venecol
PatsFans.com Supporter
PatsFans.com Supporter
2021 Weekly Picks Winner
2022 Weekly Picks Winner
2023 Weekly Picks Winner
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2015
- Messages
- 22,701
- Reaction score
- 28,230
Not sure why anyone questions the rarity of the videos when the Sheriff himself is saying that everybody is asking him how he got away with placing videos in the parlors. Defense attorneys interviewed claim this is extraordinarily rare in prostitution cases. There are other investigative ways to show human trafficking is occurring. I mean this is sex trafficking but what if it were labor trafficking, would they need a video?The basic gist is this...
a judge may grant a wiretap but stipulate that the police can only listen if there’s relevant evidence within a minute of the call, otherwise they need to turn off the tapmsince they are then just eavesdropping.
There’s always a balance between personal privacy and investigations.
I’ve made no claim that I know this is he case here. I’ve claimed that I heavily speculate something is amiss. This is a five month investigation...it seems unnecessary to prove prostitution is happening 25 times when the point of the surveillance is for a different crime, human trafficking.
If you don’t think that’s what Krafts attorneys are honing in on, I’m surprised.
I don’t like Kraft or any owner. I’d just assume he gets nailed for this. I just think this investigation and surveillance seems very odd.
The #1 venue for sex trafficking is escorts. So I guess cops will be allowed to install cameras in client's homes to capture sex by escorts if human trafficking is suspected? Truly amazing how people are actually cheering the absolute demolishing of the Bill of Rights by LE. Next stop police state.