Kraft Orchids Case - Prosecuters Want a Tug Rule?

[venecol]

This is going to be on idle until September which means Krafty can attend the raising of the banner. Unless Goodell goes back on waiting until final outcome of the case spiel.

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

Apparently the cops thought they were recording home movies.

View attachment 23370
View attachment 23371
View attachment 23372
View attachment 23373
View attachment 23375

Indian River County judges rule video evidence cannot be used in sex spa cases

State prosecutors need to stfu at this point. Clearly the citizens and courts are against it. Rather than reforming and investigating these massive missteps, they are going to keep appealing? Flaming douches.

Should be more lawsuits coming from this one. Can’t wait.

 

[borg]

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

Also mentioned: several infringed targets have filed suit against Jupiter PD. No mention if Kraft included

 

[venecol]

'They waived the white flag': Robert Kraft's lawyer declares victory in sex spa case | Daily Mail Online

 

[venecol]

“Traffic stop” is just a term being used and the fact that someone used that term does not mean the carvwas stopped for a traffic infraction. It may well have been stopped exactly for the purpose of identifying a suspect.
I’m not aware of any law that says if a police officer has reasonable cause to stop you, such as identifying a suspect, that he is required to explain the reason he stopped you. He simply needs to have one.
As always conclusion jumping is running rampant.

Well considering the judge tossed out the traffic stop as a fruit of the illegal videos your take is wrong. In addition, during questioning of the officer, the judge stated he was interested in the officers motivation to stop the vehicle, when he overruled an objection from the prosecutors. The cops just made stuff up to stop the vehicles, which was not legal.

 

[venecol]

Why would he have to make up a reason when he had a warrant to stake out a prostitution house and saw kraft leave it?
That is probable cause. I’m not sure why people think stopping a vehicle requires a traffic violation.
If a wanted criminal pulls up next to a cop
at a stop light and he IDs him I’m pretty sure he doesn’t have to wait until he breaks a traffic law to pull him over.

Again, your take is wrong here. The cop needs a reason to stop the vehicle. The stop was thrown out.

 

[venecol]

Squirm your way out all you wish.

There is video evidence. Case closed and Kraft wont to trial because he will settle.

"Prosecutors in the Kraft case also filed a Motion for Stay and Extension of Speedy Trial in court on Monday in a move that all but cemented the fact that Kraft would walk free according to his lawyer."

'They lost every motion and all of their evidence. They conceded they cannot move forward,' Alex Spiro told DailyMail.com.

"Also on Monday, prosecutors admitted that police did in fact break federal law when they filmed individuals at Orchids of Asia who were not the recipients of any sex acts and instead just at the location to get a massage."

'They waived the white flag': Robert Kraft's lawyer declares victory in sex spa case | Daily Mail Online

 

[Ring 6]

Well considering the judge tossed out the traffic stop as a fruit of the illegal videos your take is wrong. In addition, during questioning of the officer, the judge stated he was interested in the officers motivation to stop the vehicle, when he overruled an objection from the prosecutors. The cops just made stuff up to stop the vehicles, which was not legal.

Where does that say that if there is reasonable cause you have to explain what that reasonable cause was?

 

[venecol]

Florida judge blocks Robert Kraft-related spa surveillance video from trial - CNN

Now all videos are thrown out not just Kraft's video. Case closed:

During the hearing in Palm Beach County, Circuit Judge Joseph Marx said Jupiter police did not do enough to avoid violating the Fourth Amendment rights of the patrons who were not committing a crime at the Orchids of Asia.

The spa's owner, Hua Zhang, and manager Lei Wang have each been charged with 29 counts related to prostitution. Both have pleaded not guilty.

The suppression ruling covers all five days of the prostitution sting video, which allegedly includes the footage of the New England Patriots owner. Kraft, 77, and several defendants have pleaded not guilty to misdemeanor charges stemming from the footage and other surveillance methods.

 

[Ring 6]

Again, your take is wrong here. The cop needs a reason to stop the vehicle. The stop was thrown out.

The cop had a reason. The crime that was observed.
The ID was thrown out because the reason was vacant if the surveillance was disallowed.

Your argument says that if you see a bank robber jump in a car you have to wait until he commits a traffic violation to pull him over. That’s clearly wrong.

 

[venecol]

The cop had a reason. The crime that was observed.
The ID was thrown out because the reason was vacant if the surveillance was disallowed.

