Robert Kraft charged in prostitution ring bust ( Update: Kraft legal team accused of lying in court)

[Boatdrinks]

19 minutes ago, Reed83HOF said:

 

So.....would ya?

 

 

Sure, why not ? While I don’t find Asian women all that attractive, she’s okay looking. A rub n tug ? Yeah, maybe even drop a line if the chance were to ...err..arise? 

[Doc]

45 minutes ago, JohnC said:

In this case it doesn't matter if he is a multi-billionaire or an indigent using a public defender. If the surveillance was not legally handled then the outcome should be the same. This lower misdemeanor charged case should be dropped. 

 

It it wasn't handled properly, it will probably get dropped.  However there is no indication that that's the case.

Edited April 15, 2019 by Doc

[JohnC]

12 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

It it wasn't handled properly, it will probably get dropped.  However there is no indication that that's the case.

I disagree. There is still plenty of time to challenge the surveillance before this case goes to trial, if it does.

Edited April 15, 2019 by JohnC

[Doc]

37 minutes ago, JohnC said:

I disagree. There is still plenty of time to challenge the surveillance before this case goes to trial, if it does.

 

Time isn't an issue.

[Koko78]

1 hour ago, JohnC said:

In this case it doesn't matter if he is a multi-billionaire or an indigent using a public defender. If the surveillance was not legally handled then the outcome should be the same. This lower misdemeanor charged case should be dropped. 

 

Depends on whether or not they can manufacture standing for him to challenge the installation of the cameras into a building he neither owns nor has an expectation of privacy in.

[Augie]

I’d like to thank all you posters who keep this bouncing up near the top. Somehow, it kind of brightens my day when I see this.  ?

[JohnC]

2 hours ago, Koko78 said:

 

Depends on whether or not they can manufacture standing for him to challenge the installation of the cameras into a building he neither owns nor has an expectation of privacy in.

To be clear I'm not a lawyer. But how can he not have standing to bring up the issue if part of the tape is evidence in his case? With respect to an expectation of privacy I would expect there would be an assumption of it unless there was a notice that privacy should not be presumed. 

[iinii]

On 4/15/2019 at 6:42 AM, Doc said:

 

Trying to bury their case in paperwork/every excuse they can come up with. 

Which is exactly what I was saying. 

[Koko78]

17 hours ago, JohnC said:

To be clear I'm not a lawyer. But how can he not have standing to bring up the issue if part of the tape is evidence in his case? With respect to an expectation of privacy I would expect there would be an assumption of it unless there was a notice that privacy should not be presumed. 

 

Whoops, forgot to reply to your post yesterday when I saw it.

 

I will point out, as an initial matter, that I do not know Florida law, so this is a general explanation:

 

In order to suppress evidence as illegally obtained, you must have standing to challenge the illegal search or seizure. Standing means that you have a legal right that is being infringed, not simply that the evidence obtained is damning or prejudicial. Kraft does not apparently own the building that the cameras were installed in - therefore he cannot assert standing based upon the violation of his property rights. Kraft has no legal expectation of privacy in a place he neither owns nor lives in, therefore he cannot claim he had a right to be secure in his person and effects at the massage parlor.

 

By way of an oversimplified example, let's say that you and I are standing in your living room, staring at a magnificent Tony Montana-sized pile of cocaine. The drugs cannot be seen from the outside. Suddenly the cops kick down the door and rush in, without a warrant or any other cause to be in your home. We are both arrested. You can have the drugs suppressed because your 4th Amendment rights were clearly violated. It was your home,  where you have an expectation of privacy, and the police had no legal authority to enter your home. I would have a harder time challenging the drugs as evidence, because it was your home, not mine. I have no legal standing to challenge the search of your home, as I do not live there. I do not have an expectation of privacy in your home, as - again - I do not live there. There are ways around that, but I'm not interested in writing a dissertation.

 

It may be irrelevant if it turns out that the video cameras were illegally installed, in terms of suppression of the video evidence. However, his attorneys could (and would) have a lot of fun making the cops squirm on the stand answering questions about their illegal conduct, especially if it involved acting without a court order to install the cameras, or lying to a judge in order to obtain one.

 

Contrast this with the allegation that his vehicle was illegally stopped to confirm his identification after leaving the massage parlor on one of the days he got a rub & tug. There he does have standing, as he has an expectation of privacy in his own vehicle, free from arbitrary stops by law enforcement that occur without sufficient cause (such as the officer witnessing a traffic violation.) If the stop of his vehicle is determined to be unlawful, the identification of Kraft leaving the massage parlor would be suppressed, and the prosecutors would not be allowed to use it at trial.

[Rob's House]

20 minutes ago, Koko78 said:

 

Whoops, forgot to reply to your post yesterday when I saw it.

