Maybe The Iowa Gamblers Still Have a Chance
- Thread starter AgSurfer
- Start date
You didn't read my post at all, did you?
I'LL CAPITALIZE THE RELEVANT PORTION.
"BUT SHOULD BE"
I did read your entire post and disagreed with your point l. I'll just repost the first paragraph of my post and add some bold.
It does not apply and it should not, unless the NCAA should also be government with criminal prosecution powers.
I'm glad that you have so much faith in the NCAA that you think they should opperate like a government and could send people to prison, confiscate property, etc.
Or maybe you do not have that much faith in just the NCAA and you want all the government restrictions on search to also apply to civil cases. That would be the end to the private investigation business and a lot of investigative reporting. This would have a big impact on divorce cases, editorial standards, and contract negotiations. Just to name a few items.
Or maybe I am misunderstanding your point "BUT SHOULD BE". You can explain, if you like, how this would be better than "it should not".
Simple proposition: NO ENTITY, public or private should be able to use or benefit from information obtained improperly by a government agency.
Is that clear?
That is clear.
And I still disagree with you.
If that happens, the number of people that would "arrange" for the government to illegally get evidence would be astronomical.
The chemical company that is polluting water wells is being investigated by EPA has evidence that was not properly obtained. Company can just say to the people who were poisoned "that evidence was stolen, sucks to be you with you cancer" and then quietly agrees to pay a small EPA fine anyway or buy the EPA investigator a nice vacation.
You see how this could be a problem in a hurry?
I hope you understand that I don't give a rat's posterior that you disagree. It's your right and my right to shrug and question whether you are narcoleptic, not just sleepy.
You don't understand that goes both ways, right?
Somebody wanting to pursue a legal action but can't get the evidence legally just gets some investigation started, not giving a damn that the prosecutor is shut down but the plaintiff's attorney isn't.
And your cancer example is quite frankly, stupid. Cancer statistics are a matter of public record, they require no EPA police action. The EPA's powers are so extraordinarily broad that they don't have to take short cuts. Of course, Flint residents might think the EPA too lax, rather than aggressive.
Yes, we can all have different opinions. I'm not here to piss anyone off (although some may come here looking for that and i might oblige them, I don't think you did and it is/was not my intention).
You don't have to like my example either.
Either way, if the ill-gotten evidence cannot be used, it is helping one party or the ill-gotten evidence can be used it is helping the other party in a potential civil suit.
My opinion is ill-gotten evidence should be able to be used in a civil case and that is not your opinion.
I actually like the back and forth with someone (or more if someone else wants to jump in) with different points of view and opinions.
I think no less of you then before we had our conversation, even if you do not care about me at all (or less than when we started) . And my sleep patterns are "normal" for may age, gender, etc. (thanks for your concern?).
I'll tiptoe in here to mention that the above dispute appears to be people arguing past each other on distinct matters b/c everyone knows just enough, but not the whole picture.
The exclusionary rule is a criminal law creature and thus has no application to the present lawsuit, which is a sec. 1983 (civil) action against various govt officials and state entities (and the state of Iowa). The defenses available to these parties are myriad and don't directly include "well, plaintiffs were violating NCAA violations." So that evidence doesn't come in not b/c of the exculsionary rule but b/c it's not relevant.
The hurdles for plaintiffs here are that (1) the parties most obviously responsible for the alleged violations are individuals who will argue qualified immunity, probably successfully; and (2) the parties that can't argue qualified immunity (state entities and municipalities) are not obviously (at least) responsible for the alleged violations. If tried, much of the crucial testimony would revolve around what everyone rungs above knew, or how particular policies led to this surveillance being inevitable or commonplace. Based on the complaint, it doesn't appear that the plaintiffs have that information yet.
That skepticism noted, I can see a settlement here b/c losing in court after a prolonged fight would be a nightmare for Iowa (the state) given that this is a rare instance where they're alleging fourth amendment violations against fairly popular individuals, and it's already gotten quite a bit of attention. No one cares about fourth amendment violations against drug dealers, and the law that's deevloped has been carve-out after carve-out for the gov't largely for that reason.
But I can also see that gov't arguing that these weren't illegal searches to begin with. Just because Iowa ultimately dropped the charges doesn't mean that they're conceding there were indeed fourth amendment violations. (I personally believe that these were, or at least should be, violations, but set that aside.) At issue is software that can be used within prescribed geographical boundaries to identify "hot spots" of activity, which the defendants used to draw around Iowa and ISU, and from there identify possible illegal activity, which they then did.
The question of whether that should require or warrant or actually does require a warrant isn't immediately clear to me. I can think of analogous scenarios where police can legally conduct mass searches, such as a DUI checkpoints, without the reasonable suspicion that you'd otherwise need to get a warrant. Granted, this does seem different inasmuch as private individuals gambling online don't pose the same hazard as a drunk driver, but I'm often surprised at what differences don't actually matter for fourth amendment analysis purposes.
