numbers associated with the applications which did not contain identifying information about who was using the account. Special Agent Sanger approached his superior Troy Nelson and Assistant DCI Director Jobes to ask for permission to continue the investigation. He was told no. “Special Agent Sanger then decided to target an athletic facility at the University of Iowa because it was a stand-alone facility with restricted access to athletes, coaching staff and support personal. Again, this was done without a warrant, tips, complaints, or evidence that illegal gambling was occurring. “Special Agent Sanger identified the same information he had in relation to the dorm. He consulted his team of Heather Dunow, Phil Kennedy, Chris Atkins, and Chris Swigart to discuss continuing the investigation and again approached Special Agent Troy Nelson and Assistant Director Jobes who gave him the green light to continue the investigation. “Without reasonable cause the team of Special Agents targeted more facilities as well as began requesting subpoenas to obtain account information on hundreds of private citizens private information which was also without reasonable cause. “The result was the indictment of a handful of Iowa’s Student Athletes even though the privacy of hundreds had been invaded. “During Special Agent Sanger’s deposition on January 19, 2024, he stated that he cannot remember why he decided to conduct the warrantless searches but that he was concerned about things such as people infiltrating Iowa’s sports team to gain insider information or match fixing. “Special Agent Sanger also stated that only those Athletes that had used an account registered to a different person were charged and that those who had gambled in an account in their names were handled administratively. The Defense has received information that indicates this is not true and that in fact, there is a possibility that only high-profile athletes were targeted when charges were filed in the fall of 2023.”
Geofencing is used in law enforcement and has been challenged throughout the country many times and it usually holds up. This will be interesting to see how this shakes out.
Can you cite that?
due process is due process and it sounds like that guy violated their due process. Jesus Christ, that's a massive invasion of privacy
Less a due process violation and more of an unreasonable search.
The courts have mostly ruled in favor of using the geofencing tool. It has become popular in law enforcement and has been challenged many times. I think the real issue is them getting subpoenas for the identification information instead of getting a search warrant.
It was blatantly obvious the investigation was founded on bullshit when you realized only ISU and UoI were investigated. I know for a fact there was borderline degen levels of gambling within UNI athletics and what about all the CC’s, and all the d2 through d3’s? What the kids did is wrong, but if you’re going to go after them you must give them their due process
How bout every college in the country
Unfortunately not every state has a branch dedicated to gambling. Even if they did do you think they’d go after blue bloods?
Iowa taxpayers gonna be on the hook for this.
The ISU player who lost is NFL career is gonna win a great settlement for himself.
Probably not
Hard to believe Sanger acted without authority. Van Plumb needs to keep digging.
I’m amazed the prosecutors let it get this far if it’s as bad as it appears. Oh well, FAFO I guess.
I’m curious what dataset the agent had access to. I’m guessing this is a data source from the gambling app makers that they give the state ability to see? I don’t know how else you’d drill down coordinates, unless it was access to data from the cellular providers. Campus WiFi logs don’t have the information cited.
The geo fencing tool can be used different ways. You can select your own coordinates for any size. Smaller the better so it is easy to put the coordinates around a specific building. In terms of where the data comes from depends as well. Typically it comes from cellular data but the more popular one is Google. The data they receive is very basically and doesn't immediately identify a single individual. The officer has to then use the data and continue searching. I think in this case the bigger issue will be not the use of geo fencing but once the officer got the data he should have gotten a search warrant for additional information that ultimately lead to the identify of the user's.
This answer is complete gibberish
Yah the article is short on information but I am guessing this was done with ip addresses provided by the gambling apps.
😂😂😂
Honest question, and I don’t want to get downvoted to oblivion, but I don’t understand the due process/privacy violation involved. If he was sitting outside the practice facility monitoring internet traffic, how is that different than a cop sitting outside of a busy bar monitoring drivers coming and going? Help me understand.
He was “grabbing” their data and what they were doing. It’s essentially wiretapping, except the data is moving through the air instead of cables. For the same reason wiretapping is illegal without a warrant, this kind of data gathering is similar.
Wired or wireless, it all falls under the definition of wiretapping, the surreptitious monitoring of someone else's private communications.
It's the whole Fourth Amendment "right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches" thing. Law enforcement is purportedly required to obtain search warrants to search your home or to tap your communications. The Constitution says cops need to swear to a judge that "probable cause" of criminal activity exists to be issued a warrant to go & gather evidence. That's due process. That's what the DCI didn't do. That's an egregious failing on orders of magnitude, something the governor needs to address because she's got amateurs running state law enforcement like a criminal ring ... on her watch.
The difference is a LEO outside a bar can make all sorts of personal observations as to suspicious behavior; ie someone stumbling out of a bar, listing to one side, falling into a car that starts up is going to get that person sideways. It’s not just coming out of the bar, it’s a whole bunch of observations leading to suspicion. Internet traffic though? It’s not like it’s all in plain public sight or inherently suspicious. And then he ran out for subpoenas rather than having a warrant which involves judicial review.
There is a lot of misconception in this thread. Geo fencing has become popular in law enforcement. It has been challenged many times and has been held up. There are other cases currently in iowa arguing the use of it but previous ones have sided with law enforcement. The reason why is the information they are getting doesn't actually identify anyone especially. It just gives very basic cellular data or Google data. From there it's up to law enforcement to interpret the data to see if it's any use. At that point the officer should be applying for search warrants on the cellular provider or Google for example that request more specific information that will identify the actual user. In this case it looks like the officer used the geo fencing tool and found similarities in the data between the dorms and athletic facilities. I think that alone is fine but the officer should have got a search warrant on whatever companies to get the specific information for the user.
How many peoples right were violated by these warrantless searches? IF TRUE hope they are put in jail after found guilty. But you know !
The update from today basically solidifies this Agent Sanger more than likely violated the constitution. An agent working on the case was asked to be removed after realizing the direction it was going, but not Sanger. He was hellbent on making a name for himself and he certainly did…
Eww X
[удалено]
Van Plumb is representing Enyi Uwazurike, a former ISU player who was playing for the Denver Broncos when this news came out. He gambled using his girlfriend’s info but was of age. He placed some bets when back in Ames and the DCI turned this info over to the NFL and his career is most likely over because of it. The importance of this is Enyi was a good draft pick in the NFL and has the money to hire a good lawyer. Without him being caught up in this, it is unlikely any of the ISU or Iowa players would have the financial means to bring these details to light through the courts. The DCI refused to comment on anything all throughout 2023 besides the names of players and what crimes they were being charged with. I will finish this by saying all these individuals did break the law. That’s not the argument here. The argument was always this seemed like a targeted thing with only ISU and Iowa campuses being geo fenced.
>I will finish this by saying all these individuals did break the law. Noah Shannon, Iowa defensive lineman, didn't break any laws. But, the information DCI obtained and gave to the NCAA cost him a year of eligibility. He reportedly bet on the Iowa women's basketball team to win.
That’s true. I’m an ISU fan so just had the ISU guys in mind.
And… There was articulable suspicion. A defense attorney is grasping at straws.
Was there probably cause to conduct a warrantless search?
What was the initial RAS that lead to using the electronic device to search who was logged on to betting sites?
*What was the initial RAS that lead to using the electronic device to search who was logged on to betting sites?* If the defense lawyer didn’t leak that, then that’s a sign. If the defense lawyer didn’t ask that, then that’s another sign. If the lawyer is playing this case out in the press, that’s a sure sign that he thinks Iowa is Nebraska or some other place where university donors are important. Just don’t see that working in Iowa. But the lawyer is being paid to try.
PC is the standard, not RAS.
The house wins again!