 

I will point out, as an initial matter, that I do not know Florida law, so this is a general explanation:

 

In order to suppress evidence as illegally obtained, you must have standing to challenge the illegal search or seizure. Standing means that you have a legal right that is being infringed, not simply that the evidence obtained is damning or prejudicial. Kraft does not apparently own the building that the cameras were installed in - therefore he cannot assert standing based upon the violation of his property rights. Kraft has no legal expectation of privacy in a place he neither owns nor lives in, therefore he cannot claim he had a right to be secure in his person and effects at the massage parlor.

 

By way of an oversimplified example, let's say that you and I are standing in your living room, staring at a magnificent Tony Montana-sized pile of cocaine. The drugs cannot be seen from the outside. Suddenly the cops kick down the door and rush in, without a warrant or any other cause to be in your home. We are both arrested. You can have the drugs suppressed because your 4th Amendment rights were clearly violated. It was your home,  where you have an expectation of privacy, and the police had no legal authority to enter your home. I would have a harder time challenging the drugs as evidence, because it was your home, not mine. I have no legal standing to challenge the search of your home, as I do not live there. I do not have an expectation of privacy in your home, as - again - I do not live there. There are ways around that, but I'm not interested in writing a dissertation.

 

It may be irrelevant if it turns out that the video cameras were illegally installed, in terms of suppression of the video evidence. However, his attorneys could (and would) have a lot of fun making the cops squirm on the stand answering questions about their illegal conduct, especially if it involved acting without a court order to install the cameras, or lying to a judge in order to obtain one.

 

Contrast this with the allegation that his vehicle was illegally stopped to confirm his identification after leaving the massage parlor on one of the days he got a rub & tug. There he does have standing, as he has an expectation of privacy in his own vehicle, free from arbitrary stops by law enforcement that occur without sufficient cause (such as the officer witnessing a traffic violation.) If the stop of his vehicle is determined to be unlawful, the identification of Kraft leaving the massage parlor would be suppressed, and the prosecutors would not be allowed to use it at trial.

This one's interesting. I don't know of any precedent on point, but I would think you could argue one has a reasonable expectation of privacy in a private room where people are typically in a state of undress. 

 

If I planted a camera in that room I would be arrested (at least in some states). It seems reasonable that the surveillance tape would be deemed illegal. Should make for an interesting argument.

[Mr. WEO]

On ‎4‎/‎15‎/‎2019 at 9:56 AM, Doc said:

 

Of course I would. As I’ve advocated for everyone facing legal peril over the years. Just saying his lawyers aren’t doing anything revolutionary. 

 

 

Oh man!  You always do come around doc...

 

Anyway.  Maybe that Palm Beach DA, after finally conceding what many had concluded WEEKS ago regarding "human trafficking" at the spa, will be free to help OJ "find the real killers" of Brown and Goldman.

 

And it's not really "burying with paperwork" when your lawyer  is simply doing a very basic defense--which is ALWAYS challenging the evidence.  It's literally what every legal commenter everywhere said was the weakness of this case from day one.  LOL  "paperwork".

 

 

 

[Koko78]

3 minutes ago, Rob's House said:

This one's interesting. I don't know of any precedent on point, but I would think you could argue one has a reasonable expectation of privacy in a private room where people are typically in a state of undress. 

 

If I planted a camera in that room I would be arrested (at least in some states). It seems reasonable that the surveillance tape would be deemed illegal. Should make for an interesting argument.

 

That's where Florida law may kick in. I do not know what their standards for 'expectation of privacy' are.

 

Here's an interesting kicker, guy filed a civil suit alleging a violation of his civil rights by being taped (though not charged). From the article:

 

‘Reasonable expectation of privacy’ violated

"Mr. Doe had a reasonable expectation of privacy when he entered that private room, on private property, to receive treatment from a licensed healthcare practitioner — namely, a massage therapist," Doe’s attorney wrote in the lawsuit.

 

https://sports.yahoo.com/spa-client-believed-to-be-on-alleged-robert-kraft-video-sues-claiming-civil-rights-violation-221727480.html

 

How that argument plays with Kraft being there allegedly to engage in an illegal act on top of the "treatment from a licensed healthcare provider" will be the real key to suppression. I would be somewhat surprised if the judge suppresses the video based on that argument. I don't think many states would allow that as an excuse to shield someone from evidence of illegal activity.

[Mr. WEO]

52 minutes ago, Koko78 said:

 

That's where Florida law may kick in. I do not know what their standards for 'expectation of privacy' are.

 

Here's an interesting kicker, guy filed a civil suit alleging a violation of his civil rights by being taped (though not charged). From the article:

 

‘Reasonable expectation of privacy’ violated

"Mr. Doe had a reasonable expectation of privacy when he entered that private room, on private property, to receive treatment from a licensed healthcare practitioner — namely, a massage therapist," Doe’s attorney wrote in the lawsuit.

