Well done.I'm sure Kraft's legal team is already set to pounce on any publication/site that disseminates it.
To me he just looks rich, which he is.Kraft looks smart for hiring some good lawyers and fighting this.
If the video is out for the masseuse as well, what do they have for a charge on her?They only need the masseuses’ testimony, no? I assume they’ll get that in exchange for immunity, which Kraft’s team will use to impeach her, but still should be effective.
Is there any motion that Kraft can make now, arguing that the jury pool is hopelessly tainted given that the prosecutor chose to go to the press talking up a tape that now has been ruled inadmissible?They only need the masseuses’ testimony, no? I assume they’ll get that in exchange for immunity, which Kraft’s team will use to impeach her, but still should be effective.
I’m a Patriots fan and have been paying pretty much no attention to this before sadly opening this thread today. I could easily qualify. You think you can’t find 12 random people in Florida who don’t give a fuck about the Patriots owner and haven’t been paying any attention to all this?I think the state pretty much has to appeal, since this ruling would presumably affect many defendants. Unless they all pled I guess.
Is there any motion that Kraft can make now, arguing that the jury pool is hopelessly tainted given that the prosecutor chose to go to the press talking up a tape that now has been ruled inadmissible?
Lots of these juror pool arguments are kind of a stretch, but this actually seems to have merit. How are you going to find 12 people where at least a few of them are not going to bring the existence of the tape that they are not allowed to see, into the jury room. I'm sure some jurors will lie in voir dire, but a he-said/she-said trial where there has been extensive press coverage of a video that supposedly confirms one side of the story for a famous defendant, but the video itself is inadmissible, seems like a pretty tilted trial.
For a danger of unfair prejudice this specific, I can't imagine a general "don't speculate based on things you've heard in the press" instruction is good enough. And certainly, you can't give a more specific instruction: "You may have heard of a video tape showing the defendant engaged in illegal acts, but there is no such videotape in evidence and you are not speculate about what such a video might or might now show if it did or didn't exist."
Problem is, you do not have to be a patriots fan or even a sports fan to be aware of this news...You do not even need to be actively Seeking out news on this story.I’m a Patriots fan and have been paying pretty much no attention to this before sadly opening this thread today. I could easily qualify. You think you can’t find 12 random people in Florida who don’t give a fuck about the Patriots owner and haven’t been paying any attention to all this?
They found a jury for OJ. (And who watches the NBC evening news?)Problem is, you do not have to be a patriots fan or even a sports fan to be aware of this news...You do not even need to be actively Seeking out news on this story.
do you want to guess NBC nightly news lead story tonight?
Trump? No
Storms? No
CHINA? NO
Pilot arrested for a triple murder while in the cockpit?
Kraft? DING DING! YUP!
Not so much. He spent a half million bucks and had the story in the papers for weeks and everybody who cares at all knows there absolutely is a video of him paying for sex acts but great, he doesn't have to pay a $1000 fine and take a course.Kraft looks smart for hiring some good lawyers and fighting this.
Presumably avoids punishment and a public shaming from the NFL.Not so much. He spent a half million bucks and had the story in the papers for weeks and everybody who cares at all knows there absolutely is a video of him paying for sex acts but great, he doesn't have to pay a $1000 fine and take a course.
Which is weird, because the admissibility of evidence in court is not the standard by which NFL players are suspended.Presumably avoids punishment and a public shaming from the NFL.
NFL can do whatever. Perhaps it changes the odds of the NFL doing something but getting a lot of publicity probably increases rather than decreases the chance of league punishment.Presumably avoids punishment and a public shaming from the NFL.
Relative to the issue of active or inactive files, it is only active criminal intelligence or investigative information--as defined and delimited by the provisions of s. 119.011(3), F. S.--which is exempt from the Public Records Law;
Yeah, my wife has zero clue about this story, and still knows nothing about who Robert Kraft is. Outside of sports and SoSH, most of my news sources have not even mentioned this story. Easy enough to find people ignorant of the story.They found a jury for OJ. (And who watches the NBC evening news?)
There were folks on the jury for the USFL v. NFL suit who had never heard of the NFL.Yeah, my wife has zero clue about this story, and still knows nothing about who Robert Kraft is. Outside of sports and SoSH, most of my news sources have not even mentioned this story. Easy enough to find people ignorant of the story.
There is very little that you can assume is universally known. I met someone who didn't know about Game of Thrones the other day - I don't mean "I don't watch the show" , I mean "can you tell me what Game of Thrones is?".
Beg your pardon?I am not sure this ruling blocks release of the video. Its release was held up by concerns of tainting the jury pool I believe. If the case gets dismissed that concern goes away.
Again:It seems like bullshit, though. I wonder if any of the innocents on the tape would have some sort of civil claim. Basically, they were captured pursuant to an unconstitutional warrant, doing private things, that the State is now claiming that it has no choice but to reveal to the public under sunshine laws.
