BREAKING: New England Pats owner Robert Kraft charged w/ soliciting a prostitute in Orchids of Asia day spa raid in Jupiter FL. Jupiter PD says they have video. Kraft has a residence in nearby Palm Beach. @NBC10Boston @NECN pic.twitter.com/8y5E3Rw27R— Kathryn Sotnik NBC10 Boston (@KatNBCBoston) February 22, 2019
Forums:
DISCLAIMER: Forum topics may not have been written or edited by The Key Play staff.
Comments
Didn't he hear that Hooker isn't in the portal anymore?
no no no you've got it backwards. He was trying to get into the hooker's portal, not trying to get the hooker into a portal.
Wait.... So this isn't just another Hooker joke?
No but there are plenty of deflated ball jokes right here for the making.
I assume this is why the reporter kept asking about the NFL in the other press conference.
You would think a billionaire wouldn't have to pay for it, but then again maybe they just get bored.
He's a billionaire and he's basically going to the Dollar General for some action (seriously, 30 bucks?). And in fucking Florida of all places. If you're gonna go down that road, at least get your money's worth
Hey he didn't become a billionaire by spending all of his money.
Discount handies by Chinese migrants in the back of a janky massage parlor. The billionaire way, baby.
Seriously go to Vegas and pick up a high end lady that will be legal and discreet. Still shady af but not to this level of repulsiveness
I'm not saying it's a good thing, but if this is all true he is done in the NFL
Discretion? By a prostitute?
If anyone thinks they can buy discretion, they are wildly mistaken, especially if they are a high-profile john.
I don't know, but I don't hear too many stories coming out of Vegas about famous people getting in trouble with expensive escorts
What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas?
Ask Ben Aflac how that worked out...
Damn, it would've been genius if they named the Aflac duck "Ben."
I can't imagine that sort of policy being good for business though.
The high-end stuff is a whole different ballgame.
Well, right up until you run for President. Then it's REALLY a whole different ball game.
you can sign a non-disclosure agreement, which can buy discretion. If you break that agreement, you better have some good legal authority to back it up (e.g., not actually signing the NDA a la Daniels/Cohen/Trump and thus making the agreement null and void).
Note: You can't use an NDA to cover criminal activity, but if it's legal activity such as that occurring in the state of Nevada, you sure can buy discretion.
You ever try to yank it with 5 Super Bowl rings on?
No, you haven't. So don't be so quick to judge here /s
You're naive if you think this results in anything more than a slap on the wrist for another rich guy.
If this was a college scandal, it would be the death penalty for Missouri.
You would be right if the prositute wasn't being forced into this as a sex trafficking ring and he is on camera TWICE.
It's horrible and he absolutely should be thrown in jail but I just can't see it happening. Guys like him get off all the time. Plea deal at worst.
Speaking the dam truth my brother.
Yep.
In Florida most first time offenders charged with soliciting don't go to jail anyway. It's community service, fines and sex trafficking classes. I meant more of a punishment like stepping down from Patriots organization.
Oh yeah for sure. Look at Jerry Richardson.
I saw that
Here's the part where I pretend that was intentional.
So... Who does everybody think is going to be the next owner of the Patriots? Soliciting prostitution at a place under a sting operation for human trafficking. Geez.. He is done.
I'm much more in VT_Warthog's camp on that.
I don't know anything about the criminal repercussions here but given the current political environment, I 100% see the rest of the NFL owners forcing him to sell.
EDIT: The thing that I think make this potentially an explosive situation is the girls he solicited may have been trafficked and forced to do things against their will. IF it comes out that was the case, then Robert Kraft is done in the NFL.
It'll be interesting to see. I don't know if it will reach Donald Sterling levels of controversy and NFL owners haven't suffered repercussions for (admittedly less) controversial things in the recent past (Bob McNair and Jerry Richardson come to mind). I'm sure some wouldn't mind disrupting the Pats organization either.
Uh, maybe you didn't hear but Jerry Richardson sold the Panthers as all of the more recent allegations came to light
I absolutely hope you are right, but I also just watched a rich guy walk out of a courtroom on bond after threatening his judge. You could say I'm a little skeptical about the justice system and the well-to-do.
Edit: And you're likely right about him being done with the NFL, but I will gladly eat crow if he sees the inside of a prison cell.
I agree with you there. Money may keep him out of prison but money may kick him out of the NFL.
With the NFL's previous reactions to domestic violence, can you imagine the press conference any time something like that happens again? Players get suspended or black balled but the owners get a slap on the wrist. The double standard would make it incredibly uncomfortable for anyone the NFL puts in front of the podium. Man, what a political minefield that would be.
Not to mention, I could see several politicians using this as a club to attack the NFL. No, the more I think about it, the NFL cuts ties with Robert Kraft and his son takes over. There is no benefit to letting him hang around.
I'll bet nothing happens to him and he wins another super bowl in the next 3 years.
I'd guess his son is next up Jonathan has been around all his life I'd imagine they won't sell just pass it down
Seriously? Dude's a billionaire. Get in your private jet and fly to Vegas and buy as many of them as you want at one of those ranches and then you don't have to worry about getting busted. What an idiot.
He could just bring them on the jet with a *wink wink* arrangement, fly over international waters, make whatever deal he wants and do whatever he wants on the plane and fly back.
Maybe he could be friend some viking players to help with a party boat. International waters arent that far from Jupiter Fl.
I love Fred Smoot
She's out in the middle of nowhere, with some dude she barely knows. She looks around and what does she see? Nothing but open ocean. "Ah there's nowhere for me to run! What am I gonna do, say no?" Because if the girl said 'no', then the answer is obviously 'no'. But the thing is she is not gonna say no. She would never say 'no', because of the implication.
Miami is so much closer.
FTFY
via GIPHY
This news is deflating to hear. Nobody should give this guy a hand. This is a real sucky situation.
Plaid for finding this!
So are we calling this #InflateGate or #FellateGate?
HELL YES
#TailGate?
edit: It ended up farther down the thread. Please pretend i wasn't here.
Like Kraft wishes people would do
Uh-oh! Oopsie poopsie!
No, no, no. For that you gotta pay at least $50.