To me, the gov't definitely shouldn't be using software to find potential violations and then indicting based on what it found. If the company you contracted with uses software and they determine some statute has been violated, so long as it's in the TOS (it almost definitely is), that company can then go to law enforcement and law enforcement can proceed from there.
The exclusionary rule is a criminal law creature and thus has no application to the present lawsuit, which is a sec. 1983 (civil) action against various govt officials and state entities (and the state of Iowa). The defenses available to these parties are myriad and don't directly include "well, plaintiffs were violating NCAA violations." So that evidence doesn't come in not b/c of the exculsionary rule but b/c it's not relevant.
The hurdles for plaintiffs here are that (1) the parties most obviously responsible for the alleged violations are individuals who will argue qualified immunity, probably successfully; and (2) the parties that can't argue qualified immunity (state entities and municipalities) are not obviously (at least) responsible for the alleged violations. If tried, much of the crucial testimony would revolve around what everyone rungs above knew, or how particular policies led to this surveillance being inevitable or commonplace. Based on the complaint, it doesn't appear that the plaintiffs have that information yet.
That skepticism noted, I can see a settlement here b/c losing in court after a prolonged fight would be a nightmare for Iowa (the state) given that this is a rare instance where they're alleging fourth amendment violations against fairly popular individuals, and it's already gotten quite a bit of attention. No one cares about fourth amendment violations against drug dealers, and the law that's deevloped has been carve-out after carve-out for the gov't largely for that reason.
But I can also see that gov't arguing that these weren't illegal searches to begin with. Just because Iowa ultimately dropped the charges doesn't mean that they're conceding there were indeed fourth amendment violations. (I personally believe that these were, or at least should be, violations, but set that aside.) At issue is software that can be used within prescribed geographical boundaries to identify "hot spots" of activity, which the defendants used to draw around Iowa and ISU, and from there identify possible illegal activity, which they then did.
The question of whether that should require or warrant or actually does require a warrant isn't immediately clear to me. I can think of analogous scenarios where police can legally conduct mass searches, such as a DUI checkpoints, without the reasonable suspicion that you'd otherwise need to get a warrant. Granted, this does seem different inasmuch as private individuals gambling online don't pose the same hazard as a drunk driver, but I'm often surprised at what differences don't actually matter for fourth amendment analysis purposes.
To me, the gov't definitely shouldn't be using software to find potential violations and then indicting based on what it found. If the company you contracted with uses software and they determine some statute has been violated, so long as it's in the TOS (it almost definitely is), that company can then go to law enforcement and law enforcement can proceed from there.
Thanks for tiptoeing...
(I think) We agree that if a search violated the 4th amendment the government cannot use the information in criminal cases. Also, currently the government still can use the information in civil cases.
This is where the opinions are being shared and differ.
Should the government be allowed to use the information in civil cases?
Should a private entity, such as the NCAA, be able to use the information that in its decision to suspend wrestlers?
(Again, I think) We are not debating what is currently allowed and lawful, but if the current allowable uses are correct and/or fair (good/bad, right/wrong, etc.).
You are correct that I know very few details about this specific case involving the the State of Iowa gamblers.
My objection to your "example" ( and it's not an example, what you've described is a hypothetical as it actually hasn't occurred ) has nothing to do with any personal preference or aesthetics.
The reason I reject it as stupid is because it isn't a remotely plausible hypothesis for the reasons I provided that you were apparently blissfully unaware when you postulated it. I don't give out participation trophies for whiffing at T-Ball or apologize for not doing so.
It's not only that the government isn't finding violations, it's data mining for an enemies list without the scintilla of probable cause.
Now be a good little lamb and be prepared to celebrate your "freedom" on July 4 as your friendly federal government prepares to force you to buy a "kill switch" with your new car for 2026 and beyond vehicles.
In addition to the NBC15 story, I suggest you watch this from British historian Mark Felton. It seems 2024 (and especially 2020) were previewed in the Reich in 1934.
Feds flagged bank transactions for bibles, hunting firearms after Jan 6, congressman says
The federal government warned banks that persons of interest in the January 6 Capitol riots may spend money on bibles or at Bass Pro Shop, according to a letter
mynbc15.com
Last edited:
You're getting hung up on a moot question. The govt, in theory at least, can use evidence in a civil trial that in a criminal trial would be excluded. But the govt in this instance are defendants, and evidence that the plaintiffs actually broke laws will not be relevant to the govt's defense.
