In a recent development, more than two dozen athletes based in Iowa have filed a federal lawsuit, claiming that state criminal investigators violated their constitutional rights. The lawsuit revolves around the use of geolocation software to track the athletes' cellphone activity as part of a sports wagering inquiry, which subsequently led to criminal charges and the loss of NCAA eligibility.

The 47-page lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, questions whether the state's criminal investigators should have obtained a search warrant before utilizing a third-party company, GeoComply's program, to locate athletes and examine their online wagering activity. Notably, many of these athletes were under the legal betting age in Iowa, which is 21.

The plaintiffs consist of 26 current and former athletes, with 16 representing the University of Iowa, nine from Iowa State, and one from a central Iowa community college. Among the athletes, 13 were football players, six were wrestlers, and the remaining seven played baseball or basketball.

Attorneys for the plaintiffs, Matt Boles, Adam Witosky, and Van Plumb, expressed their concerns regarding the impact on these young athletes' lives. In a statement, they stated, "The lives of these young men have been disrupted and altered in ways still yet to be fully seen... It is our hope that through the civil action we can help these young men put their lives back on track and gain a measure of justice for the violation of their rights."

The lawsuit alleges that the state, along with its Department of Public Safety and Division of Criminal Investigation, violated the athletes' civil rights by using the GeoComply software without a warrant within Iowa and Iowa State athletic facilities. As of now, state officials have not responded to the lawsuit.

GeoComply, a provider of geolocation software to major sportsbooks, is mentioned in the lawsuit. When users register with online betting companies, they consent to share their location data with GeoComply, which then shares this information with the companies. DraftKings and FanDuel, the two online sportsbooks used by the athletes, have policies in place that allow them to disclose personally identifying information to law enforcement.

It is noted that DCI agents had access to the GeoComply platform, which was licensed through the Iowa Racing and Gaming Commission. While the state investigators obtained search warrants for the athletes' phones, the lawsuit argues that these warrants were "invalid and unconstitutional" since the information used to obtain them was acquired without a warrant. Furthermore, the plaintiffs claim that DCI supervisors failed to properly train their staff or intervene when they learned of the alleged actions.

Out of the 26 athletes, 16 were criminally charged, with 12 pleading guilty to underage gambling. Additionally, four athletes faced felony charges related to identity theft, which were later dismissed due to the investigation's scope exceeding its permitted use. The remaining 10 athletes were not charged with crimes, but faced consequences such as a loss of playing time, potential NCAA or NFL sanctions, and damage to their athletic careers.

The attorneys representing the athletes are seeking both actual and punitive damages for each plaintiff. The investigation allegedly involved DCI agents assuring the athletes that they were not the targets, but rather assisting in an inquiry of sports betting companies. Athletes reported that on May 2, DCI agents visited their residences and requested their cellphones, which were returned the same day. Family members and others associated with the athletes' betting accounts also had their phones searched.

In a statement made earlier this year, DCI commissioner Stephan Bayens, who is named as a defendant in the lawsuit, expressed his full support for the investigation. He maintained that prosecutors affirmed the legality of the actions taken by the agency. However, the lawsuit now challenges the legality of the investigation and demands accountability for the alleged violation of the athletes' rights.

As the lawsuit progresses, the outcome will decide whether the athletes' constitutional rights were indeed violated and what measures should be taken to rectify the situation.