Oh, also
Was that a reference to this episode of Robot Chicken?
Edit: meant in response to civilhokie
#Tailgate?
Beats me...i dunno 🤷♂️
Tough week to be a Kraft.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/21/investing/kraft-heinz-sec-investigation/index.html
What's a table shower?
I thought that was for a ZJ
I want to post the gamgam sausage gif but I'm 98% sure HR would burst in and fire me on the spot if I googled that.
This really means that Gam Gam was a whore...
I got you fam
I think this one is more fitting.
via GIPHY
Or this
Let's put it this way. If you ever see a massage parlor that advertises this, it's not a legitimate massage therapy place.
psh. Now you tell me
I'd argue that a handy is much more therapeutic than some one trying to leave bruises on my back.
Nothing beats a good old fashioned.
Wax Job!
Waits till the moment of truth and and slams her palm over the top of it. Causing the wax to shoot out of his ears!
This is extremely awful.
That is both gross AND seriously fucked up.
Minimal hygiene is still hygienic, much better than no hygiene.
That's what made all of this horrible...if it was two consenting adults acting out of free will, it would be one of the funniest sports stories this century.
pure evil.
Since it looks like Robert Kraft is going to have lots of free time on his hands, I heard he is going to start a dating site.
It is going to be called Kraft Singles.
Why couldn't this have been Dan Snyder???????
-Redskins fans
This, so much this. ⬆️⬆️⬆️⬆️⬆️⬆️
He is too busy cutting down trees on National Park Service lands and ruining the life of a Park Ranger.....
too busy suing fans for not wanting season tickets.....
too busy removing seats from FEDEX field so its still a sellout.....
too busy firing anyone that is remotely competent and letting Baron Von Allen run rampaging over the organization....
too busy worrying about which Redskin player or employee is going to get arrested in the wee hours of the morning at One Loudoun next.....
too busy running other businesses into the ground (Six Flags, Johnny Rockets).....
might not have the money to pay for it with all the money he has tied up in broken quarterbacks.....
https://wtop.com/news/2012/03/nps-ranger-speaks-out-against-snyder-alleg...
The article's link to the book, titled Worth Fighting For (A Park Ranger's Unexpected Battle Against Federal Bureaucrats and Washington Redskins Owner Dan Snyder), links to a different book, titled An Old-Fashioned Romance, which is really strange, considering the topic of this thread.
You hit the nail on the head. There's a reason my family gave up our season tix in 2015 after my grandfather had originally started getting them in 1960. It was a fun run and I've had many memories at those games growing up, but you can't pay me to go to anything at FedEX now, much less a Redskins game. My uncle, who used to go to 4-5 games a year with those season tix, feels the exact same way. I'm over the Skins and the NFL too.
Interestingly enough there's a minority owner of the Skins named Dwight Shar (I think I spelled it correctly.) My parents used to do landscaping for him and many of the Redskins players from the good old days and apparently Mr. Shar is one hell of a nice guy. You just never hear about him or anything he has to do with the team. I'd be willing to bet he would be a better and smarter majority owner.
I'm also good friends with Snyder's former private pilot. Met him in 2009 in Aspen when Danny boy was out there vacationing at his 35,000 square foot mansion on Buttermilk mountain. Derek said many people offered to pay him to fly Redskins One into the ocean or side of mountain and take out Dan. He said Snyder was such a dick. He would say hello to him when he boarded the plane and Snyder would flat out ignore him and then have someone tell Derek not to speak to Snyder unless he was spoken to first. I sure as hell wouldn't treat the guy at the controls like that if my life was in his hands. Derek finally quit a few years go and now works for some other super rich dude and gets paid to fly them all over the world.
Snyder also booked a fly fishing trip with the outfitters I worked for out in Aspen. He got a guide who didn't care about football so apparently, it went fairly well and he actually tipped. Of course, he showed up for the trip in a bright burgundy and gold redskins polo. Dumbass. If I had been assigned to him as guide, not sure what I would have done. Probably be nice, get him to catch some fish and then slip a raw steak into his pack so a black bear would come after him...
All I have to say is - if the guy's gonna have a mansion at any of the 4 Aspen-owned mountains, I'm slightly surprised it's Buttermilk... but at the same time, I am soooooo not surprised it's Buttermilk. *snrk*
Why pay for sex when you can screw your die hard fanbase for free?
So a cheater, a pedophile, and a pervert walk in to Gillette Stadium....
Somehow I would find this funnier if the women involved looked like Brady and/or Belicek's wives. Clearly something deeply disturbed at my core.
Adam Schefter reporting Kraft isn't the biggest name involved
Not biggest name
It's gonna be yuge
I wonder if Kraft has any high profile friends who happen to have places down in Florida, possibly for the golf courses they may or may not own
Also Tiger Woods.
Would he really be considered a bigger name anymore?
Bigger than Kraft? Absolutely.
EDIT: For those of you who are unfamiliar, Jupiter is a venerable playground for old rich people. There's a ton of ex-Wall Street bros, industry billionaires, generational wealth etc. (it's very tax-friendly)
I have a friend who lives down there- that exact massage parlour is a mile away from where he works. Tiger got his DUI literally down the road from where my friend lives. MJ and Derek Jeter have houses. Lots of PGA golfers live or spend a lot of time there. The Cardinals and Marlins have spring training there.
100%
You ask any random person whether you know Tiger Woods or Robert Kraft, and I am willing to bet every one knows Tiger but only a handful of people who aren't Sports fans and/or don't live in the New England England know him.
Don't worry Alum, I know who you're referring to and orange you glad I do!
Exactly, although no one seems to care about those indiscretions anymore
I don't know about you, but I'd like to think that the average person can see that getting caught in a sex-trafficking sting is a different level of "indiscretion" than consensual sex with an adult film star.
Sadly, I don't have much faith in the average person being all that bothered by either action these days, as long as someone is famous/has money/reality TV star
they really understand my personality
Or a beach club that is a 32 minute drive from Orchids of Asia?
Apparently, he does
More information (maybe?) from Deadspin last night
What's Up With The NFL Questions At This Sex Trafficking Press Conference?
Very interesting....
In breaking news, patriots adamantly deny all allegations.
