PATRIOTS NEWS Kraft Orchids Case - Prosecuters Want a Tug Rule?

[Ring 6]

Actually they can. For example, if the cops raid an establishment with a warrant and with probable cause that illegal sex acts are taking place and happen to see in plain site evidence of illegal drugs, the brothel owner is now going to be charged with both crimes.

That’s entirely different.

 

[QuantumMechanic]

A sexual act taking place behind closed doors doesn't constitute solicitation of prostitution. Solicitation is the crime here. You don't need to video the sex act itself to charge someone or prove that someone solicited prostitution. Whether it occurs on the street or in a massage parlor, you have to prove that money was being offered in return for sexual services. Not that sex occurred. The crime is solicitation, not sodomy.

You don’t “need” it, but it makes it a lot easier to prove, especially if the worker is not willing to testify.

 

[SHOWTIME15]

I am thankful the Jupiter PD did not release details of this during super bowl week. They easily could have.

 

[patsfan13]

What about putting cameras in changing rooms to prevent retail theft. I think there definitely is an implied expectation of privacy when in a massage room. Some people are going there for an actual massage and have their junk on the Jupiter PD database. Too much freedom > too little... can't allow modern technology to trampede on basic rights

They presented their investigative facts to a JUDGE and got a warrant to place cameras there.

 

[XLIX]

A sexual act taking place behind closed doors doesn't constitute solicitation of prostitution. Solicitation is the crime here. You don't need to video the sex act itself to charge someone or prove that someone solicited prostitution. Whether it occurs on the street or in a massage parlor, you have to prove that money was being offered in return for sexual services. Not that sex occurred. The crime is solicitation, not sodomy.

I don't think you understand the circumstances here. So riddle me this: How exactly are you going to prove in a court of law that solicitation occurred when both the john and the masseuse claim nothing sexual happened, it was just a massage?

Paying for a massage is legal, so merely proving that money exchanged hands doesn't get you your conviction. If the act took place behind closed doors and only 2 people were in the room and both those people say nothing sexual took place, you have a very weak case.

 

[Soliel]

I don't think you understand the circumstances here. So riddle me this: How exactly are you going to prove in a court of law that solicitation occurred when both the john and the masseuse claim nothing sexual happened, it was just a massage?

Paying for a massage is legal, so merely proving that money exchanged hands doesn't get you your conviction. If the act took place behind closed doors and only 2 people were in the room and both those people say nothing sexual took place, you have a very weak case.

If This is how it all went down, the case should be thrown out.if it’s just a massage

 

[Tb12goesinya]

They presented their investigative facts to a JUDGE and got a warrant to place cameras there.

Oh a JUDGE approved, all must be on up and up and totally legal for sure

Judges in Portland and judges in Charleston are like apples and oranges. A lot of being a judge is interpretation. There are certainly bad judges.

The authorities had to mold the law in order to accomplish their goal. This may be violation of 'lewdness in a place of businness' like sex in the office. But according to the law this is not solicitation unless money was offered explicitly for sex or sex was offered for money. Think about how escort services can possibly be legal in this country, come on people. It was hard to catch Capone because law enforcement had to follow the LAW.

If you want to fix foreign sex trafficking then only citizens can work at massage parlors. But I think there would be some BS sjw stonewall to that logical conclusion.

 

[XLIX]

Oh a JUDGE approved, all must be on up and up and totally legal for sure

Well, that's the system within which we live.

Given the fact that this place had countless mentions on websites dedicated to rub-n-tug joints, it sure seems to me that establishing probable cause to justify a warrant for placing cameras in the building was pretty easy.

I am just not seeing any corruption on the part of the Criminal Justice system here.

 

[Nunchucks]

Oh a JUDGE approved, all must be on up and up and totally legal for sure

First, if a judge approves a warrant, then yes, it is on the up and up and totally legal. Second, judges take these things seriously and don't give out warrants without ample evidence that indicate a crime is being committed. A case can be thrown out if a warrant is not firmly grounded in reality. Nobody wants to waste their time.

 

[mosi]

I thought I heard that the police phoned in a bomb threat to force evacuation of the spa, so they could install the cameras. So, is it ok for law enforcement to commit a criminal/terrorist act as deception to facilitate the collection of evidence in another crime?

How is that different from a police state? Is this freedom?

Just think about how they would go about doing that legally. Just think about it.

 

[JJC]

Is this really necessary? Is there no right to privacy? Or denency? Play it for the jury if it goes that far. Public? What is wrong with us?

At that point, does it become pornography? Is it then protected as legal?

