Judge grants Robert Kraft's request to suppress spa surveillance video
Source: CNN
(CNN) A Florida judge granted NFL team owner Robert Kraft's request to suppress surveillance video footage and other evidence in his prostitution solicitation case.
The ruling is a major blow to the case against Kraft, whose lawyers argued that the evidence was gathered illegally.
Kraft is one of dozens of spa patrons accused of receiving illicit massages at the Orchids of Asia spa in January.
He and other defendants pleaded not guilty to misdemeanor charges based on what authorities described as evidence collected from the recordings and other surveillance methods.
Read more: https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2019/05/13/us/robert-kraft-spa-surveillance-video/index.html
Wednesdays
(17,402 posts)bluestarone
(17,025 posts)Judges listen!
blueinredohio
(6,797 posts)MosheFeingold
(3,051 posts)About the majority of the patrons (male and female) who merely got perfectly legal massages -- they were all filmed naked.
Total violation of privacy of innocent people. The police are not allowed to go on a fishing expedition like this, throwing over a net and seeing what they catch.
So, while it's a shame this rich guy walks, it's the right decision.
bluestarone
(17,025 posts)Maybe i see ONLY the bad reasons for a judges decision. Putting it this way, it does make sense to me now!
Response to bluestarone (Reply #2)
isidisbasin Spam deleted by MIR Team
hannah
(141 posts)Its a freaking misdemeanor, he should walk!
Response to Jose Garcia (Original post)
NOMOGOP Spam deleted by MIR Team
Mr.Bill
(24,317 posts)I'll bet he's into this for a few hundred grand at least.
CatMor
(6,212 posts)YOHABLO
(7,358 posts)The super wealthy don't have to abide by the same laws as commoners.
getagrip_already
(14,825 posts)As much as I'd love to see kraft humiliated and convicted, the fact is this surveilance was corrupt from the start.
They set up cameras in a private establishment where the public would normally be naked, and let it run for 6+ months. They only charged a handful out of what had to be thousands of people they filmed. Even some woman went into those establishments not knowing what they were.
This operation wasn't about trafficking or protecting woman. It was about a prosecutorial body count.
The judge was absolutely correct to throw out those videos. They were way beyond a mistake.
MosheFeingold
(3,051 posts)forgotmylogin
(7,530 posts)The jury doesn't need to see the actual images as long as they know it exists.
getagrip_already
(14,825 posts)If it's suppressed, the jury isn't told it exists. And they are instructed that they can't use anything they heard about outside of the courtroom.
In effect, it doesn't exist.
Evidence is tossed out frequently. It doesn't mean it doesn't accurately depict what happened, it means it can't be used.
forgotmylogin
(7,530 posts)I forgot that the jury is sequestered from specific information. That's rather frustrating.
getagrip_already
(14,825 posts)At least if you believe in constitutional rights and the rule of law.
These practices protect us as citizens. Do some guilty people get off? Sure, but a lot of people get to live their lives in relative freedom from illegal searches and seizures.
Remember "stop and frisk"? It was tossed out as unconstitutional because thousands of innocent people had their rights violated and worse. A black man couldn't walk down the street without fearing the police would humiliate them in public. So a judge correctly declared the practice unconstitutional and threw out any evidence found.
So now the police at least need a fig leaf of probable cause, but they do still need it.
This was a tactic too far over the line. The evidence was justifiable thrown out.
forgotmylogin
(7,530 posts)I suppose they have no need to prosecute everyone who showed up on video. It's disturbing that everyone was being surveilled in a state of potential undress who didn't know and possibly weren't doing anything wrong.
JonLP24
(29,322 posts)getagrip_already
(14,825 posts)Judges issue warrants all the time without all the correct information, and they get tossed out as invalid. That's what happened here.
JonLP24
(29,322 posts)That is a major blow to their case if this affects other prosecutions. If they were dealing drugs that whole place would be wired but it is more difficult to prosecute selling people.
getagrip_already
(14,825 posts)Sex is circumstantial. Payment for sex even more so.
Without the videos, all the johns who haven't cut a plea will walk.
lark
(23,147 posts)MissMillie
(38,574 posts)what's going on with the people who owned/operated this "spa?"
In the beginning there were allegations that the "employees" were being held against their will and were being forced to provide these "services."
Seems to me that this is the crime that needs attention. I haven't seen/heard a whiff of it in the national press.
Marcuse
(7,505 posts)MissMillie
(38,574 posts)but I was talking about what charges they're facing and where the case stands in the court.
getagrip_already
(14,825 posts)But without trafficking charges, and no direct evidence they knew prostitution was occurring, very little.
They can be fined for license violations, tax violations, and a lot of small offenses but without being able to introduce any direct evidence, they are going to walk.
Jose Garcia
(2,601 posts)MosheFeingold
(3,051 posts)Q: What did the prostitute tell, Mr. Kraft, owner of the Patriots?
A: "Mr. Kraft, I'm not sure what I can do with these deflated balls."
HopeAgain
(4,407 posts)Paladin
(28,271 posts)Ancient Latin saying: "What is allowed the gods is not allowed the cattle."
A little classier way of saying "Money talks."