They go on to state the balls were deflated when we got there.
Since Bill lost the power struggle with Brady does this mean Brady gets cut now?
Kraft sure has given us some low hanging fruit to grab here.
Given Kraft's age, that's probably what the prostitute thought too.
This saddens me because Peter Tork died today
oh darn, I didn't know, that saddens me also. Sorry for timing.
You mean yesterday. Two Monkey's down total now.
So in Northern VA/Centreville, VA... There is a similar store called Spa World (http://www.spaworldusa.com/)
There are NUMEROUS rumors that there is a prostitute ring that goes on within there. Many people have seen Alex Ovechkin and other Capitals players that frequent there and then walk over to the Glory Days right by it.
I personally saw Evgeny Kuznetsov walk out of it and follow us into the Glory Days. It's like almost a ritual for them on their off days.
Oh, and alleged slavery... https://wjla.com/news/crime/court-documents-report-mistreatment-at-spa-w...
Yeah you can add Ashburn schools to the slavery bit.
There is an entirely different side to this story from the teacher side but they aren't allowed to talk publicly. This lesson involved all the students being put in these roles not just one individual. Teacher in this case is catching the brunt of an approved lesson plan and lesson plans on this topic were mandatory for all teachers. This lesson was drawn directly from a national teachers conference that many of these teachers attended. Hearing many teachers will refuse to teach this subject going forward so they are not made a public scapegoat for something they were required to do.
There's a "plausible deniability" element to those spas. Someone could say "I just wanted a massage" if they got caught.
I was under the impression that everyone just assumed that most strip mall spas offered some kind of prostitution. It was just an open secret. Sort of like how everyone knows of the attractive girl in the hotel lobby/bar by herself doesn't really think "you're handsome and interesting"
Holy crap, I've been to that Glory Days. The bartenders have talked about Caps players hanging out there. I always wondered why they'd ever go to a run down Glory Days in Centerville.
Hey, don't shit can Glory Days! They have some of the best wings I have had! lol
Don't get me wrong, I like Glory Days. Pretty decent food across the board with a couple of gems on the menu all at very good prices with a kickass happy hour. That said, the Centerville location is pretty run down and off the beaten path. Unless, I suppose, you're going for beers after hitting up a seedy rub and tug.
Lemme guess.....Glory Holes??
If you want a kickass HH, go right around the corner to Red Rocks Tequila bar
Boston Globe: Kraft being charged with soliciting prostitution in Fla.
via GIPHY
I found this hilarious...
via GIPHY
via GIPHY
Question to lawyers, why is this so detailed and out in public? Shouldn't there be like a big black block over the mouth hug section?
Can I use mouth hug on here?
it's an affidavit prepared by the Police department. There are not any inherent privacy concerns when it comes to criminal prosecution (unless there is something superseding such as national security).
Also Florida makes everything public.
No inherent privacy concerns? To putting cameras in a public establishment? I never had a public restroom fetish but know a few men and women who did. Seems a very slippery slope we're on here.
Have a friend who invested alot of capital into a massage parlor had to do alot of "legitimacy" work before the cash started to roll in. Was about to invest in another unit. Guarantee he has a 30-70% revenue shortfall starting the day this Kraft thing was announced. I'm sure he'll work it back because much of what he needs to do has all ready been done, but the notion that police may have placed cameras in his establishment could bankrupt his companies.
At some point the police in Florida probably had sufficient evidence to prosecute the sex trafficking allegations, but they decided to go after the "johns". This is a pretty clearly highly political move that likely traded a few months of continuing worker enslavement for what is now a political goldmine for the "law enforcement department".
Not a lawyer, don't play one, never researched the privacy case law, but I actually would really hope this makes its way through to the supreme court. We have cameras and routers and ISPs and phone companies that track everything we do. And we're seemingly ok with it as a society. Its just an old man getting a handjob. Making this about an old man who happens to be a billionaire now being responsible for sex trafficking, I dunno. Kraft couldn't handle a healthy woman. Find the guys who can and engaged in trafficking and kill them slowly.
We have cameras and routers and ISPs and phone companies that track everything we do.
Agreed. My tenant just told me she bought an Alexa. I told her it can stay in her car. No thanks. My phone does enough tracking of me as it is.
Here's the thing that people generally over look when they get sketched out by "being tracked" These companies are taking billions of data points an hour on the low side. The data is just run through some ridiculous algorithms and it would be nearly impossible to trace a persons exact traffic back to them with the pure amount of seemingly meaningless data collected. All these companies really care about is making a marketing profile of you, they don't care what you've googled unless you're going to buy it, they don't care about your conversations, they care about making as accurate of a 'eProfile' of your habits as they can to sell you things.
If you believe that, then you really need to read this:
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/12/10/business/location-data-pr...
Well talking GPS location of a person's phone and tracking internet traffic directly to a person are a little bit different (exclusion would be your ISP, they likely can see everything you're doing if they wanted to), I don't know why anyone would be surprised that the little GPS they carry in their pocket can track their location...
Did you tell a tenant what technology she can and can't have in her rented space?
Pretty sure that police cannot just put cameras in an establishment without probable cause so your friend has nothing to worry about unless he is participating in illegal activities. They aren't just putting cameras wherever they feel like it.
Your friend's anger should be directed at places like this one that are involved in human trafficking and the johns that fund their industry. They are the reason he had to do so much "legitimacy" work. If anything, law enforcement cleaning up the industry should help the legitimacy of his business, unless, again, his business isn't "legitimate".
The reason they are going after the john's isn't a political move, it us a law enforcement move. The john's, like Kraft, are the money behind the "demand" in the supply and demand of the human trafficking industry. They are literally the driving force behind modern day slavery. Without their money and complete indifference to the victims in these cases, the industry dries up and less people become victims. Besides, it is not like they are letting all of the traffickers off scot-free.
Saying, "it's just an old man getting a handjob" is not just incorrect (the affidavit clearly describes a blowjob) but downright appalling. You are hand-waving away a hell of alot of human suffering as just a billionaire getting an orgasm. Kraft can whack off all he wants or even employ legitimate sex workers, but he does not have the right to an orgasm at the expense of human suffering.