Your argument says that if you see a bank robber jump in a car you have to wait until he commits a traffic violation to pull him over. That’s clearly wrong.

If the cop had a reason to stop him related to the crime that was observed why didn't he arrest him? If your take is correct (it's not) then how do you explain the below exchange? Why didn't the cop just say: "I didn't need a reason to stop him because we had just witnessed him committing a crime."

It was another stop on the same day that Kraft attorney Alex Spiro zeroed in on on Kimbark's second stint on the witness stand: whether Jupiter police sought probable cause outside what occurred in the spa to stop the men charged in the case. Kimbark testified that he looked for traffic violations and — in Kraft's case — the driver of the white Bentley allegedly swerved before the traffic stop was initiated.

"Did you say, jokingly or not, that you would, 'make some (expletive) up?'" Spiro asked Kimbark about a stop on Jan. 19.

Kimbark: "I'm sure I say a lot of things that are captured on body-worn camera, however, I do not remember specifically saying that. As it seems like it's a home run on your side, I would (not) have (brought) that profane word up."

Spiro asked whether it was "possible" he made such a statement, even in jest.

"Is it possible? Sitting inside my car, I could have said a thousand different things, and if I walk around with you all day with a recorder ..." Kimbark responded before he was interrupted by an objection by prosecutors.

Hanser overruled the objection.

"I find it relevant to an officer's intent to the determination of probable cause," Hanser said.

It is abundantly clear from what actually happened in the courtroom (not from any stories or rumors) that the Defense gave them the chance to say they were stopped because of probable cause for what occurred in the spa (your take) but the cop chose to say he looked for a traffic violation for stopping them. Why do you think that is? Why do you think the judge wanted to know the officer's "intent" to the determination of probable cause. I get that your not a lawyer (neither am I) but your insistence that you were not wrong in your take just makes you look foolish.

 

[Ring 6]

If the cop had a reason to stop him related to the crime that was observed why didn't he arrest him?

Who knows. It’s not a requirement of having a reason to arrest him.

If your take is correct (it's not) then how do you explain the below exchange? Why didn't the cop just say: "I didn't need a reason to stop him because we had just witnessed him committing a crime."

It was another stop on the same day that Kraft attorney Alex Spiro zeroed in on on Kimbark's second stint on the witness stand: whether Jupiter police sought probable cause outside what occurred in the spa to stop the men charged in the case. Kimbark testified that he looked for traffic violations and — in Kraft's case — the driver of the white Bentley allegedly swerved before the traffic stop was initiated.

"Did you say, jokingly or not, that you would, 'make some (expletive) up?'" Spiro asked Kimbark about a stop on Jan. 19.

Kimbark: "I'm sure I say a lot of things that are captured on body-worn camera, however, I do not remember specifically saying that. As it seems like it's a home run on your side, I would (not) have (brought) that profane word up."

Spiro asked whether it was "possible" he made such a statement, even in jest.

"Is it possible? Sitting inside my car, I could have said a thousand different things, and if I walk around with you all day with a recorder ..." Kimbark responded before he was interrupted by an objection by prosecutors.

Hanser overruled the objection.

"I find it relevant to an officer's intent to the determination of probable cause," Hanser said.

Well that’s exactly the point of the 2 things you misunderstand.
He has a reason because a crime was witnessed. Clearly he doesn’t want to arrest him, so he makes up a reason.
The reason krafts lawyer cares about that was if the tale is thrown out then the reason for the ID goes with it.

It is abundantly clear from what actually happened in the courtroom (not from any stories or rumors) that the Defense gave them the chance to say they were stopped because of probable cause for what occurred in the spa (your take)

They exactly said that was why they were stopped.

but the cop chose to say he looked for a traffic violation for stopping them. Why do you think that is? Why do you think the judge wanted to know the officer's "intent" to the determination of probable cause. I get that your not a lawyer (neither am I) but your insistence that you were not wrong in your take just makes you look foolish.

Clearly because he wasn’t arresting him that day. Making up an excuse to not rip off the criminal does not mean making up a reason to make the stop legal.

Again, talk about foolish, your belief amounts to the equivalence that if a police officer witnesses a murder and the suspect drives away he can’t lull him over unless he commits a traffic violation. That’s insanely wrong.

