Hey y’all!

I love a good football story, but I am a little bit tired of all of the crappy ones coming out of the NFL these days. Ray Rice likes to hit women, Adrian Peterson is suspended for the remainder of the 2014 season, and now the DEA raids teams at away games.

The DEA showed up unannounced on Sunday after several games to check on the visiting teams and medical staff. The San Francisco 49ers’ staff was checked at MetLife Stadium in New Jersey after playing the New York Giants; the Tampa Bay Buccaneers’ staff was checked at the Baltimore-Washington International airport after playing the Redskins; and the Seattle Seahawks confirmed via the team’s Twitter account that they were spot-checked as well after they played at Kansas City against the Chiefs.

“DEA agents are currently interviewing NFL team doctors in several locations as part of an ongoing investigation into potential violations of the (Controlled Substances Act),” Drug Enforcement Administration spokesman Rusty Payne said Sunday. Of course there were also no arrests because we all know that would be plastered all over the news. Does this show that the NFL is doing what it’s supposed to be doing? Surprise, surprise the NFL might actually take something seriously when it comes to its players!

The DEA claims that the teams involved were not specifically targeted, but rather they were chosen because they were travelling and the DEA wanted to see if visiting clubs were in compliance with federal law. DEA agents requested documentation from the visiting teams’ medical staffs for any controlled substances in their possession, and for proof that doctors could practice medicine in the home team’s state.

The investigation was triggered by a lawsuit filed in May on behalf of more than 1,200 former NFL players going all the way back to 1968.

The lawsuit alleges that the NFL and its teams, physicians, and trainers acted without regard for players’ health by withholding information about injuries while at the same time handing out prescription painkillers such as Vicodin and Percocet and anti-inflammatories such as Toradol, to mask pain and minimize lost playing time.

The NFL is also trying to finalize a $765 million class-action settlement reached in August 2013 over complaints by thousands of former players that the NFL concealed the risk of concussions.

I have a hard time wrapping my head around certain lawsuits. Guys, if a team doctor is handing you drugs and you feel uncomfortable with it, why not just say no? Or get a second opinion? You do have the right to refuse treatment and see another doctor outside of the NFL world. You might have to pay for the visit yourself but I’m pretty sure you make enough to afford a visit to a doctor who will tell you the truth and let you know what you should be on. I understand that the team physicians are supposed to be there to help out the players, but let’s be honest about where the loyalty really lies. Players don’t sign those big fat checks those doctors are cashing.

Allison Dawson

Allison Dawson was born in Germany and raised in Mississippi and Texas. A graduate of Texas Tech University and Arizona State University, she’s currently dedicating her life to studying for the LSAT. Twitter junkie. Conservative. Get in touch with Allison at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post DEA Raids NFL Teams After Sunday Games appeared first on Law Street.

A few years ago, a woman named Sondra Prince (now Sondra Arquiett) made a startling discovery. Someone was impersonating her with a fake Facebook account that included her name, identity, and pictures. She started looking into it, and the impersonator was the last person you’d guess — the U.S. Government. Specifically, the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA).

Arquiett had been arrested and questioned about her involvement in a drug ring that a former boyfriend was a part of. She had helped him a little bit, but based on her involvement, her willingness to accept a plea deal, and the circumstances of the case, she was just put on probation. However, throughout the course of the investigation, her cell phone was seized. The phone had a number of her personal pictures on it.

Somehow this led to U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration Special Agent Timothy Sinnegan using those pictures to create a completely fabricated Facebook profile that included Arquiett’s name.

These weren’t necessarily run-of-the-mill pictures, either. Many were simple shots, but some included her posing on the hood of a car, and one in either a bathing suit or a bra and underwear. There was also a shot of her holding her child and niece — an invasion of their privacy as well. These were shots that she may not have wanted online, especially if she was applying to jobs or had family on the site.

Then there was what Sinnegan actually did with the account. He used in an effort to contact and communicate with a wanted fugitive, as well as with other members of the Facebook community. Arquiett only found out about the profile because a friend contacted her asking about something “she” had put up on it.

Arquiett has now sued Sinnegan, and the DEA, for both violating her privacy as well as putting her in danger. That seems pretty accurate given that the people that they were using her profile to contact were criminals who could have reacted badly toward her if they discovered what was really going on.

The DEA’s defense was, essentially, that because those photos were in evidence at one point that they are allowed to use them. The government stated:

Defendants admit that Plaintiff did not give express permission for the use of photographs contained on her phone on an undercover Facebook page, but state the Plaintiff implicitly consented by granting access to the information stored in her cell phone and by consenting to the use of that information to aid in an ongoing criminal investigations [sic]

There are a lot of scary implications in that argument, and while the status of Arquiett’s case appears to still be up in the air, the page is now down thanks to Facebook, who does not allow the impersonation of people on its network.

The government’s argument is kind of ridiculous. Nate Cardoza, an attorney at the Electric Frontier Foundation pointed out:

If I’m cooperating with law enforcement, and law enforcement says, ‘Can I search your phone?’ and I hand it over to them, my expectation is that they will search the phone for evidence of a crime, not that they will take things that are not evidence off my phone and use it in another context.

Cardoza’s dead on. There are scary implications here. Arquiett’s ability to lead a private life without being scared of retaliation from the people whom the government tricked into thinking were communicating with her shouldn’t be stripped just because she was an accomplice to a completely separate crime.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The DEA Stole a Woman’s ID for a Facebook Account, Now It’s in Court appeared first on Law Street.