You're right, but there is an extra strep of necessitating a warrant for this search. The exceptions to a warrant aren't available in this scenario.
Getting the Johns wont solve anything. It's the fact that it's illegal due to moral reasoning that is one of the big problems. There is a demand, and something is going to fill it. Since it's illegal, there is moral ambiguity among those who run those operations. Busting Johns will just force them to go further into the dark and be shadier, leading to less oversight and more questionable treatment of the individuals.
Not all sex workers in places where it is illegal are being forced due to sex trafficking. You most likely wouldn't be able to tell just from getting a blowjob at a spa.
you've assumed alot in my post that wasn't there... taking my its just an old man getting a handjob for my being ok with human trafficking ... get over yourself, clearly not what was intended
any small business owner with folks on payroll is going to be concerned in any drop in revenue... again don't care enough about the issues to give him a call, but have to imagine most of the legitimate massage parlors have taken a hit
since you're so morally righteous to throw the slavery stuff around this issue why did cops never go after the doctors judges an other assorted people associated with the drug trade? they sure as heck made a mint going after the supply
They got a warrant through proper channels to place cameras. They evacuated the place under a suspicious package ruse and placed cameras while they were supposedly clearing the building, then used the cameras in their ongoing investigation into a sex trafficking ring. What, exactly, is wrong with this series of events?
I'm all about privacy and controlling our own data, but are you saying that an establishment that has been under surveillance for months for human trafficking shouldn't be put under further surveillance once they have enough evidence to move forward? They needed hard proof of what was going on, which they were able to get and they shut the place down. Everything that's out so far says everything was done by the book, and the trafficking victims are finally out of there because of it. You can take your privacy concerns and shove it, they're not worth more than the women that were lured there and forced into "service".
This sounds in violation of the laws around the 4th amendment. Not sure how true this is, but that would seriously dampen their efforts to convict the owners of the establishment.
It would have no effect on Kraft though.
Edit: I see reports of the bomb scare ruse, which seems like that would be a problem. Depends on who owns the building.
2nd Edit: Appears I'm not the only one questioning the tactics used by the Police:
Miami New Times
Should note that this a defense being put forth by Kraft and I don't think Kraft will be successful in this defense, because even if the warrant was obtained and executed wrongly, I don't think he had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the spa. Definitely an interesting case to keep tabs on (if you're interested in Privacy rights).
Did you skip the part about them having a valid warrant? The warrant made it reasonable based on the external surveillance providing enough evidence to convince a judge that there was probable cause for further surveillance.
no I didn't. There is the Knock and Announce rule:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knock-and-announce
Failing to meet the knock and announce rule does not require exclusion of evidence. This rule of evidence exclusion refers to failing to announce, not to providing a ruse. I don't know of any jurisprudence surrounding providing a false announcement in order to execute a warrant. It seems if you're lying to someone to execute a warrant, that would be a violation of some sort that may involve exclusion of evidence, but maybe not.
If you (or anyone) know the law around providing a false pretense to execute a warrant, please share.
Plenty of different types of Warrants exist. No knocks when they think evidence might be destroyed or officer safety could be an issue (personally as a former officer I think these are overused by many agencies), search warrant, arrest warrant, electronic warrants for data from a phone company etc.
yea, true, but no knock doesn't seem to apply, they lied about entry and then installed cameras to capture evidence, and thus evidence was not destroyed upon entry.
officer safety may be an issue at time of entry, but i don't see a great argument for lying about a bomb threat to install cameras post entry.
this was a search warrant, not arrest (arrest doesn't allow you into a building to install cameras that has an expectation of privacy). electronic warrants are just search or arrest warrants provided quickly (still need to be approved by judge).
Yes and a judge approved a surveillance warrant in this case. No different than old school wire tap etc. nothing unconstitutional about it.
it's the false pretenses I'm wondering about, not the installation of cameras.
As a former federal agent, let me assure you that there is no constitutional requirement for law enforcement officers to tell criminals the truth when trying to obtain evidence from them.
The bomb hoax ruse was an effective and completely lawful method for planting the court-approved surveillance devices in an establishment that was being used to commit human trafficking, aka slavery.
As a resident of Latin America nowadays, I have heard far too many stories of young girls being sold into brothels, tricked with false offers of employment, or outright kidnapped by traffickers into sexual slavery. My adopted Latina daughter was born to a young lady who was trafficked at age 12 by her own family.
Sex trafficking is among the vilest, most heinously evil forms of crime on the planet and I would have no problem whatsoever with any nation making it punishable by the death penalty. As far as the Johns who perpetuate this indecent and vicious industry, they all deserve to be punished to the fullest extent of the law for taking advantage of the enslavement of others. Burn their figurative houses down.
Anyone who has a shred of sympathy for any person involved in the sex trade other than the victimized women is seriously misguided and needs to learn what the reality of this monstrous worldwide industry looks like.
Rant over, please don't get me started again with ephemeral arguments about legal sex workers who comprise less than one percent of this evil empire.
Sorry Joe, I couldn't stay silent any longer. Chazz, this was not meant as an attack on you sir.
Completely agree about the heinousness of the crime involved. It is important that the obtaining of the evidence is lawful, otherwise you can let criminals get away with a crime based on procedural requirements.
Thank you for your service.
There's reference in the affidavit to the cameras being planted subject to a 'sneak and peek' warrant, which I'm assuming is the local nickname/jargon for putting surreptitious surveillance in a location to see what happens. I assume there are standards for what the application for those warrants must meet, and that they only issue upon the establishment of probable cause, like any other search warrant.
There are probably additional things that the cop has to attest to in the affidavit beyond just 'probable cause that a crime was committed and there's probably evidence in the place to be searched.'
But can you actually lie to execute a warrant? Failing to announce is one thing, but providing a ruse to execute a warrant seems incongruous with 4A. Ultimately, they do have the warrant approved by the judge, but idk, that's some f'ed up jurisprudence if an officer is allowed to provide false pretenses.
I guess the state would argue it was the most beneficial way to execute the warrant without harm to anyone involved. that the benefits of lying outweighed announcing that they were searching the premises. hmm...