 

[Tb12goesinya]

Judges from Charleston are a different breed then judges from Portland, so lets get off high horse about all judges being irrefutable and always legit

 

[Ring 6]

Oh a JUDGE approved, all must be on up and up and totally legal for sure

Judges in Portland and judges in Charleston are like apples and oranges. A lot of being a judge is interpretation. There are certainly bad judges.

The authorities had to mold the law in order to accomplish their goal. This may be violation of 'lewdness in a place of businness' like sex in the office. But according to the law this is not solicitation unless money was offered explicitly for sex or sex was offered for money. Think about how escort services can possibly be legal in this country, come on people. It was hard to catch Capone because law enforcement had to follow the LAW.

If you want to fix foreign sex trafficking then only citizens can work at massage parlors. But I think there would be some BS sjw stonewall to that logical conclusion.

You are just wrong on this.
Escort services that include sex are NOT legal.

 

[Tb12goesinya]

I find hidden cameras in massage rooms to be a overreach by our law enforcement, I'm a libertarian in many ways and it scares me when organized government organizes like this against citizens for misdemenors.

 

[50-yard-line]

One thing to keep in mind is that Florida has very strong “sunshine” laws. So release of the video likely isn’t about the cops being vindictive as it is that Florida law makes it a public record that has to be released if someone asks for it to be released. This law is, in fact, one of the reasons for all the “Florida man...” memes — under FL law anyone can get lots of details about arrests that you often couldn’t have gotten in other states.

(And that’s what I’ve seen mentioned in several articles talking about the possible release of the video.)

Sadly true. If there's no public need to know, they shouldn't release the video.

He committed a crime, so punish the crime - there's no reason to compound it with what amounts to putting him in stocks in the public square for people to throw tomatoes at him.

 

[Sicilian]

At that point, does it become pornography? Is it then protected as legal?

This has always been an amusing thought experiment for me. Prostitution is illegal in this country... unless you film it so everyone can watch. I know it's more complicated than that, just interesting to me.

 

[bigballas]

I could very well be wrong but I thought that the first tape just showed him going into/out of the place. The 2nd video had him in the room. Am I wrong?

both.

https://htv-prod-media.s3.amazonaws.com/files/kraft-pc-affidavit-redacted-1551125662.pdf

read last page.

im still curious on what grounds the traffic stop was made and why RK had/decided to show licence. seems like that was what they used to id people?

 

[Tb12goesinya]

You are just wrong on this.
Escort services that include sex are NOT legal.

If an escort paid for her "time" and sex "just so happens to occur" with no particular acts negotiated for money, then it is LEGAL. It's semantics, and it is the law. That is why a not guilty plea is obvious, because he didn't solicite. Call it ******** or whatever. Just like a 17 and 364 day girls would be rape, but hours later no problemo. It's semantics and ******** some of the time but this is the social contract.

 

[Antdawg]

I don't think you understand the circumstances here. So riddle me this: How exactly are you going to prove in a court of law that solicitation occurred when both the john and the masseuse claim nothing sexual happened, it was just a massage?

Paying for a massage is legal, so merely proving that money exchanged hands doesn't get you your conviction. If the act took place behind closed doors and only 2 people were in the room and both those people say nothing sexual took place, you have a very weak case.

I'm not an expert on spa take downs. I'm certain this is not the first, but even video of sex occurring doesn't necessarily prove an agreement was requested or made to exchange money for sex. You need to prove there was an agreement made to exchange money for the "extras". There are plenty of ways to do this. It's done every day. The police could have easily bugged the joint to record conversations of agreements taking place. Nobody ever said the burden of proof has to be easy. It shouldn't be.

The police intimidate the johns into admitting culpability by the threat of releasing tapes, etc. It's clear that's what's going on here. Having video of BK getting a handy isn't proof of solicitation. They would have to be able to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that he indeed agreed to pay for illegal services before obtaining them. The video doesn't prove this, but it does give LE something to intimidate suspects with.

On edit: now if they have a video of BK requesting the "extras" and you can verbally hear him saying this, now that changes everything.

 

[Sicilian]

both.

https://htv-prod-media.s3.amazonaws.com/files/kraft-pc-affidavit-redacted-1551125662.pdf

read last page.

im still curious on what grounds the traffic stop was made and why RK had/decided to show licence. seems like that was what they used to id people?

I may be wrong, but technically speaking a cop can pull you over for going 36mph in a 35 zone. Just about everyone exceeds the speed limit, and you can't pull everyone over, but it does give you a built in excuse to pull over anyone you want, and technically they were "breaking the law".

No idea on the ID, but I wonder if the car was registered in his name? If so, does the owner of the car need to present the license? I'm unclear on that part as well.