Bob Kraft wins a major ruling

[Show Me the Wire]

The recordings made by police with hidden cameras, which allowed Kraft to be charged have been suppressed by the judge. The prosecution cannot use the recordings as evidence against Kraft.

First, Jupiter police violated Kraft’s Constitutional right to privacy — even if he had been engaged in criminal activity, Hanser ruled. This meant Kraft could challenge a sneak-and-peek search warrant that permitted the videotaping.

“The Court finds it clear that he had a reasonable, subjective expectation of privacy, as would anyone seeking a private massage in a commercial or professional setting, and that the activity in that room would remain private,” the judge said.

Moreover, the warrant itself violated a federal law that requires police to minimize the intrusion of the secret cameras and focus only on crimes, Hanser found. At Orchids, police wound up recording women receiving lawful services, even though the focus was supposed to be only on men paying for sex acts.

https://www.sun-sentinel.com/local/p...2vi-story.html

[Elliott Sidewater]

I knew it would have a happy ending.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by Elliott Sidewater

I knew it would have a happy ending.

Nothing but "happy endings" for Mr Kraft.

[horses4courses]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

Nothing but "happy endings" for Mr Kraft.

Where are all our "law and order" conservatives on here?
Kraft received services from a sex trafficker.
Violation of his privacy rights worthy of a free pass?
Hmmm.....

Let's face it.
The odds favor the man, and will likely result in
yet another legal victory for wealthy white privilege.

[PaceAdvantage]

You mean Trump's not on that tape?

If he was, I bet the judge would have allowed it...damn.

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by horses4courses

Where are all our "law and order" conservatives on here?
Kraft received services from a sex trafficker.
Violation of his privacy rights worthy of a free pass?
Hmmm.....

Let's face it.
The odds favor the man, and will likely result in
yet another legal victory for wealthy white privilege.

Why do you think I posted this story. Law and order people do not want police and other law enforcement agencies abusing powers. Surreptitious recording of people, where people expect privacy is violating a person's rights. and is abuse of power. Privacy is a Constitutional right, FYI and us law and order people are ecstatic with this ruling.

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

Why do you think I posted this story. Law and order people do not want police and other law enforcement agencies abusing powers.

And liberal democrats used to ABHOR this kind of thing (law enforcement abusing power)...now they're all for it, as long it's done to Trump.

[horses4courses]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

And liberal democrats used to ABHOR this kind of thing (law enforcement abusing power)...now they're all for it, as long it's done to Trump.

It's a two-way street.
Fight fire with fire.

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by horses4courses

It's a two-way street.
Fight fire with fire.

?????, your response makes no sense.

[horses4courses]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

?????, your response makes no sense.

Let me dumb it down, then.

PA is accusing liberals of having double standards.
Maybe so, when it comes to Trump.

Fact is, we will never catch up with conservatives in that category.

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by horses4courses

Let me dumb it down, then.

PA is accusing liberals of having double standards.
Maybe so, when it comes to Trump.

Fact is, we will never catch up with conservatives in that category.

Or actually explain your nebulous response. It doesn't make sense that you want to violate yours and other citizen's Constitutional rights, because you don't like the results of an election.

Accepting election outcomes you don't like is what makes this republic work. The last time Americans didn't accept the outcome of an election, a costly civil war ensued.

[horses4courses]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

The last time Americans didn't accept the outcome of an election, a costly civil war ensued.

Judging by the posts around here during Obama's eight years,
I would beg to differ with that statement.

The saddest part about the judge's ruling here is that had the
defendant been of low income, and non-white, his chances of
beating these charges would be greatly reduced.

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by horses4courses

Judging by the posts around here during Obama's eight years,
I would beg to differ with that statement.

The saddest part about the judge's ruling here is that had the
defendant been of low income, and non-white, his chances of
beating these charges would be greatly reduced.

I should have said the last time people did not accept the results of an election we had a civil war.

Depends on the quality of legal representation. I doubt a low income defendant would patronage this specific massage parlor.

Hopefully, a even a first year public defender would understand the Constitutional privacy right and that a federal statute had been violated by police abusing their powers.

However, I agree there are abuses in the judicial systems.

[JustRalph]

Originally Posted by horses4courses

Where are all our "law and order" conservatives on here?
Kraft received services from a sex trafficker.
Violation of his privacy rights worthy of a free pass?
Hmmm.....

Let's face it.
The odds favor the man, and will likely result in
yet another legal victory for wealthy white privilege.

Once again....the constitution wins out! Hp Hip Hooray!

[pandy]

Even though he should have known better than to use the services of a place like this, the ruling is correct, definite abuse of privacy laws.