So cops can lie to suspects or witnesses there is. I legal protection from a cop lying to you.
so the SCOTUS in Hudson v. Michigan (2006) held that violation of the knock and announce rule did not result in exclusion of evidence in violation of that rule. That was a 5-4 decision. The facts of the case are the police didn't wait long enough post announcement (3 seconds). Kennedy was a part of the 5-4 decision but provided a concurrence that some violations of knock and announce could result in evidence exclusion.
The Orchids case involves lying as a pretext announcement. So, the difference in facts do matter. Kennedy is now replaced, so maybe his concurrence in which he states he could change his position based on police conduct patterns is irrelevant, but I digress.
When serving a 'regular' warrant they do have to knock and announce. There are exceptions to the rule that cops can rely on 'on the ground' while they're serving the warrant, and they are extremely fact specific. Think things like, serving a warrant for drugs and as soon as they knock and say 'POLICE SEARCH WARRANT' they hear running and a toilet flushing. Or as they pull up to the house they hear a shotgun racking.
Separate from a 'regular' warrant they can go to a judge and lay out why they need to do a 'no knock warrant' right from the jump. There are additional things that would need to be included in the affidavit proving that a 'regular' warrant wouldn't be sufficient and why they need to serve the warrant that way. In that case, it doesn't matter what the cop sees on the ground, as long as they have the no knock warrant they can just kick in the door and do it. These have been problematic politically because they create a huge risk for the safety of everyone involved (and sometimes not 'involved'). There were a few of them a while back, one that I recall in particular where swat flash banged a baby in a crib in the wrong house and took a lot of flack (for good reason).
This situation is also outside the 'knock and announce rule' somebody elsewhere likened it to a wiretap, and that's a much better analogy for this situation then is a standard search warrant.
(all general rules, while I am a lawyer, I am not your lawyer, I am not admitted to practice law in Florida or any other Southeastern jurisdiction, this is merely for entertainment purposes, etc.)
Yea. That makes sense. I disagree the situation is similar to a wiretap as this current incident still requires entry into a building as opposed to tapping a phone line, which does not require entry into a building. Bugging a building would require entry so jurisprudence in that area would likely be on point.
Also, it is my understanding that a no-knock warrant requires that a destruction of evidence would occur if an announcement was made. I was under the impression that would be destruction of evidence at the time of entry, but perhaps it is expanded to include future surveillance evidence too.
I agree forced entry doesn't make sense in this scenario. I just don't know whether false pretenses to execute a warrant is good law or in accordance with what the Founders of the Bill of Rights intended.
In the context of what has been approved by the supreme court, it's absolutely good law.
Doing what I do and seeing what I see every day, the 4th amendment (along with some of the others) no longer exists in a fashion that contains any teeth or deterrent effect. Whether that's a good thing or not I think starts to go down a slippery slope towards politics.
Yes because THAT specific warrant required them to knock and announce.
The trafficking victims did not only work there, they also lived there and were not allowed to go anywhere else. Please explain how you would suggest to get cameras hidden in there without lying if the place is always occupied. I'm not sure why you keep going with this, they didn't just break down the door and raid the place.
They used a sneak and peek / delayed notice / covert entry search warrant, which is legal, and is part of the Patriot Act.
I agree this is a terrible situation. And the perps should be prosecuted to the full extent. I would hate that a miscue in procedure would actually jeopardize the conviction.
Sneak and peek allow for entries when the occupant isn't on the premises. I don't know if there is any jurisprudence on creating a ruse to remove the occupants from the premises. maybe, idk.
Cops can and regularly do lie to suspects/defendants. It's kind of gross, to be honest. It's also widely accepted.
Cops cannot lie to the COURT in obtaining the warrant. What I'm guessing is that they write a warrant to search, I'm assuming based on information obtained by a snitch or undercover cop of some sort saying that you can get a handy for $60+ tip in there. Then the warrant says something like: we'd like to get in there and establish that it's not just one massage therapist that is operating outside of the parlor's rules, because we want to nail the leaders of the operation, so we want to do a 'sneak and peek' wherein we will use some kind of ruse (the warrant may well lay out the specifics of the ruse, but I obviously haven't read it) to get in and get the cameras placed so we can observe them and try to roll up everybody else.
The fact that they refer to is as a 'sneak and peek' warrant in the arrest affidavit makes me think it's a thing they regularly do, and that the cops, DA, and judges signing off know what that means.
(The jurisdictions I practice in do not call them 'sneak and peek' warrants, and don't use anything of this type on a regular basis, so for a lot of reasons I'm not familiar with the specifics, but I can make some assumptions)
hmm..., interesting. thanks for sharing. it seems slimy to me, but hey, I guess that's common in criminal prosecution.
I feel like this would be similar to a wiretap warrant which can absolutely be installed without your knowledge (and wouldn't make sense if it weren't), and lying to you to install it is fine. Officers provide false pretenses all the time for sting operations, undercover work, etc.
wiretap on a phone line or inside a private building? Huge difference in jurisprudence there.
I'm also not commenting on the installation of cameras, but the use of false pretenses to announce entry to perform a warrant approved search.
Similar to a wiretap insofar as they're not "announcing entry" at all, because that would defeat the purpose of the ongoing surveillance. It's not like a "search warrant" where they're gonna come in and look for stuff and seize it, but more like the wiretap (governed by whatever Florida laws and rules pertain to wiretaps or video surveillance) because they're listening/watching without your knowledge. I think lying to install it is probably SOP when necessary. And whether it's a phone line or inside a private building, they've presumably already overcome the burden of proof needed to install the cameras, so it doesn't much matter.
This is my entire question. Is this legal? And if it is, what's the legal basis? perhaps Patriot Act allows lying, idk.
via GIPHY
Honestly, I don't know any case law or statute on this question specifically, but police can lie about evidence they have, having your DNA, getting a confession from an accomplice, telling you you failed a poly to get you to confess, having witnesses, not recording conversations, and a whole host of other things, so it seems pretty sure that the answer is yes, they can lie to you to install these cameras. But again, no answer on this specific question, so technically could be wrong.