The NCAA could indeed base a suspension on evidence that was obtained in violation of someone's fourth amendment rights because the NCAA is not a govt actor. Note that the lawsuit implicitly recognizes this by not naming the NCAA as a party and seeking reinstatement for the plaintiffs.
a little tip for iowa and their fans,the one that accuse everyone else of cheating is usually the main culprit!
TLDR but I am a fan of Mark Felton's youtube channel. Great WW2 content.My objection to your "example" ( and it's not an example, what you've described is a hypothetical as it actually hasn't occurred ) has nothing to do with any personal preference or aesthetics.
The reason I reject it as stupid is because it isn't a remotely plausible hypothesis for the reasons I provided that you were apparently blissfully unaware when you postulated it. I don't give out participation trophies for whiffing at T-Ball or apologize for not doing so.
It's not only that the government isn't finding violations, it's data mining for an enemies list without the scintilla of probable cause.
Now be a good little lamb and be prepared to celebrate your "freedom" on July 4 as your friendly federal government prepares to force you to buy a "kill switch" with your new car for 2026 and beyond vehicles.
In addition to the NBC15 story, I suggest you watch this from British historian Mark Felton. It seems 2024 (and especially 2020) were previewed in the Reich in 1934.
Feds flagged bank transactions for bibles, hunting firearms after Jan 6, congressman says
The federal government warned banks that persons of interest in the January 6 Capitol riots may spend money on bibles or at Bass Pro Shop, according to a letter
Over the past 15 years I have laughed out loud many times at the crap that comes off the pages at HR about PSU that only turns out to be HR true.
A few examples.
1. Brands owns Cael. One owns the other, but not how HR described it.
2. Brands lives in Cael's head. Is there any doubt Cael is Brands's own personal nightmare.
3. Once Cael's double recruiting class graduates. Not arguing the the double recruiting, but the Lion continued to climb life's heights after that first class moved on while Brands's ability to duplicate the success his double recruiting class achieved has been very limited.
4. Cael can't coach. There has no doubt left as to who the superior coach is.
5. Cael cheats. Never any proof even suggested, but Iowa's cheating is documented as Larry Lee's acknowledgment that he call multiple student-athletes aaking if they were interested in meeting Tom.
6. PSU uses PEDs. Based on HR's track record one is left to wonder who in Iowa City may be guilty.
Sorry I used "example" when I should have used "hypothetical". I'll make up for it...My objection to your "example" ( and it's not an example, what you've described is a hypothetical as it actually hasn't occurred ) has nothing to do with any personal preference or aesthetics.
The reason I reject it as stupid is because it isn't a remotely plausible hypothesis for the reasons I provided that you were apparently blissfully unaware when you postulated it. I don't give out participation trophies for whiffing at T-Ball or apologize for not doing so.
It's not only that the government isn't finding violations, it's data mining for an enemies list without the scintilla of probable cause.
Now be a good little lamb and be prepared to celebrate your "freedom" on July 4 as your friendly federal government prepares to force you to buy a "kill switch" with your new car for 2026 and beyond vehicles.
In addition to the NBC15 story, I suggest you watch this from British historian Mark Felton. It seems 2024 (and especially 2020) were previewed in the Reich in 1934.
Feds flagged bank transactions for bibles, hunting firearms after Jan 6, congressman says
The federal government warned banks that persons of interest in the January 6 Capitol riots may spend money on bibles or at Bass Pro Shop, according to a letter
This is all hypothetical.
This whole thing started with the hypothetical situation of the NCAA having to have to defend the suspensions of the wrestlers in civil court and using the evidence provided by the investigation as their basis. To my knowledge the suspended wrestlers have yet to appeal their suspension, much less file a civil suit against the NCAA. So, this is just a hypothetical appeal to the NCAA to be reinstated, followed by a hypothetical decision by the NCAA to deny the appeal, followed by a hypothetical court filing, followed by a hypothetical defense strategy.
I'm not really worried about your opinion of me. If you think I am virtue signaling because I said I do not think any less of you, do not flatter yourself. The bar was not that high.
The NBC15 article did not involve a civil proceedings, so it probably is not relevant either. It did involve private organizations giving info to the government at the government's request. Which may or may not violate the 4th amendment (or some privacy agreement customers had with the financial organizations, there is another hypothetical question in there), but as this has not been used in any civil suit that I am aware of.
Good thing I know how to ride a horse.
You are probably regretting tiptoeing into this now... The moot question, is in fact the debate (at least it is to me, maybe we are all talking past each other). Should an entity, public or private be able to use or benefit from information obtained improperly by a government agency?
I think we both agree this is the way things are now, "NCAA could indeed base a suspension on evidence that was obtained in violation of someone's fourth amendment rights..." One of us thinks this is fine and the other, does not.
Maybe you should research the common good. Freedom isn't ****ing free just sayingMy objection to your "example" ( and it's not an example, what you've described is a hypothetical as it actually hasn't occurred ) has nothing to do with any personal preference or aesthetics.