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

Florida judge blocks Robert Kraft-related spa surveillance video from trial - CNN

Now all videos are thrown out not just Kraft's video. Case closed:

During the hearing in Palm Beach County, Circuit Judge Joseph Marx said Jupiter police did not do enough to avoid violating the Fourth Amendment rights of the patrons who were not committing a crime at the Orchids of Asia.

The spa's owner, Hua Zhang, and manager Lei Wang have each been charged with 29 counts related to prostitution. Both have pleaded not guilty.

The suppression ruling covers all five days of the prostitution sting video, which allegedly includes the footage of the New England Patriots owner. Kraft, 77, and several defendants have pleaded not guilty to misdemeanor charges stemming from the footage and other surveillance methods.

What kind of backlash do you expect the JPD to get here? Illegally filming people naked in a place where expectation of privacy is at its highest. I assume heads will roll and they’ll rue the day they stood up for their 15 minutes of fame?

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

Who knows. It’s not a requirement of having a reason to arrest him.



Well that’s exactly the point of the 2 things you misunderstand.
He has a reason because a crime was witnessed. Clearly he doesn’t want to arrest him, so he makes up a reason.
The reason krafts lawyer cares about that was if the tale is thrown out then the reason for the ID goes with it.




They exactly said that was why they were stopped.



Clearly because he wasn’t arresting him that day. Making up an excuse to not rip off the criminal does not mean making up a reason to make the stop legal.

Again, talk about foolish, your belief amounts to the equivalence that if a police officer witnesses a murder and the suspect drives away he can’t lull him over unless he commits a traffic violation. That’s insanely wrong.

Sure sounds like a conspiracy. Two judges (from different counties), the prosecutor himself, and the arresting officer have acknowledged their own dishonesty, illegal operations and unlawful overreach.

Glad there’s one person in the world who knows the real truth.

 

[Ring 6]

Sure sounds like a conspiracy. Two judges (from different counties), the prosecutor himself, and the arresting officer have acknowledged their own dishonesty, illegal operations and unlawful overreach.

Glad there’s one person in the world who knows the real truth.

See this is why these threads turn into what they do.

The discussion is regarding my comment that a traffic violation is not necessary to legally pull over a vehicle if you have independent probable cause that a crime was committed.

You post a myopic arrogant comment that errors were made in the case, and since you were anti-prosecution that means anything you believe must be true.


Here is the only backup my argument needs. If a police officer was getting a massage as well and witnessed Kraft walk in and murder the owner, your argument states that he must wait for him to commit a traffic violation once he gets in a car before he can pull him over. Please respond to that rather than arguing that you thought he would go free do everything you believe about the law, however unrelated to the judges decision therefore must be true.
Read the decision, nowhere does it say there was no probable or cause to pull over the vehicle. In fact it explicitly says the probably cause was removed (therefore it must have existed) when the take was ruled inadmissable. It literally says that without the tape he wouldn’t have had the probable cause that he did.

 

[venecol]

What kind of backlash do you expect the JPD to get here? Illegally filming people naked in a place where expectation of privacy is at its highest. I assume heads will roll and they’ll rue the day they stood up for their 15 minutes of fame?

I think the lawsuit brought against the City will be enough punishment. I believe the plaintiffs will win given that the SA has already admitted they violated their rights to privacy.

The real azzh$%le in this story is that Martin County Sheriff who started this whole illegal mess. I wish his head would roll (lose reelection).

 

[PatriotsReign]

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

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

Why Robert Kraft will likely avoid NFL suspension

Breer reports the general feeling at the owners meeting is that Kraft will not likely face any discipline. If the video is leaked or released, I’m guessing that could change things, since everything is based on public opinion/profit.

But absent an actual video, what evidence is there to even investigate? Do you ask the police what they saw on video that had now been ruled unlawful? This is a victimless crime, so it’s not like you have someone whose testimony is problematic.

 

[maust]

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.

 

[PatriotsReign]

Why Robert Kraft will likely avoid NFL suspension

Breer reports the general feeling at the owners meeting is that Kraft will not likely face any discipline. If the video is leaked or released, I’m guessing that could change things, since everything is based on public opinion/profit.

But absent an actual video, what evidence is there to even investigate? Do you ask the police what they saw on video that had now been ruled unlawful? This is a victimless crime, so it’s not like you have someone whose testimony is problematic.

“Victimless”? OMG! I’m appalled at your lack of sensitivity to social issues and the infamous yet elusive, “oppressed” people