Four former or suspended Iowa State athletes have filed a motion to dismiss the charges against them in a state gambling investigation, claiming that the evidence was obtained illegally and violated their constitutional rights.
How the probe began
The investigation began in August 2023, when a special agent from the Iowa Division of Criminal Investigation (DCI) used a geofencing tracking software to locate places inside ISU athletic facilities where athletes were making wagers on mobile betting platforms. The agent, Brian Sanger, said he was concerned about the possibility of match fixing, although he had no specific information or tip that such activity was occurring among ISU athletes.
Sanger then obtained account information from the betting platforms to identify the athletes and third parties whose credit cards were used. He also interviewed some of the athletes and obtained their phone records and bank statements.
What the athletes are charged with
The four athletes who filed the motion to suppress are former football players Isaiah Lee, Jirehl Brock and Enyi Uwazurike and suspended wrestler Paniro Johnson. They are among about two dozen ISU and Iowa athletes who were criminally charged last year as a result of the probe.
They each face a felony charge of identity theft and an aggravated misdemeanor charge of tampering with records. The identity theft charges stem from the athletes registering accounts on mobile betting apps under different names, usually a relative. The tampering charges are based on the allegation that they deleted or altered their phone records or bank statements to conceal their gambling activities.
Most of the athletes who were charged pleaded guilty to underage gambling, paid fines and had identity theft charges dropped. Some of them also lost their NCAA eligibility or were suspended from their teams.
Why the athletes say the evidence is illegal
The motion to suppress, filed by the defense attorneys in Story County, argues that the use of the tracking software was unconstitutional because no warrant had been issued, and that it violated the agency’s limited-use agreement with the software firm, GeoComply. The motion also claims that the software firm cut off DCI’s access to the tool last month because the user agreement was breached.
The motion further contends that the athletes were not read their Miranda rights, which can protect a suspect from self-incrimination, so any admissions or statements they made should be thrown out. The motion also alleges that the athletes were misled by the investigators, who told them that the online betting companies were under investigation, not them.
The defense attorneys say that there was no probable cause for the searches into the online wagering activities, and that the charges are based on a “fishing expedition” that resulted in criminalizing innocent behavior.
How the state responds
The state Department of Public Safety, which oversees DCI, said in a statement last month that it believes its methods stand up to legal scrutiny. The statement said that the investigation was conducted in accordance with state law and that the evidence was obtained through lawful means.
The statement also defended the agent’s use of the tracking software, saying that it was a “valuable tool” to identify potential criminal activity and that it did not violate any privacy rights. The statement said that the software only provided general location information and did not reveal any personal data or content of the bets.
The statement also denied that the athletes were coerced or deceived by the investigators, and that they were informed of their rights and the nature of the investigation.
The state has not yet filed a formal response to the motion to suppress, and a hearing date has not been set.
