Kraft Orchids Case - Prosecuters Want a Tug Rule?

[Ring 6]

Honest question, is there anyone that believes the prosecutors appeal of the suppression ruling is anything other than a way to put the case on a back burner burner to minimize the impact of the blowback when they eventually drop the charges? In the real world I just don't find the idea the pursuit of these misdemeanor charges is a hill the SA or LEOs would choose to die on as credible. It is however very believable as a damage control device.

The other consideration could be the precedent the ruling sets. Theoretically the ruling can be more important than a misdemeanor charge because it sets a precedent for future cases.

 

[Ring 6]

The police would have no right to pull someone over just because they visited that spa. That is not probable cause for anything

As we know, some went to the spa for legit massages...both men and women. Police can’t pull over anyone and everyone just because they visited a spa suspected of providing sex for money

This article sums up why the traffic stops were illegal and why pretty much everything about this case was illegal as well as improper police protocol. These are facts that can’t be debated

‘Bungled from the beginning’: How Robert Kraft sex sting was marred by cops’ missteps – Boston Herald

The legality of the stops was the probable cause created by the crime witnessed during the surveillance. The stop wasn’t illegal, The ID was thrown out because the probable cause it relied upon was solely the surveillance which was excluded. Fruit of the poisoned tree as the TV lawyers love to say.

 

[maust]

The other consideration could be the precedent the ruling sets. Theoretically the ruling can be more important than a misdemeanor charge because it sets a precedent for future cases.

The operative word being theoretically, the setting of a precedent is no doubt often the reason a case is pursued beyond what one might otherwise feel is reasonable considering the crime involved but it's hard to see that as being the case in this instance. Essentially the judges ruling was the evidence was inadmissible because the police lacked proper instruction and/or oversight to ensure they adhered to what the courts would consider to be understood as reasonable and customary privacy standards. There's nothing precedent setting or Earth shattering there, just bad work/poor judgement on the part of the senior LEO's and SA's overseeing the investigations. TBH I can't help but think the judge went for both the lowest hanging fruit and minimal boat rocking with the ruling. There's ample indication that the facts were egregiously misrepresented in the warrant request but if you're a judge or attorney why walk into that minefield when there's a clear path around it?

 

[Ring 6]

The operative word being theoretically, the setting of a precedent is no doubt often the reason a case is pursued beyond what one might otherwise feel is reasonable considering the crime involved but it's hard to see that as being the case in this instance. Essentially the judges ruling was the evidence was inadmissible because the police lacked proper instruction and/or oversight to ensure they adhered to what the courts would consider to be understood as reasonable and customary privacy standards. There's nothing precedent setting or Earth shattering there, just bad work/poor judgement on the part of the senior LEO's and SA's overseeing the investigations. TBH I can't help but think the judge went for both the lowest hanging fruit and minimal boat rocking with the ruling. There's ample indication that the facts were egregiously misrepresented in the warrant request but if you're a judge or attorney why walk into that minefield when there's a clear path around it?

What the judge actually did was state that Florida or SCOTUS precedent are what he is supposed to follow but because of a lack of cases and similarity he used a federal court case.
That alone is appeal worthy.
Regardless of your feelings on the strength or weakness of the case it’s a real thing that the state would have an interest in appealing a decision that limits their ability to enforce the law.

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

I can't help but think the judge went for both the lowest hanging fruit and minimal boat rocking with the ruling. There's ample indication that the facts were egregiously misrepresented in the warrant request but if you're a judge or attorney why walk into that minefield when there's a clear path around it?

1000% agree and really hope the judge did not actually rule that this would have been fine if there were better surveillance review procedures followed. I took it as the judge not wanting to pour gasoline on the warrant granting judge. But I wished he had sacked up and called out the extremely obvious probable cause sham along with the video review process. I felt this was a weak ruling and didn’t slam the door hard enough on these tactics.

But typically the appeals court, and/or SCOF or SCOTUS will have final say anyway. And even though the prosecution is appealing, I believe the defense may ask the appellate court to reconsider the warrant ruling to hedge their bets in case the appeals court disagreed about the surveillance review.

 

[venecol]

What the judge actually did was state that Florida or SCOTUS precedent are what he is supposed to follow but because of a lack of cases and similarity he used a federal court case.
That alone is appeal worthy.
Regardless of your feelings on the strength or weakness of the case it’s a real thing that the state would have an interest in appealing a decision that limits their ability to enforce the law.

You obviously don't realize that there are now 5 judges from different venues that ALL ruled the same. Your pro law enforcement rant continues even despite statements from SA admitting they did it wrong.

This ruling doesn't limit their ability to enforce prostitution at all. There are other ways to enforce prostitution without trampling on the Constitution but it seems that you are perfectly fine with the government snooping on its citizens.

Your position in this entire thread has been truly un-American and pathetic. You somehow believe that by supporting law enforcement you are a good patriot when in reality you are supporting Stasi style methods of government intrusion.

 

[Ring 6]

You obviously don't realize that there are now 5 judges from different venues that ALL ruled the same. Your pro law enforcement rant continues even despite statements from SA admitting they did it wrong.