This is true. There is a difference between the 4A with 5A in that you have to invoke your rights during an interrogation for the benefits of 5A whereas in 4A no invocation is necessary (although you can forfeit them). Undercover sting operations are a type of false pretenses that are allowed under 4A, but in these situations, the officer can't create the illicit activity. I guess that rational applies in the Orchids case too. An officer would be allowed to enter by any means necessary that in itself isn't creating the illicit activity, although false claiming a bomb scare is a crime in itself, but I digress.
haha yeah, the main point being cops lie all the time about all types of things and it's accepted. This would include during stings, lying about being somebody they're not, which could get them access to a home or apartment that they otherwise wouldn't have access to, and evidence found being admissible. See: Lewis v. US. As far as the bomb threat, as with everything, it's only illegal if you aren't a cop of course! ;)
I think that anywhere you are partially disrobing in order to get a massage you have an expectation of privacy.
It's possible, but an uphill battle. Generally, you don't have very much REP outside your home. Public restrooms, locker rooms, etc. have some REP, but not much. You can ask former MN congressman Larry Craig about his REP in a public male restroom, but I don't think he fought it too hard legally (wasn't really worth the legal fees for 10 days in jail and $1000).
I don't know of a case that recognizes such a privacy for a patron in a business establishment. I'm sure it's an argument the Kraft defense team is making (as they would have to as pretext in order for their primary argument of an invalid warrant to even be considered).
>> You can take your privacy concerns and shove it, they're not worth more than the women that were lured there and forced into "service".
Pretty much what I was saying. Thanks for threatening to correct my morality.
If they followed the legal process to place surveillance cameras in the building, nothing is going to a state appeals court, much less the Supreme Court. This is well established law. And as somebody said below, they don't go after johns for politics, it's to kill the demand, and establish that this was indeed sex trafficking. They likely didn't bring it down earlier because the were building their case, which would involve proving that men were paying for sex. You can't prove they're being exploited for sex without proof that they're actually engaging in sex. Final point: the men paying for sex are at least indirectly responsible for sex trafficking. If they didn't create a demand, nobody would try to fulfill it. People need to be smarter, and more aware of the other side of the activities they engage in. He may not have known they were trafficked, but that involves some willful ignorance of how things work in reality.
>>And as somebody said below, they don't go after johns for politics, it's to kill the demand, and establish that this was indeed sex trafficking.
With certain drugs they didn't even try to kill the demand, but they went vigorously for the supply. I'd be more content with their approach if they went vigorously against the supply here. Rounding up a collection of very bad guys, not Robert Kraft's. At the heart of this process is a very dangerous criminal. Did they find them? This notion that they sweet talked some girls into the american dream sounds dangerously naive. But I dunno from what I understand the sex trafficking is happening everywhere. Usually that many dangerous criminals aren't engaged everywhere.
>>He may not have known they were trafficked, but that involves some willful ignorance of how things work in reality.
Clearly the amount of time he was engaged indicates that he may have known something else was involved in the supply. Still while I was never the type to know my strippers well, its not like there isnt' precedent for "shady" services being provided that didn't involve trafficking? Or maybe they did? If they did how many visits would I have until I was "at least indirectly responsible". I'm not pushing the stripper thing too far as HJ/BJs is clearly something totally different, but it often led to the same place, though never in my case.
I don't get the hostility of so many in these threads. Thanks to the lawyers and others who work in these areas for sharing their perspectives. If I could have another job, I think I'd like to go after human traffickers first, then perhaps a privacy lawyer. Alright those are actually not at the top of my list, but its an interesting area.
Feel like I'm tacking on at this point, but anyways.
Your privacy is protected by the 4th Amendment and any Congressional or state law (there aren't too many state and local laws, and most relate to health, children, medical professionals and lawyers). From your 4th amendment, you're free from search and seizure where you have a "reasonable expectation of privacy." Anytime you're not in your home, you have very limited expectation of privacy, even in private establishments (the owner of the private establishment does have some expectation of privacy, but again less than her home).
In this case, I'm not sure how the cameras were installed and it doesn't matter in Kraft's case, even if they were installed illegally (note: it would matter to the owners of the establishment, but that's a different allegation). Kraft is not in his home or in an establishment that is his own, so he does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy and thus his criminal conduct on camera was acquired lawfully (at least in respect to Kraft).
You have a reasonable expectation of privacy in any place you typically undress in, and that would include massage rooms at a day spa. However, as there was a warrant in place that covered both the establishment and to find anyone engaging in illegal activity, that overrules the expectation of privacy.
For what it's worth, I'm about 95% sure it doesn't say "mouth hug." The blacked out word is the name of the woman.
Don't have to verbalize the transaction for it to count as prostitution (or at least that's what I thought from watching that South Park episode)?
I love south park. But, no. It certainly doesn't have to be verbalized to count as prostitution. I think there's a lot of misconceptions about how these kinds of things work in practice (and this is what I do for a living, so I'm gonna hop up on my soapbox and go on about it). Ultimately, a prosecutor has to be able to convince a jury of one's peers that the actions of the defendant meet the definitions of a criminal act. There are a lot of ways a smart, creative prosecutor could prove those things. When something goes to trial, there are a lot instructions that are read to the jury, to include the elements of the crime. Then the jury goes back and decides if the elements of the crime are met by the evidence that they have seen.
So say you're selling drugs on the drillfield. If someone comes up to you and says nothing, gives you money, and you pass him some weed, are you innocent of distribution of narcotics? Of course not. It's a matter of being able to prove it in Court. In the south park documentary*, if all you had was audio surveillance, it would be helpful to have the target of the sting verbalize what they were giving money for, or when we go to Court, I'm going to tell a jury that he paid the cop/fake prostitute for cleaning the stick shift of his car, or giving him a backrub, or any other conceivable (legal) thing I can come up with that kinda sounds similar to the sounds you can hear on the audio (gross). But here, with it Kraft going in and passing $100+ dollars, getting at least a handy, all captured on (I'm guessing) 4k HD surveillance camera, there's really no question what was happening.
(the human trafficking angle of this is disgusting. I find the behaviors of Kraft and the pimps to be abhorrent. That being said, I deal with the emotional trauma of these kinds of situations with humor and booze, and often south park. So I in no way intend for my comments to downplay the horrors of this thing).