 

https://sports.yahoo.com/spa-client-believed-to-be-on-alleged-robert-kraft-video-sues-claiming-civil-rights-violation-221727480.html

 

How that argument plays with Kraft being there allegedly to engage in an illegal act on top of the "treatment from a licensed healthcare provider" will be the real key to suppression. I would be somewhat surprised if the judge suppresses the video based on that argument. I don't think many states would allow that as an excuse to shield someone from evidence of illegal activity.

 

This is part of the basis for the busted johns' challenge of the admissibility of the tape:  they are saying the warrant was inappropriately obtained because it did not specify when the taping would be turned on and and when  it should be turned off---specifically to protect the privacy of non-suspects, such as Mr. Doe.  The warrant has to detail this, among other things.

 

The lawyers obviously can challenge the pretense under which the warrant was obtained (dubious 'human trafficking" "evidence").  And, since there was no human trafficking, they can challenge the warrant on the grounds that, for what amounted to a simple solicitation sting, in which case more common and less invasive methods (undercover cops) were required before taping could be approved.

Edited April 16, 2019 by Mr. WEO

[Mr. WEO]

On ‎4‎/‎13‎/‎2019 at 3:00 PM, John from Riverside said:

Is WEO defending the patriots again?  I want to get the cliff notes version of this thread

 

I'm guessing they wouldn't help you....

[John from Riverside]

2 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

I'm guessing they wouldn't help you....

Just confirming what we already know to be true  

[Koko78]

18 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

The lawyers obviously can challenge the pretense under which the warrant was obtained (dubious 'human trafficking" "evidence").  And, since there was no human trafficking, they can challenge the warrant on the grounds that, for what amounted to a simple solicitation sting, in which case more common and less invasive methods (undercover cops) were required before taping could be approved.

 

Not necessarily. What legal right does he have to challenge a warrant to place cameras in a building he does not own, for a business he does not operate? He was not the subject of the warrant. Again, you must demonstrate standing to challenge searches - including the underlying warrants. I can't challenge the validity of a search warrant of your home, just because I happened to be standing in your living room holding drugs at the time the cops raided the place.

 

Assuming he has any legal right to challenge the warrant under Florida law, getting it tossed based on the human trafficking allegations being later shown to be untrue is debatable. The prosecution, one would assume, would be arguing for whatever good faith exceptions exist under Florida law. 'Good faith' having been tremendously expanded by the US Supreme Court recently (in short, cops are no longer required to actually know the laws they're enforcing, so long as they act under a good faith belief, but the rest of us are still deemed to know every law and regulation ever created.)

 

The prosecutors won't necessarily have to show that there was actual trafficking going on, but that they had a reasonable belief at the time they applied for the warrant that there was probable cause (a fair probability) of human trafficking going on there, thus the reason for the needing the warrant/cameras. That the videos later showed that there was no actual human trafficking going on there isn't the determinative factor for Kraft, unless they have evidence that law enforcement knew from the outset that they were making false representations to the Court in order to fraudulently obtain a warrant. That may or may not work for suppression, but would still likely be a better trial issue to impeach the credibility of the law enforcement officers involved, if done carefully.

[Mr. WEO]

1 hour ago, John from Riverside said:

Just confirming what we already know to be true  

 

You certainly just did...

 

32 minutes ago, Koko78 said:

 

Not necessarily. What legal right does he have to challenge a warrant to place cameras in a building he does not own, for a business he does not operate? He was not the subject of the warrant. Again, you must demonstrate standing to challenge searches - including the underlying warrants. I can't challenge the validity of a search warrant of your home, just because I happened to be standing in your living room holding drugs at the time the cops raided the place.

 

Assuming he has any legal right to challenge the warrant under Florida law, getting it tossed based on the human trafficking allegations being later shown to be untrue is debatable. The prosecution, one would assume, would be arguing for whatever good faith exceptions exist under Florida law. 'Good faith' having been tremendously expanded by the US Supreme Court recently (in short, cops are no longer required to actually know the laws they're enforcing, so long as they act under a good faith belief, but the rest of us are still deemed to know every law and regulation ever created.)

 

The prosecutors won't necessarily have to show that there was actual trafficking going on, but that they had a reasonable belief at the time they applied for the warrant that there was probable cause (a fair probability) of human trafficking going on there, thus the reason for the needing the warrant/cameras. That the videos later showed that there was no actual human trafficking going on there isn't the determinative factor for Kraft, unless they have evidence that law enforcement knew from the outset that they were making false representations to the Court in order to fraudulently obtain a warrant. That may or may not work for suppression, but would still likely be a better trial issue to impeach the credibility of the law enforcement officers involved, if done carefully.

 

 

HUH??

 

Of course he has "standing" to challenge the warrant used to gather evidence used to charge him with a crime.  What are you talking about?