I am stating what the judge ruled, directly from his ruling. It’s not pro or anti anything it’s fact.

This ruling doesn't limit their ability to enforce prostitution at all. There are other ways to enforce prostitution without trampling on the Constitution but it seems that you are perfectly fine with the government snooping on its citizens.

So I guess you don’t understand what precedent means.
My point has nothing to do with prostitution. My point is that a reason to challenge this ruling could be to challenge the use of a federal case as precedent. It could be to challenge the limitation of video surveillance set as precedent in this case as it applies to other video surveillance cases.

Your position in this entire thread has been truly un-American and pathetic. You somehow believe that by supporting law enforcement you are a good patriot when in reality you are supporting Stasi style methods of government intrusion.

That is not even close to my position in this thread. You need to learn to stop being threatened by someone who pursues a counter argument to your overreaching myopic views.
Please, kindly show me MY WORDS in this thread, anywhere, that are unpatriotic.
Of course I support law enforcement because law enforcement is a necessary part of any civilized society. Your creation of the misrepresentations of my viewpoint are all totally wrong. I’m sorry that you can’t understand the law, but you not liking laws does not make me wrong when I state what they are.
You seem to not want to respond to my question about how your interpretation would mean a police officer witnessing a rape or murder being committed then the perp jumps in a car means he can’t be pulled over until he commits a traffic violation. I wonder why.

How about going forward you refrain from making up positions that you want to argue about and attributing them to me when they aren’t my position? That might be a good start toward you learning some things.

 

[PatriotsReign]

You obviously don't realize that there are now 5 judges from different venues that ALL ruled the same. Your pro law enforcement rant continues even despite statements from SA admitting they did it wrong.

This ruling doesn't limit their ability to enforce prostitution at all. There are other ways to enforce prostitution without trampling on the Constitution but it seems that you are perfectly fine with the government snooping on its citizens.

Your position in this entire thread has been truly un-American and pathetic. You somehow believe that by supporting law enforcement you are a good patriot when in reality you are supporting Stasi style methods of government intrusion.

So far, everything Kraft’s lawyers have done is good for all citizens and the nation as a whole

No one wants our police to have the ability to bend or break laws to accomplish their goal. Maybe one exception would be for investigations of terrorism

 

[Kontradiction]

So far, everything Kraft’s lawyers have done is good for all citizens and the nation as a whole

No one wants our police to have the ability to bend or break laws to accomplish their goal. Maybe one exception would be for investigations of terrorism

They’ve hammered the state. Now that the video is sealed, the case is effectively over. Everything the state is doing from here is merely posturing.

 

[PatriotsReign]

They’ve hammered the state. Now that the video is sealed, the case is effectively over. Everything the state is doing from here is merely posturing.

They’re going to give it time so people will forget. Then a year from now they’ll be a small article saying prosecutors have dropped the case

It’s sad it got this much publicity and over 500 posts in this thread. In reality, it was barely newsworthy

 

[Ring 6]

They’re going to give it time so people will forget. Then a year from now they’ll be a small article saying prosecutors have dropped the case

It’s sad it got this much publicity and over 500 posts in this thread. In reality, it was barely newsworthy

It was mews solely because it was Kraft.
If he had flown out to the AFCCG earlier this would have not been news.

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

And here it is. It’s now played out exactly as we suspected/hoped it would.

“Sneak and peek” video surveillance in Robert Kraft’s case generates a class action

Robert Kraft case exposes “serious violations of the law by law enforcement”

 

[venecol]

And here it is. It’s now played out exactly as we suspected/hoped it would.

“Sneak and peek” video surveillance in Robert Kraft’s case generates a class action

Robert Kraft case exposes “serious violations of the law by law enforcement”

The only thing I disagree with in the 2nd article is that because of Kraft things turned out the way they did. There is no doubt he brought a lot of attention to this but it was a judge from Martin County that first threw out the videos and the attorney in that case was the first one to file motions to suppress. Eventually all defense attorneys began cooperating.

 

[PatriotsReign]

I get a kick out of reading Twitter comment regarding this case.

It’s absolutely amazing how many stupid people make comments about “The wealthy”, “white privilege” or both combined.

Those comments have exactly nothing to do with this case at all. I guess people think prejudiced comments are ok if it’s about wealthy or Caucasian people. But prejudice is prejudice and it’s never ok

 

[PatsDeb]

The state should just give up the appeal, because the cops messed things up so badly in this particular case. I don't think the case sets a bad precedent for them at all (which is a little disquieting - I don't think sneak and peak warrants should be used for anything other than actual terrorism - they are just too invasive - but that is not what the judge ruled) - they just have to monitor their police force next time. The judge's ruling was that if they executed the warrant correctly, they wouldn't have lost their video evidence. All they had to do was: not watch or film any women customers under any circumstances as there was never any evidence (and the warrant was not granted on this basis) that women customers were engaging in prostitution; as soon as it was clear that a male customer was getting legal services at a spa, stop watching, either never turn on, or turn off the video and delete immediately any videos of that customer; perhaps figure out a way to identify johns (such as getting photos of their license plates) other than made-up-reasons traffic stops (although if the videos of the johns were into evidence, theoretically the traffic stops of them would be too).