*I understand that south park does not (usually) make documentaries.
And because I'm bored on a Tuesday morning:
What Kraft is particularly charged with (what the jury would decide on after trial) is:
"(Defendant) [solicited] [induced] [enticed] [procured] another to commit [prostitution] [lewdness] [assignation]."
The statute then defines what those words mean:
"Prostitution" is the giving or receiving of the body for sexual activity for hire but excludes sexual activity between spouses.
"Sexual activity" means oral, anal, or vaginal penetration by, or union with, the sexual organ of another; anal or vaginal penetration of another by any other object; or the handling or fondling of the sexual organ of another for the purpose of masturbation; however, the term does not include acts done for bona fide medical purposes.
To "solicit" means to command, encourage, hire, or request another person to engage in specific conduct.
To "procure" means to persuade, induce, prevail upon or cause a person to do something.
So it doesn't look good for Mr. Kraft. (Also, interestingly to me, if you marry someone you can't also be convicted of a crime for paying them for sex with you, which seems very floridaman).
He state attorney has some powerful question for Kraft and his attorney. Why did he go to a strip mall massage place 30 minutes from his home if it was only for a massage?
Some new evidence out about the two women he interacted with. One is the 40 year old manager of the parlor and one is a 58 year old New York licensed massage employee.
I've had this discussion with people in the past that dating, marriage, and relationships are kind of like prostitution in a way. Granted, you get more than sex out of a relationship/marriage hopefully. It may not always be direct (I'll give you money for sex), but there's a certain expectation, perhaps understanding, that one might buy food, jewelry, a car, a house, do chores, etc for sex at some point.
The idea of paying your spouse for sex is moot if you're married in a way, because in most states, assets are shared when married. You can't pay someone something that is already theirs.
I think it's an artifact from long ago in (especially the south) where you could not be convicted of raping your wife. Something like, "unlawful intercourse by a man against a woman who is not his wife by force or threat and against her will." So as long as you were married to someone, the wife's lack of consent to have sexual relations with the perpetrator was irrelevant. Kind of sick, to be honest.
I think that's a different matter altogether. Nothing to do with payment for sexual favors. There were some laws on the books that viewed a wife as property, and you were allowed to do whatever you wanted to your own property.
To treat another human as property or less than is disgusting in my book.
From your user name I always thought you were a lawyer.
14 minutes from entry to to exit... 3 minutes in to get to the good stuff... isn't there supposed to be a massage?
Pitino is jealous someone can last that long.
Have to say this probably wasn't his first rodeo. Doing this without a massage starts to sound like he could be aware of the sex trafficking.
Kinda like how guys get to know their favorite strippers. Any discussions he had could be very damning especially if they show he knew of sex trafficking conditions etc.
Feel a little bad for the old guy... wife dies he seems lost... starts dating a 39 year old... she has some other dude's baby... he continues dating her. $B 77 year olds getting sex is way more complicated than we might think. Poor guy just wants some simple needs fulfilled.
I'll play him a sympathy song on the world's smallest violin.
Some part of your thought process went terribly wrong between your first and last sentence there.
Not sure I can picture Kraft in a baseball cap, always seemed like one of those guys that worried about anything that might affect his head of hair.
Also interesting note was that the first instance apparently occurred the same day as the AFC Championship game so he stopped by in disguise for a quickie to relax himself before his flight to KC I guess. Going to be interesting to see what time his plane left for KC, bet his lawyers try to use that to muddy the waters.
They are probably going to argue he paid for a massage and got something extra for which he tipped well.
He was in the building for less than 15 minutes. What massage could he possibly have paid for? They have video of him only getting a hug and a blowjob, nothing else.
The better argument would be that he was receiving an erectile dysfunction treatment
I love blue humor!
Practicality aside - If you're in charge of the evidence room and someone offers you $10 million to 'accidentally' erase the video, are you tempted?
No. This is evidence in a sex trafficking ring. No amount of money is worth these women's freedom and lives.
Erasing the tape won't undo the busting up of the trafficking ring.
To be crystal clear, I'm not advocating, nor would I agree with, erasing the tape. Just playing Devil's Advocate. Be glad we're not living in Mexico where police officers are sometimes given the choice of looking the other way and getting a few bucks thrown their way or having their families killed.
Right, because that doesn't ever happen in the US.
"Well, TMZ offered me $50m to leak it and I said no."
"Damn, Bob. That is not a good look for the brand"
- Aaron Hernandez' Ghost
It's called a Mississippi Thank You.
Sorry to resurrect this thread, but there still are no charges or evidence related to "sex trafficking". It seems to be common nowadays to label prostitution as "sex trafficking" just to stir panic and drum up support. These stings very rarely involve real human trafficking - but nobody goes back and double checks. They're going to cry wolf too many times and harm the real victims of horrible crimes.
Homeland Security and Florida Cops Spied on Chinese Massage Workers for Months but Still Couldn't Find Evidence of Human Trafficking
Trafficking charges take a lot longer to bring up. Most victims are still scared their families will be harmed or they will be deported. The Feds usually handle those charges and I haven't seen where they were the lead in this case so they may wait until state charges have been certified.
"Most victims are still scared their families will be harmed" - that's a pretty serious accusation without any evidence. If that's true, then it's pathetic on the part of law enforcement that the "victims" were also charged with crimes and are currently locked in a cage. Anyway, be sure to come back here and let me know when the human trafficking charges come in.
Do you know if every girl taken out of there was charged or just some of them? You are panting with a broad brush here.
No, I don't know that. And I want to point out I realize that trafficking does occur and I support all the efforts to crack down on it... What I don't support is when police and media run with a story using terms like "human trafficking" before there is ANY evidence or charges to support it (besides a fridge with food in it). If and WHEN you have the evidence to support a charge like that, THEN you can go talk to the national news about it. Don't spout off a bunch of stuff that doesn't match your police report or charges. Like I said before, it usually (not always) turns out to NOT be related to trafficking. Lately, every time there is a sting for prostitution, people use the "trafficking" terminology interchangeably, and I don't think it's by accident. Even the statistics are counting people who run away from home and choose to become a prostitute and other similar scenarios that are clearly NOT most people's definition of human trafficking. There are also people now pushing the idea that trafficked vs not trafficked is a "distinction without a difference" which is ludicrous and dangerous.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/robert-kraft-arrest-armed-men-moved-sex-tr...
https://www.foxnews.com/us/robert-kraft-arrest-casts-uncomfortable-spotl...
https://patch.com/massachusetts/foxborough/robert-kraft-charged-soliciti...
any forced movement of women to work in prostitution is human/sex trafficking, which this has been reported correctly as being. This has been a long investigation, which is normal as they want to trace the network, and clearly falls into human/sex trafficking. just takes a few moments of google to confirm whether they are using the term with validity.
