Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

left-of-center2012

(34,195 posts)
Sat Jan 4, 2020, 12:54 PM Jan 2020

Prosecutors back off felony claim against Patriots owner Robert Kraft

Lawyers for the state of Florida have backed down from a recent claim that New England Patriots football team owner Robert Kraft committed a felony prostitution offense a year ago. In a court filing Thursday night, Florida prosecutors revised their position in an appeal concerning video evidence in the high-profile case arising from a massage parlor sex sting.

Kraft, 78, remains charged with two misdemeanor counts of soliciting prostitution. Police said the part-time Palm Beach resident was caught on a secret camera paying for sex acts on separate days.

A county judge has ruled prosecutors can’t use the videos because Jupiter police used an unlawful warrant when they recorded Kraft and other people at the Orchids of Asia Day Spa.

In a pleading Dec. 23, Kraft’s attorneys cited two older federal court cases to make the point that “hidden video surveillance” by law enforcement “raises the spectre of the Orwellian state.”

https://triblive.com/sports/prosecutors-back-off-felony-claim-against-patriots-owner-robert-kraft/

4 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Prosecutors back off felony claim against Patriots owner Robert Kraft (Original Post) left-of-center2012 Jan 2020 OP
In this case, the judge was right to throw out the video evidence...... getagrip_already Jan 2020 #1
Interesting take. Firestorm49 Jan 2020 #3
This message was self-deleted by its author Firestorm49 Jan 2020 #2
I wish Nancy, Schiff, Nadler etc,.. Iwasthere Jan 2020 #4

getagrip_already

(14,764 posts)
1. In this case, the judge was right to throw out the video evidence......
Sat Jan 4, 2020, 01:27 PM
Jan 2020

They illegally obtained a search warrant to put cameras in a location where private citizens who weren't under any individual suspicion, had every right to an expectation of privacy. They ran that operation for 9 months in a business that served literally thousands of customers. Yet they only made ~100 arrests. That tells you they took a lot of videos of naked people (some women went to the studios not knowing there was a side business) where no crimes were committed.

This is no different then putting video surveillance in hotel rooms because there might at some point be an illegal act committed.

The department should have its ass sued off.

Yes, I get that actual crimes were committed. So what? The end does not justify the means. There was no underage worker to protect. There was no trafficking uncovered. If anything besides sex acts was occurring, there were no charges for it.

This was about authoritarian over reach and trampled civil liberties. It was about prosecutors making arrests for tv, not protecting women,

Thug piggery at it's worst.

Firestorm49

(4,035 posts)
3. Interesting take.
Sat Jan 4, 2020, 01:51 PM
Jan 2020

I have to admit that my initial impression of the situation from the beginning was not well informed, which is why I deleted my prior post regarding the Orwellian state. My anger about the rich getting away with murder clouded the reality that you stated, and for that, I thank you. I sometimes react with a butt reaction, rather than with critical thinking, or more insightful knowledge.

Response to left-of-center2012 (Original post)

Latest Discussions»Culture Forums»Football»Prosecutors back off felo...