The reason I reject it as stupid is because it isn't a remotely plausible hypothesis for the reasons I provided that you were apparently blissfully unaware when you postulated it. I don't give out participation trophies for whiffing at T-Ball or apologize for not doing so.
It's not only that the government isn't finding violations, it's data mining for an enemies list without the scintilla of probable cause.
Now be a good little lamb and be prepared to celebrate your "freedom" on July 4 as your friendly federal government prepares to force you to buy a "kill switch" with your new car for 2026 and beyond vehicles.
In addition to the NBC15 story, I suggest you watch this from British historian Mark Felton. It seems 2024 (and especially 2020) were previewed in the Reich in 1934.
Feds flagged bank transactions for bibles, hunting firearms after Jan 6, congressman says
The federal government warned banks that persons of interest in the January 6 Capitol riots may spend money on bibles or at Bass Pro Shop, according to a letter
Maybe you should, because if you think federal bureaucrats pilfering through credit card records to find "Bass Pro Shops" represents the enhancement of the common good you need a remedial class.
That's not what I'm talking about. Not arguing look up the concept and apply to the topic at hand. My reference was in the hypothetical that you let a serial killer loose because somehow the evidence was obtained illegally. I'm not even saying that letting them go is not the right thing to do constitutionally I'm just saying the common good should come into the equation when determining justice lol. Sheesh what's with bass pro shops
One big problem with this is that somebody has to determine what "common good" justifies breaking what rules.
Chances are near absolute that the people making this justification are the same ones breaking the rules. (Occasionally a judge or jury might nullify such instances, but won't always, and won't be made aware of many/most.)
Which means that the rule-breaking will not only continue, but expand in unforeseen directions because there will be no consequences for the rule breakers. More likely they'll get rewarded for their bad behavior.
Besides, it's lazy. The LAPD should not have needed to plant evidence to get OJ Simpson.
@Pitchfork Rebel
I just noticed you replied to your self, but it was directed at me. Maybe this is a Freudian slip, but you are the psychoanalyst between the two of us.
Maybe this hypothetical or example (your choice on what you call it) will be better...
Two guys are Business partners. One guy (P1) has been violating an agreement with the other guy (P2) for years, costing P2 some money. P1 is also into drug trafficking. P2 does not have a suspicion about the violation of the agreement, but knows it could be possible, and does not know anything about the drugs. P1's house is raided because of the drug trafficking, but something went wrong with the paperwork and the judge rules all the evidence collected in the raid violated the 4th amendment rights of P1. Part of that evidence (financial statements, etc.) that was collected during the raid was proof of the theft from P2.
After the raid, the police let P2 in on the agreement violation and P1 owes P2 some cash, P2 wants his money.
P2 files a civil suit but the evidence is not allowed to be presented because the paperwork issue that caused the 4th amendment violation. P1 gets to keep all the money that should have been P2's.
P2 did nothing wrong, in a legal sense. P2 could have chosen a better business partner or did an audit of their agreement more frequently. But because of the 4th amendment violation P2 has no recourse.
Does this make sense to eliminate P2's recourse because of a paperwork error made by some government officers?
I just noticed you replied to your self, but it was directed at me. Maybe this is a Freudian slip, but you are the psychoanalyst between the two of us.
Maybe this hypothetical or example (your choice on what you call it) will be better...
Two guys are Business partners. One guy (P1) has been violating an agreement with the other guy (P2) for years, costing P2 some money. P1 is also into drug trafficking. P2 does not have a suspicion about the violation of the agreement, but knows it could be possible, and does not know anything about the drugs. P1's house is raided because of the drug trafficking, but something went wrong with the paperwork and the judge rules all the evidence collected in the raid violated the 4th amendment rights of P1. Part of that evidence (financial statements, etc.) that was collected during the raid was proof of the theft from P2.
After the raid, the police let P2 in on the agreement violation and P1 owes P2 some cash, P2 wants his money.
P2 files a civil suit but the evidence is not allowed to be presented because the paperwork issue that caused the 4th amendment violation. P1 gets to keep all the money that should have been P2's.
P2 did nothing wrong, in a legal sense. P2 could have chosen a better business partner or did an audit of their agreement more frequently. But because of the 4th amendment violation P2 has no recourse.
Does this make sense to eliminate P2's recourse because of a paperwork error made by some government officers?
Sheesh, If you had read the link, you would have seen that Federal investigators asked banks to search and filter customer transactions warning that purchases of "religious texts" could indicate "extremism.
They also obtained documents that indicate officials suggested that banks query transactions with keywords like Dick's Sporting Goods, Cabela's, Bass Pro Shops and more.
Sorry must have confused who I was responding to lol. First mistake of the year and it's only may lol