 

As for the challenge itself, it basis has been well documented everywhere on the internet.  But here is some:

 

"Goldberger wrote that the alleged traffic violations the Jupiter officers used to stop men as they left the spa and interview them about what happened in the spa were faked, and officers’ didn’t accurately depict what a health inspector found when they sent her in to examine the spa.

 

He also said officers had not exhausted less-invasive means of investigating the spa, and Florida law says audio surveillance such as wiretaps should only be used for serious felonies such as murder or kidnapping and does not list prostitution."

 

Also, they cops didn't outline in their warrant, as required, as to how they would safeguard innocent people from being video taped. 

[JohnC]

2 hours ago, Koko78 said:

 

Whoops, forgot to reply to your post yesterday when I saw it.

 

I will point out, as an initial matter, that I do not know Florida law, so this is a general explanation:

 

In order to suppress evidence as illegally obtained, you must have standing to challenge the illegal search or seizure. Standing means that you have a legal right that is being infringed, not simply that the evidence obtained is damning or prejudicial. Kraft does not apparently own the building that the cameras were installed in - therefore he cannot assert standing based upon the violation of his property rights. Kraft has no legal expectation of privacy in a place he neither owns nor lives in, therefore he cannot claim he had a right to be secure in his person and effects at the massage parlor.

 

By way of an oversimplified example, let's say that you and I are standing in your living room, staring at a magnificent Tony Montana-sized pile of cocaine. The drugs cannot be seen from the outside. Suddenly the cops kick down the door and rush in, without a warrant or any other cause to be in your home. We are both arrested. You can have the drugs suppressed because your 4th Amendment rights were clearly violated. It was your home,  where you have an expectation of privacy, and the police had no legal authority to enter your home. I would have a harder time challenging the drugs as evidence, because it was your home, not mine. I have no legal standing to challenge the search of your home, as I do not live there. I do not have an expectation of privacy in your home, as - again - I do not live there. There are ways around that, but I'm not interested in writing a dissertation.

 

It may be irrelevant if it turns out that the video cameras were illegally installed, in terms of suppression of the video evidence. However, his attorneys could (and would) have a lot of fun making the cops squirm on the stand answering questions about their illegal conduct, especially if it involved acting without a court order to install the cameras, or lying to a judge in order to obtain one.

 

Contrast this with the allegation that his vehicle was illegally stopped to confirm his identification after leaving the massage parlor on one of the days he got a rub & tug. There he does have standing, as he has an expectation of privacy in his own vehicle, free from arbitrary stops by law enforcement that occur without sufficient cause (such as the officer witnessing a traffic violation.) If the stop of his vehicle is determined to be unlawful, the identification of Kraft leaving the massage parlor would be suppressed, and the prosecutors would not be allowed to use it at trial.

The conflict as I see it is if the tape was impermissibly obtained and violated the right of the owner of the facility who has the primary standing (as you describe it) I don't see how the proceeds of that supposedly impermissible surveillance could be used against Kraft. As you noted there are standard undercover procedures that are used to arrest johns in solicitation type scenarios. This goes way beyond that. If the basis of the warrant related to human trafficking and it was determined that in fact there was no human trafficking then I don't see how the authorities would pursue a legal action against Kraft whose primary offense is having a high profile.

 

I have had some experience with the criminal justice system in the DC area. I'm confident that if there were legal questions of search and seizure issues regarding such a lower misdemeanor charge against  anyone (high profile or not) the case would be quickly dismissed. Florida is certainly not DC and has a different legal culture than the more liberal DC system. But if I had to wager a bet I would say that Kraft will prevail in this case. 

[JohnC]

22 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

You certainly just did...

 

 

 

HUH??

 

Of course he has "standing" to challenge the warrant used to gather evidence used to charge him with a crime.  What are you talking about?

 

As for the challenge itself, it basis has been well documented everywhere on the internet.  But here is some:

 

"Goldberger wrote that the alleged traffic violations the Jupiter officers used to stop men as they left the spa and interview them about what happened in the spa were faked, and officers’ didn’t accurately depict what a health inspector found when they sent her in to examine the spa.

 

He also said officers had not exhausted less-invasive means of investigating the spa, and Florida law says audio surveillance such as wiretaps should only be used for serious felonies such as murder or kidnapping and does not list prostitution."

 

Also, they cops didn't outline in their warrant, as required, as to how they would safeguard innocent people from being video taped. 

What I find most baffling is not that the police applied for a warrant but that the judge actually signed the warrant when there were so many sketchy details about the case.

 

I agree with you about Kraft having the standing to challenge the taping. If the tape is going to be used against him how could he not have standing? At least that is how I see it.  

 

Your perspective in this case is the same as mine. That is troubling. 

[Koko78]

39 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

What are you talking about?

 

Apparently things that are going well over your head.