11th Circuit Weighs Whether Georgia Tech Auditors Acted as Law Enforcement in Racketeering Case
A former Georgia Tech professor argued before the 11th Circuit that university auditors drove his 2010 racketeering prosecution. Judges questioned whether the auditors crossed the line into law enforcement.
Former Georgia Tech Professor Challenges Auditors' Role in Racketeering Investigation
A former Georgia Tech engineering professor brought his civil rights claims before the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Tuesday, asking a three-judge panel to determine whether two university auditors functioned as law enforcement when they investigated him more than a decade ago, Courthouse News Service reports.
Joy Laskar, who was charged in 2010 with two counts of racketeering, argues that auditors Phillip Hurd and Patrick Jenkins conducted a biased investigation into allegations he misused university resources for the benefit of his private company, Sayana Wireless.
A $600,000 Shortfall and a Hidden Stake
Laskar had served as director of the Georgia Electronic Design Center, a research hub where technology companies paid membership dues to collaborate with university researchers. He was simultaneously co-founder and president of Sayana, a firm that designed and developed high-frequency microchips.
Georgia Tech began investigating a $600,000 shortfall at the center in 2009. During their audit, Hurd and Jenkins found that Sayana had billed the design center more than $1 million for the manufacture of prototype microchips, which were subsequently shipped to a South Korean institute that paid for the prototypes and research.
Laskar had not disclosed in conflict-of-interest filings with the university between 2007 and 2010 that he held a 42.5% stake in Sayana. The company also failed to pay membership fees to use the center's resources.
The auditors reported the suspected misconduct to Georgia Tech, which forwarded the findings to the Georgia Department of Law. Charges followed in 2010, though a Superior Court judge dismissed the case four years later on statute-of-limitations grounds. Georgia Tech fired Laskar, concluding he had diverted school resources for his company's benefit.
Civil Rights Suit and the Question of Law Enforcement Status
In 2018, Laskar filed a civil rights action against the auditors in the Northern District of Georgia, alleging the government employees had intentionally supplied false and misleading information to law enforcement. U.S. District Judge William M. Ray, a Donald Trump appointee, initially dismissed the suit because Laskar had not obtained a "favorable termination" — a finding of innocence — in criminal court, which is required to sustain a malicious prosecution claim. An appeals court reversed that dismissal, but Ray dismissed the case again in 2025, finding Laskar had not sufficiently established that the auditors operated as law enforcement officers.
Before the 11th Circuit on Tuesday, Michael Dailey of Anderson Dailey in Milton, Georgia, argued the auditors were "continuously involved" in the criminal investigation. He noted that evidence seized by law enforcement was stored in the audit department and reviewed by the audit team. The lead investigator from the Georgia Bureau of Investigation also routinely sought information and guidance from the auditors, Dailey said.
Panel Pushes Back
U.S. Chief Circuit Judge William Pryor, a George W. Bush appointee, was skeptical. The evidence, Pryor said, indicated the Georgia Bureau of Investigation conducted its own independent investigation and independently decided to pursue charges. If the case had a flaw, it rested with law enforcement — not the auditors.
When Dailey pressed the point that the lead investigator relied on the auditors and their findings, Pryor's response was brief: "So what?"
U.S. Circuit Judge Barbara Lagoa, a Trump appointee, added that prosecutors do not bring cases before a grand jury at an auditor's direction. "They go there because they believe that they have a case to bring to this grand jury in order to get an indictment," she said.
U.S. Circuit Judge Embry Kidd, a Joe Biden appointee, suggested the auditors' referral was no different from any other tip to law enforcement. "Sometimes investigations rely heavily on information provided by others," he said. "That does not mean that the decision by the investigator wasn't independent of the people providing the information."
Dailey also argued the auditors should have conducted a broader investigation, one that would have revealed that using university resources to develop private startups was common practice among professors on campus. Kidd was unpersuaded. "A drug dealer might say other people in the house were dealing drugs too," he said. "Again, so what?"
State: No Duty to Seek Exculpatory Evidence
William Peters, senior assistant attorney general for Georgia, argued on behalf of the auditors that even sworn law enforcement officers are not required to seek out exculpatory evidence. "If trained police officers with arrest powers do not have that burden, then certainly university auditors do not," Peters said.
The panel did not issue a ruling from the bench. A written decision is pending.
Source: Courthouse News Service