Kraft Orchids Case - Prosecuters Want a Tug Rule?

betterthanthealternative said:

Perfect example of how news gets distorted. Your first post said the warrant was possibly obtained using a false bomb threat, which would have been lying to the judge involved. In reality, the police obtained the warrant with a legitimate rationale, then use a false bomb threat to get the cameras in place, which is also a legitimate tactic.

In this case, all of the evidence points to solid, by-the-book work by the police and legal authorities involved.

Click to expand...

Still a surveillance warrant was granted based on a health inspector's report and police observations of people going in/out the spa. Dunno...kinda surprised that state judges have that kind of authority to approve video surveillance for a private business.

I wonder how everyone else is pleading?

Tony2046 said:

How did those two guys not know it was illegal. That's common knowledge.

The way not to get stung in a sting operation is to keep your ass out of illegal brothels.

Whether Kraft is getting unfairly embarrassed or whatever he brought it on himself by going there in the first place.

Click to expand...

Just because something is commonly known does not mean it’s universally known. I was surprised these gentlemen didn’t know, but they didn’t. The seedier side of life is unknown to some as they don’t live in it nor consume a lot of entertainment where it is more than prominently displayed.

Don’t you wonder why Kraft went back on Sunday after his interaction with the police the day before? Of course, arrogance is one possibility but so is innocence of the situation as strange as it is for many to believe.

Joey007 said:

Click to expand...

Good for Kraft! F*ck the overreach by the SA and the cops.

Let's see how the A team does against the FL team. My money is on Kraft's team beating this.

Ras-IR Dowling said:

Guy charged with misdemeanor is punished worse than the guy with multiple felony charges. Makes sense

Click to expand...

That's the NFL for you.

PatsWSB47 said:

I wonder how everyone else is pleading?

Click to expand...

The other billionaire and millionaire are probably fighting it. Once word is out, others may jump on the bandwagon. I suspect the entire operation will come under attack.

By the way, just because some may plead guilty doesn't mean they are all guilty.

PatsFanSince74 said:

“'Second, the video was probably not legally obtained, the police seemed to ignore the necessity requirement for such an intrusive measure like planting a camera in the premises.” [The law stipulates police should only seek warrants for surveillance cameras if no other evidence is available to support their case, so Kraft’s lawyers could argue the video footage is not legal and an invasion of privacy]

Click to expand...

This line of reasoning is hilarious. Essentially he is arguing:

1) "In order to justify having a camera, you need to prove you need it. If there is other evidence of the crime, you don't need the camera, therefore the video footage should be inadmissible!"

Then if you get the video ruled inadmissible, you transition to...

2) "Hey there's no video of the crime here! Without video, you have no evidence anything illicit took place!"

I think Kraft's biggest problem is that he isn't going to be able to out-lawyer the prosecution in front of 12 easily-confused jurors. The judge is going to know the score here.

Oh god. Of course he pleads not guilty. He should have plead guilty and taken the minor punishment. This is gonna be a bad look.

“'There’s also no proof in the affidavit that he solicited anything from the women. It is possible that this could have been a legal and consensual act between adults and there does not seem to be evidence to prove otherwise. So the facts supporting a misdemeanor charge of solicitation really don’t jump out at you.

Click to expand...

Forking over extra money right after she cleans up everything seems to make the quid pro quo pretty darn obvious to any judge or jury.

“'Second, the video was probably not legally obtained, the police seemed to ignore the necessity requirement for such an intrusive measure like planting a camera in the premises.” The law stipulates police should only seek warrants for surveillance cameras if no other evidence is available to support their case, so Kraft’s lawyers could argue the video footage is not legal and an invasion of privacy.

Click to expand...

A judge signed off on the plan to do the video surveillance, and it seems highly doubtful that another judge is going to go after the previous judge for poor decision-making.

“'And third, I doubt the traffic stop was legal either. So the evidence will likely be suppressed [by Kraft’s legal team] if there is ever a trial.”

"Kraft left the spa in a white Bentley, owned by a friend who had driven him there and had waited outside. A Jupiter police officer then pulled the Bentley over on a traffic stop and asked Kraft — the front seat passenger — for identification.