Instead the cops: acted like peeping toms and watched and filmed women undressing and getting massages even though the warrant did not extend to women; watched and filmed men not engaging in criminal activity undressing and getting massages even though at some point they could see there was no need to do so; most incredibly, stupidly and unbelievably KEPT the videos of men and women who did not engage in illegal activity, and THEN were all set to release those videos to the public when media vultures demanded they do so. Seriously, what a bunch of MAROONS. Every citizen of America should be glad that the 4th Amendment worked in this case, and that white-privileged Bob Kraft had the funds to make it happen.

 

[venecol]

The state should just give up the appeal, because the cops messed things up so badly in this particular case. I don't think the case sets a bad precedent for them at all (which is a little disquieting - I don't think sneak and peak warrants should be used for anything other than actual terrorism - they are just too invasive - but that is not what the judge ruled) - they just have to monitor their police force next time. The judge's ruling was that if they executed the warrant correctly, they wouldn't have lost their video evidence. All they had to do was: not watch or film any women customers under any circumstances as there was never any evidence (and the warrant was not granted on this basis) that women customers were engaging in prostitution; as soon as it was clear that a male customer was getting legal services at a spa, stop watching, either never turn on, or turn off the video and delete immediately any videos of that customer; perhaps figure out a way to identify johns (such as getting photos of their license plates) other than made-up-reasons traffic stops (although if the videos of the johns were into evidence, theoretically the traffic stops of them would be too).

Instead the cops: acted like peeping toms and watched and filmed women undressing and getting massages even though the warrant did not extend to women; watched and filmed men not engaging in criminal activity undressing and getting massages even though at some point they could see there was no need to do so; most incredibly, stupidly and unbelievably KEPT the videos of men and women who did not engage in illegal activity, and THEN were all set to release those videos to the public when media vultures demanded they do so. Seriously, what a bunch of MAROONS. Every citizen of America should be glad that the 4th Amendment worked in this case, and that white-privileged Bob Kraft had the funds to make it happen.

I believe that several of the judges (5 judges ruled the same: lack of minimization) indicated that the warrants lacked instructions for minimization thus calling into question the actual warrants.

 

[catent]

I get a kick out of reading Twitter comment regarding this case.

It’s absolutely amazing how many stupid people make comments about “The wealthy”, “white privilege” or both combined.

Those comments have exactly nothing to do with this case at all. I guess people think prejudiced comments are ok if it’s about wealthy or Caucasian people. But prejudice is prejudice and it’s never ok

It's not prejudiced to acknowledge that Kraft had an inherent advantage in his legal battle due to the fact that he's extremely wealthy and could therefore hire a robust legal team. It's perfectly possible that someone who didn't have the funds to hire a strong legal team may not have achieved the same outcome.

That inherent advantage doesn't make Kraft a bad person, though. Those two concepts (Kraft having wealth/an inherent societal advantage AND still being a good person) are not mutually exclusive. Moreover, Kraft's inherent financial advantage doesn't nullify the clear legal basis for his victory, either.

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

It's not prejudiced to acknowledge that Kraft had an inherent advantage in his legal battle due to the fact that he's extremely wealthy and could therefore hire a robust legal team. It's perfectly possible that someone who didn't have the funds to hire a strong legal team may not have achieved the same outcome.

That inherent advantage doesn't make Kraft a bad person, though. Those two concepts (Kraft having wealth/an inherent societal advantage AND still being a good person) are not mutually exclusive. Moreover, Kraft's inherent financial advantage doesn't nullify the clear legal basis for his victory, either.

It seems to me that he had the ammunition for what you’re talking about, but it only took a single bullet.

Kraft’s legal team wasn’t pulling any punches with their legal communications asking for favorable discovery evidence (including any prior misconduct by virtually everyone on the force). They were clearly ready to burn the officers to the ground and go all-in, appeal, delay with paperwork, stall, ask for
motions to dismiss, cite more technicalities and case precedents, and overwhelm the prosecutors office.

But essentially all five county judges didn’t need that level of legal muscling to make a decision.

 

[Patsfanin Philly]

So far, everything Kraft’s lawyers have done is good for all citizens and the nation as a whole

No one wants our police to have the ability to bend or break laws to accomplish their goal. Maybe one exception would be for investigations of terrorism

These Keystone cops arrested the wrong guy because his name was Patel..... seriously they are looking at a lawsuit based on negligence....
https://nypost.com/2019/03/06/man-s...n-prostitution-ring-that-netted-robert-kraft/

 

[venecol]

These Keystone cops arrested the wrong guy because his name was Patel..... seriously they are looking at a lawsuit based on negligence....
https://nypost.com/2019/03/06/man-s...n-prostitution-ring-that-netted-robert-kraft/

He is suing along with the innocent clients in Jupiter. I suspect clients of the other venues in Indian River and Martin counties will also sue.

This is such a cluster for law enforcement, serves them right for abusing the use of these sneak n peak warrants. I hope Florida outlaws these for these misdemeanor offenses but not holding my breath.