A "quick google search" reveals that those are things that the sheriff is telling the reporters - not what the police affidavits or arrests are documenting. If an armed man was moving victims with force and threatening them with violence, then he should be arrested... Again, there's no evidence or charges of that (yet). The only thing they've been charged with is racketeering. Another "quick google search" reveals that the primary victim they are trying to get to provide testimony (Shuang Lu) has indeed been arrested with felony charges. If she testifies, they've implied they'll drop the charges. That doesn't sound like an acceptable way to treat somebody you think is a victim.
Let me restate - I don't know what happened in this case. But if the police have evidence and charge people with human trafficking, then they don't need to do a national media tour to stir up outrage. The case facts will do all the speaking necessary.
I do know that I've seen these types of cases turn up nothing over and over - and if that keeps happening, then law enforcement will lose the public support to go after traffickers - which is what makes me furious.
The police should just keep their mouth shut until they know that it is a case of trafficking and they are ready to charge the people responsible.
If you are suggesting that police can only say the things written in a police report then that's not only false but ridiculous. That is an arbitrary expectation that has never applied to police work ever. Police can share information, and do so all the time, with the media and public that is not written in reports. In cases where larger investigations are being undertaken they may withhold pertinent facts to the larger investigation while the smaller arrests are being made. All of this is standard.
If true then this is human trafficking. And yes those people should be arrested. I am not privy to all of the information in the investigation as I am confident you are not either, and it's unnecessary to assume you do. If we are just making assumptions I could likewise assume that the public nature of Kraft being involved exposed the investigation before they were ready to make arrests at a higher level than prostitute and armed driver, which is where breaking an actual trafficking ring would matter.
It sounds exactly how someone who broke prostitution laws are treated. Police want information on the organization and justice is willing to forgive the prostitution charge, which is legitimate, for that information. Welcome to criminal justice. Happens every day. My cousin is an AG and his department does this all the time.
That's your opinion which is fine. Another opinion is that they in fact do need to do that and the public nature of Kraft is helping them exposing something that is rife throughout the United States, which is otherwise overlooked or forgotten by everyday people.
You would have to show evidence of how you "know" this. Here's what my cousin tells me. These cases literally happen all year long and police and justice are constantly trying to peel back the onion layer of the criminal organization behind it which often changes structure and people to keep police at bay. The public rarely acknowledges the existence of these cases let alone to ever become so angered by a perceived mischaracterization by police to cause such outrage to lose general public support to pursue additional arrests and prosecutions. That has never happened, ever.
The same could be said about general critics that are not privy to the information of the larger investigation and are making wildly inaccurate assumptions.
Btw - when is the last time you've seen police share pictures of a full fridge with reporters as evidence of a crime before somebody is even charged with the crime... or describe an extra room with a made-up bed and dressers as "squalor"? The police report doesn't describe it that way.. but he sure likes to use those kind of words when talking to reporters. It's just terrible police practice.
This is just one of the things that comes up for "panting with a brush". No brush is evident here. She must've swallowed it.
Well, the bigger name associated with this Spa's owner was released by the Miami Herald.
You can google the results, as it would go against TKP protocol to post this person's name.
I assume you are talking about the superbowl party with the owner of orchids of asia?
Yes
Make Handys Great Again
I prefer the term 'old fashion'
It's not against policy to state what has been publicly reported. Trump partied with the owner of the spas at his superbowl party. There it is.
Just don't make any opinionated commentary about it.
I like to tread lightly.
It was also reported that the Owner was also at the Inauguration.
Should also be said that she is technically reported to be the former owner and now a political activist of some kind.
It should also be noted that she has a reputation of owning spas that offer the rub 'n tug special, and that before selling this location, this spa already was known for this activity.
Its being reported that this may or may not have been taken at a presidential function with someone who may or may not have been president at the time.
hypothetically
He encouraged those that don't believe in his policies to reach across the aisle and lend a hand to easing the political divisions in this country.
He also wanted to support easing tensions with China. It was important to get a firm grip on the trade deals talks by spending money in his local community. And if we know anything about Drumpf, it is that he likes to lead by example. He is not just a man of incoherent imbecilic rants, he is a man of action!
allegedly, of course
Of course. Allegedly. Heresay and Fake News and all. *wink*
He doesn't just give lip service to supporting entrepreneurship, he rolls up his sleeves and puts his money where his mouth is.
Bumpity bump. Prosecutors find NO evidence of human trafficking. This is in spite of the rhetoric in press conferences that made it seem like this was gonna be such a vile trafficking ring with girls locked in cages, etc. Of course. this isn't surprising to anyone that follows these types of cases. So without getting too political, instead of believing everything a police department tells you, look more into civil rights and how things like "sex trafficking", "war on drugs" etc are being used as excuses to take broad steps to overstep their investigative bounds. Some of you may want to undo some your downvotes on this thread as well.
https://twitter.com/ESPNMichele/status/1116751958579326976
https://deadspin.com/prosecutor-theres-no-evidence-of-sex-trafficking-in...
If prostitution is illegal, you should be able to enforce that law. If it shouldn't be illegal, change the law. But it seems odd to me that when law enforcement enforces a law, the media brings the law into question, and law enforcement has to justify the enforcement of it.
We're talking media narrative, and there always seems to be one. Lawmakers stick their heads out for nobody, and depend on the media to sway public opinion.
States and law enforcement choose which laws to enforce. There is no mandate to enforce every law in the book. Most antiquated laws do not get removed from the books, they just stop getting enforced.
If you want quick change, however, you probably will need legislative or judicial action.