The billionaire handed over his Massachusetts drivers license. Legal experts suggest this traffic stop could be illegal because it appears to have been done on the pretext of a traffic violation, but — as the affidavit states — was in fact carried out to identify Kraft, who wasn’t driving the car.

Click to expand...

Sure, there has to be a pretense to stop the car, but something as simple as rolling a stop sign is adequate. Then the cops can ask for lots of things and it is up to you to say no. Kraft could have refused to show his own ID, since he wasn't driving. If he doesn't assert his rights, that really on him. Like when they want to search your car without a warrant. If they ask, you can say no. But if you say yes, then whatever happens is on you.

There are legal loopholes and his lawyers will work them, but I still don't think it looks good for RK to get out of this except for working a plea to a lesser offense, like 2nd degree misdemeanor with no jail time.

venecol said:

Good for Kraft! F*ck the overreach by the SA and the cops.

Click to expand...

What overreach?

Kraft's own maneuverings prove why law enforcement has to be so thorough when conducting such investigations.

PatsWSB47 said:

I wonder how everyone else is pleading?

Click to expand...

Pleading to not have their junk shown to the public.

And RKK's not guilty plead is barely news. Witten coming back, combine going on, Marty B saying he's also coming back (hope that one is true)...the Kraft story is already past most people.

I hope he beats it (snicker), and I hope people keep bringing up something he was found not guilty of as fact for the next 20 years.

Palm Beach Pats Fan said:

Forking over extra money right after she cleans up everything seems to make the quid pro quo pretty darn obvious to any judge or jury.



A judge signed off on the plan to do the video surveillance, and it seems highly doubtful that another judge is going to go after the previous judge for poor decision-making.



Sure, there has to be a pretense to stop the car, but something as simple as rolling a stop sign is adequate. Then the cops can ask for lots of things and it is up to you to say no. Kraft could have refused to show his own ID, since he wasn't driving. If he doesn't assert his rights, that really on him. Like when they want to search your car without a warrant. If they ask, you can say no. But if you say yes, then whatever happens is on you.

There are legal loopholes and his lawyers will work them, but I still don't think it looks good for RK to get out of this except for working a plea to a lesser offense, like 2nd degree misdemeanor with no jail time.

Click to expand...

There isn't going to be a jury trial. The defense will make a motion to throw out tapes and id by cop and if the judge rules in their favor there is no case. This will all be done through motions and at some point a deal may be cut.

By the way, it's not ok for cops to make **** up to stop people so they can illegally ID them.

It's truly pathetic how since the Patriot Act Americans have willingly given up their privacy rights under the nonsense of "I've got nothing to be afraid of because I'm not a terrorist," forgetting that every time this happens in history there is ultimately abuse of these powers.

venecol said:

There isn't going to be a jury trial. The defense will make a motion to throw out tapes and id by cop and if the judge rules in their favor there is no case. This will all be done through motions and at some point a deal may be cut.

Click to expand...

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand on what grounds would the video evidence be ruled inadmissible?

so krafty bob got crafty with a chinese whore, got caught on video doing it, and is now going to try to get off on a technicality? that's why we call him krafty bob! For the Good of the 32!

cmasspatsfan said:

He is, pleaded not guilty

Click to expand...

Good for him. The more I read about this, I'm convinced charges will be dropped.

venecol said:

By the way, it's not ok for cops to make **** up to stop people so they can illegally ID them.

Click to expand...

All of the time cops follow cars that they are suspicious about, looking for a rolled stop sign, an improper lane change, going 5 mph over the limit, etc.

If the driver doesn't screw up, then he won't be stopped. If he does screw up, then the door is open for the cops to ask what they want to ask, including asking for IDs of non-drivers.

It is up to the citizens to know that they can refuse. The cop can demand to see license and registration of the driver. The cop can inquire about sobriety. If the cop asks for anything more, then the citizen needs to ask to see their warrant.

FCB02062 said:

so krafty bob got crafty with a chinese whore, got caught on video doing it, and is now going to try to get off on a technicality? that's why we call him krafty bob! For the Good of the 32!

Click to expand...

The irony here is that LE, by botching this thing so badly in the name of embarrassing a guy like Bob Kraft, are going to end up teaching the public how to get away with this sort of thing and embolden future johns to test the waters even further.