Iowa Criminal Investigator Sues DCI over Wrongful Termination Tied to Betting Probe

Mark Ludwick, a former agent at the Iowa Division of Criminal Investigation (DCI), previously criticized and testified against the body’s mishandled investigation into betting fraud at college campuses. He was later fired and is now suing the body over what he believes was retaliation.

The DCI Misused GeoComply to Investigate Student Athletes

According to Ludwick’s complaint, his termination was related to a controversial DCI probe into unauthorized sports betting. The investigation in question saw DCI leverage geolocation specialist GeoComply’s services to crack down on fraud.

While the DCI initially intended to leverage GeoComply’s services to detect betting fraud, such as money laundering, the body eventually ended up using GeoComply for an investigation into college campuses. The geolocation tools allowed the DCI to identify instances of underage betting by student athletes, leading to legal trouble for many of the people involved.

The majority of student athletes pleaded guilty and had to pay fines, while a few were acquitted. In any case, GeoComply was not pleased with how its tools were used and ended up revoking the DCI’s access to its services.

At the time, Ludwick was one of the people against this controversial use of GeoComply. In his recent lawsuit, he alleges that this was the reason he was ultimately fired.

Ludwick Says He Was Unlawfully Terminated

Ludwick previously criticized the DCI’s investigation into the betting activities of college athletes. In a testimony, he asserted that the use of GeoComply in this manner was unlawful – a claim that was also reflected in separate lawsuits by some of the impacted student athletes.

For context, the Fourth Amendment shields US citizens against unreasonable searches and seizures by the government.

The previous lawsuits were ultimately unsuccessful as the judge ruled that even if the investigation was unconstitutional, the investigators were shielded by qualified immunity.

In addition to slamming the investigation as unlawful, Ludwick had asked to be reassigned. Instead, he was fired ten months later.

Ludwick’s complaint asserts that the termination was unlawful and related to his testimony. He alleges that the termination represented retaliation and is now seeking damages.