Eighth Circuit: Iowa Geofencing Qualified Immunity Under Review

• Iowa college athletes are appealing a lower court's dismissal of their lawsuit challenging warrantless geofencing used in a sports betting investigation.
• A district judge found the geofencing violated Fourth Amendment rights but granted qualified immunity to officers, stating the law was not clearly established.
• The athletes argue the Supreme Court's *Carpenter v. United States* decision established a warrant requirement for digital location data.
• Eighth Circuit judges expressed concerns about applying existing law to rapidly evolving digital surveillance technologies.
• The case will determine the scope of Fourth Amendment protections for digital location data and the application of qualified immunity in novel technology contexts.

The central tension lies between law enforcement's need to investigate potential crimes and individuals' constitutional protection against unreasonable searches.

A group of college athletes in Iowa is seeking to revive a lawsuit against state law enforcement, arguing that a warrantless cellphone tracking program used to investigate illegal sports betting violated their constitutional rights. The case, currently before the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, centers on the use of "geofencing" technology by state investigators. This technology was deployed to monitor when sports betting applications were accessed or utilized within or near athletic facilities at two Iowa universities and a community college.

The investigation, which involved twenty-seven current and former athletes, leveraged location data that users had voluntarily shared to participate in online gambling. Following the initial geofencing sweep, investigators proceeded to issue subpoenas, obtain targeted warrants, and gather additional records, all based on the information initially collected through the broader, warrantless search. This process led to significant repercussions for the athletes, including suspensions, loss of eligibility, and criminal charges. Notably, some of these charges were subsequently dropped due to concerns about the expansive nature of the geolocation search. The athletes contend that law enforcement's failure to secure warrants for this widespread digital tracking constitutes a violation of their Fourth Amendment protections.

The legal battle intensified after U.S. District Judge Rebecca Goodgame Ebinger, an appointee of former President Barack Obama, dismissed the athletes' case in November 2025. While Judge Ebinger acknowledged that the investigators' warrantless sweep of gambling app users' phone data indeed infringed upon the athletes' Fourth Amendment rights, she ultimately ruled that the officers were shielded by qualified immunity. Her decision hinged on the finding that the unconstitutionality of such a geolocation search was not "clearly established" in legal precedent at the time the investigation took place.

During the recent Eighth Circuit hearing, James P. Roberts, representing the college athletes from Palmer Perlstein, an Addison, Texas-based firm, argued that the lower court's grant of qualified immunity was erroneous. Roberts asserted that the U.S. Supreme Court's 2018 ruling in *Carpenter v. United States* provided a clear constitutional framework applicable to this situation. He emphasized that law enforcement "searched digital, historical location information to identify individuals, and then determined if those individuals had even committed a crime." Roberts further contended that the core legal question for an officer should not be whether a specific technology has been deemed an unreasonable search by courts, but rather whether the information being sought is protected, thereby requiring a warrant. He likened this to an officer demanding phones from everyone in an athletic department without a warrant.

The appellate judges expressed concerns regarding the challenges of applying established legal principles to rapidly advancing digital technologies. U.S. Circuit Judge Bobby Shepherd, a George W. Bush appointee, highlighted the inherent difficulty law enforcement faces in discerning legal boundaries when technology constantly evolves. He remarked that this situation "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."

Similarly, U.S. Circuit Judge L. Steven Grasz, an appointee of former President Donald Trump, voiced apprehension that under the athletes' legal reasoning, the law might never achieve "clearly established" status due to continuous technological innovation. Judge Grasz questioned how courts could keep pace, stating, "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. So, if there are any small changes to the app, for example, the law would never be clearly established." Iowa Solicitor General Eric Wessan, representing the state, noted that the Supreme Court has previously cautioned lower courts to exercise careful consideration in such matters.

This case presents a significant test for how the Fourth Amendment applies to modern digital surveillance methods, particularly geofencing, and the boundaries of qualified immunity for law enforcement. The outcome will have broad implications for future investigations involving digital location data and the privacy rights of individuals. The 2018 Supreme Court decision that removed federal barriers to sports gambling in most states set the stage for increased state-level regulation and, consequently, more sophisticated methods of enforcement.

The central tension lies between law enforcement's need to investigate potential crimes and individuals' constitutional protection against unreasonable searches. The Eighth Circuit's decision will offer crucial guidance on whether *Carpenter v. United States* sufficiently "clearly established" the warrant requirement for warrantless location data search, thereby potentially narrowing the scope of police qualified immunity digital surveillance in novel technology contexts. A ruling in favor of the Iowa athletes could set a precedent for challenging evidence obtained via warrantless geofencing, while upholding the qualified immunity defense could embolden law enforcement to utilize similar technologies without prior judicial review, particularly when the technology is new or slightly modified.

This case presents a critical test for the application of Fourth Amendment protections to evolving digital surveillance technologies like geofencing, and the scope of qualified immunity for law enforcement. Lawyers advising clients on privacy rights or defending against charges based on digital location data should monitor the Eighth Circuit's decision for precedent on challenging evidence obtained via such methods and the potential for narrowing qualified immunity defenses in novel technology contexts.

Source: Original reporting via Courthouse News Service