Iowa athletes busted for betting take illegal search claims to Eighth Circuit

The lower court found the investigators' warrantless sweep violated the athletes' Fourth Amendment rights, but dismissed the case anyway after finding the officers were entitled to qualified immunity.(CN) — A group of Iowa college athletes Thursday urged an Eighth Circuit panel to revive their lawsuit over the state’s cellphone tracking program to identify illegal bets.Twenty-seven current and former athletes at two Iowa universities and a community college sued state law enforcement officers investigating possible sports wagering violations using “geofencing” technology to track when sports betting apps were opened or used in or near athletic facilities. The users voluntarily shared their location data so they could gamble online.Investigators subsequently issued subpoenas, sought targeted warrants and obtained additional records based on information gathered from the broader search. The investigation resulted in suspensions, loss of eligibility and criminal charges against certain college athletes, though some were later dropped due to the extended scope of the geolocation search. The athletes argue state investigators violated their Fourth Amendment rights by not obtaining warrants for the widespread tracking.U.S. District Judge Rebecca Goodgame Ebinger dismissed the college athletes’ case in November 2025. The Barack Obama appointee determined the investigators’ warrantless sweep of gambling app users’ phone data violated the athletes’ Fourth Amendment rights, but found the officers were entitled to qualified immunity because the unconstitutionality of the geolocation search was not clearly established at the time.James P. Roberts, representing the college athletes from the Addison, Texas-based firm Palmer Perlstein, told the panel that the lower court erred in granting qualified immunity by finding that no previous case had addressed this particular use of technology. He cited the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2018 decision in Carpenter v. United States, which he said provided a constitutional rule in this case.“Defendants searched digital, historical location information to identify individuals, and then determined if those individuals had even committed a crime," Roberts said.U.S. Circuit Judge Bobby Shepherd said changes in technology and how it is used pose a challenge for law enforcement officers. “To me, that underscores the difficulty that law enforcement will face in trying to determine what the law is and what is protected and what is not protected," the George W. Bush appointee said.Roberts emphasized the issue is the information obtained by a law officer, not the technology used to obtain it. He insisted the question for the officer is not: “Is the technology I’m using found by the courts to be unreasonable search?” But rather, “Is the information I’m seeking to gather protected? And if so, I have to get a warrant.” That’s true whether the officer uses surveillance technology or if he walks into the athletic department and says, “Everyone, give me your phones,” Roberts said.U.S. Circuit Judge L. Steven Grasz wondered how courts should keep up with evolving technology.“My concern, counsel, is I believe, under your line of reasoning the law would never, ever be clearly established because the technology is constantly changing," the Donald Trump appointee said. “So, if there are any small changes to the app, for example, the law would never be clearly established.”In response, Iowa Solicitor General Eric Wessan, representing the state, said the U.S. Supreme Court has cautioned lower courts to think carefully about accepting what is “clearly established” law in deciding qualified immunity cases.In addition to defending the lower court’s decision, Wessan questioned some of the plaintiffs’ standing under the Fourth Amendment. “Seventeen of the plaintiffs and intervenors were using someone else’s account to engage in sports gambling, which violated not only the terms of services of the underlying application.” They were doing so to evade restrictions on their own ability to place bets, Wessan said.“Whether anyone has a reasonable expectation of privacy in using someone’s sports gambling app illicitly to gamble is itself a threshold question, that I think the answer should be ‘no,’" he said.The state, in its brief filed with the court, explained that sports gambling organizations, or sportsbooks, are required by statute to monitor users’ geolocation activity and report suspicious activity to the Iowa Racing and Gaming Commission.Many sportsbooks use GeoComply, a vendor in Iowa that provides geolocation technology and software tools to track and display location data. Sportsbooks disclose to users that this data may be shared with third parties or law enforcement.The third member of the panel hearing Thursday’s argument was U.S. Circuit Judge David R. Stras, another Trump appointee. The court did not say when its decision would be made.Subscribe to our free newslettersOur weekly newsletter Closing Arguments offers the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world, while the monthly Under the Lights dishes the legal dirt from Hollywood, sports, Big Tech and the arts.Additional Reads