Judge: Kraft’s prosecutors cannot use massage parlor video
WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. — Prosecutors cannot use secretly recorded video allegedly showing New England Patriots owner Robert Kraft engaging in massage parlor sex, a judge ruled Monday, striking a serious blow to their case against him and others charged with soliciting prostitutes at the Orchids of Asia Day Spa.
In his 10-page ruling, Judge Leonard Hanser wrote that Jupiter police detectives and the judge who issued the search warrant allowing the secret installation of cameras at the spa did not do enough to minimize the invasion of privacy of customers who only received legal massages. Hanser also ruled that detectives cannot testify about what they saw on the video or when they stopped Kraft.
If upheld on appeal, Hanser’s ruling could lead to prosecutors dropping the second-degree misdemeanor cases against Kraft and other men charged with paying for sex at the Orchids of Asia Day Spa. Kraft, 77, has pleaded not guilty but issued a public apology.
“The fact that some totally innocent women and men had their entire lawful time spent in a massage room fully recorded and viewed intermittently by a detectivemonitor is unacceptable,” Hanser wrote. He said the judge should have given the officers explicit instruction for how to monitor the video.
Kraft’s attorneys declined comment. Palm Beach County State Attorney spokesman Mike Edmondson said prosecutors were still reviewing the ruling but would appeal if they found a legal basis. The ruling is similar to one in a neighboring county, where a judge also suppressed video of men allegedly paying for massage parlor sex.
Kraft’s attorneys argued during a recent hearing aimed at throwing out the recordings that Florida law allowing audio wiretaps says they can only be used for serious felonies such as murder or kidnapping, not lesser offenses such as prostitution. They argued video, which is not specifically covered under Florida law, should have a higher threshold.
Hanser agreed, writing “video surveillance is even more invasive of privacy, just as a strip search is more invasive than a pat down search.”