I'm sure there's immunity or some statutory protection, but looked at from the perspective of the innocent person wrongfully captured pursuant to an unconstitutional warrant, it seems like a problem.
Legality and fairness aren't in lockstep here. Knowing potential damages are inevitable to the actual innocents is reason enough to prevent the release in some fashion.Again:
2) The proper recourse here for anyone suffering damages as a result of the improper collection and resulting release of video would be to sue the police department.
What damages? What innocents?Legality and fairness aren't in lockstep here. Knowing potential damages are inevitable to the actual innocents is reason enough to prevent the release in some fashion.
There were citizens filmed in the act of disrobing, redressing, and receiving 100% legal above board massages during this investigation. I think it is fair to term them "actual innocents". I fail to see why their expectation of privacy in a private venue should be violated and/or video allowed to be disseminated as 'work product of a police investigation'. As such, I don't agree that they should be sacrificed to the gods of "law enforcement accountability". I'd not want it for myself, nor anyone I know. Your statement was that there are "almost always provisions" in the law to protect innocents if the agency "*reasonably" believes they should be protected for their safety - so we can't trust the agency so we must endure embarrassments - unless the agency we can't trust decides we have a reasonable safety issue. Seems mighty circular. And clearly, being embarrassed is not a safety issue, so just let the video be put on youtube.What damages? What innocents?
What are you talking about? Give specifics. Because if there is recognizable damages, then yes, the identity can be withheld. But "This is so embarrassing" is not, per se, "damages". And that goes double when we are talking about people who are in the process of breaking the law in the video.
Law enforcement does not, and should not, have discretion to limit public availability of information that reveal the extent of its own fuckups. Otherwise you're enabling the PDs that scratch and claw for a way to keep body and squad cam video of a shooting or assault by a Police Officer under wraps. "We are opting to withhold the video of the assault because it will be hurtful to the victim's family, and besides, we really shouldn't have this in the first place because it was all a big mistake. We're really trying to look out for the victim here, swear."
Having the ability to hold law enforcement accountable is far more important than saving a few people some embarrassment or agita.
I think we're talking past each other.Again:
1) There are almost always provisions in sunshine laws to protect innocent witnesses/victims if the agency *reasonably* believes their ID should be protected for their safety. Now, it's possible that FL has a provision that protects victims of sexual trafficking, but it's still an open question whether the "masseuses" are such victims or simply engaged in uncoerced prostitution. If it's the latter, I'm not sure why they warrant protection from public disclosure laws. "That's embarrassing" is not enough, and would give law enforcement all the authorization it needs to withhold 99.9% of would-be public documents from ever seeing the light of day. That would be bad.
2) The proper recourse here for anyone suffering damages as a result of the improper collection and resulting release of video would be to sue the police department.
Forget it Denny, it's Florida law.I think we're talking past each other.
A sneak and peek warrant that does not minimize intrusion is unconstitutional because it constitutes an unwarranted invasion of privacy. It seems perverse to say that such an invasion of privacy then must be made public under state law. This is most apparent from the perspective of a person who was naked in the massage parlor and who did nothing wrong and who is now in public records solely because of the unconstitutional activities of state officials who did not adequately take their privacy into account.
Who is saying anything about giving law enforcement the power to block what is revealed under public records laws? I would, were I writing the law, give those whose privacy would be violated by public disclosure the right to see to enjoin the disclosure, especially if the only reason the information is in the public record is because of illegal state conduct.
I think that's one remedy, but preventing disclosure is a more logical one. If the case is dismissed, presumably the police will join a motion not to release the tape becasue they realize they do have this potential liability.Again:
2) The proper recourse here for anyone suffering damages as a result of the improper collection and resulting release of video would be to sue the police department.
That can work both ways, there are plenty of private defense counsel happy to let the public defenders do the heavy lifting.Also pretty clear that the others busted without the Kraft budget were very fortunate to have a billionaire fighting the big issues for them.
We still doing "phrasing?"It seems to me with all the holes in the police/state attorney's case here, it wouldn't take a billionaire's lawyer to get this tossed. The whole thing was ridiculous on it's face. Kraft ought to use his resources to sue the police once this thing is over with. There is some potential value to be had from such an action.
They can't even get the therpists to testify. Really bad, possibly illegal police work here, IMO.
In terms of "innocent" bystanders or 3rd parties being harmed by the release of the video , couldn't their bodies or faces be pixilated or otherwise made unidentifiable on the video? I remember watching the old Cops TV show as a kid and the producers on the show always managed to pixilate the faces of the bystanders in a crime scene. Why couldn't that be done in this case?What damages? What innocents?
What are you talking about? Give specifics. Because if there is recognizable damages, then yes, the identity can be withheld. But "This is so embarrassing" is not, per se, "damages". And that goes double when we are talking about people who are in the process of breaking the law in the video.
Law enforcement does not, and should not, have discretion to limit public availability of information that reveal the extent of its own fuckups. Otherwise you're enabling the PDs that scratch and claw for a way to keep body and squad cam video of a shooting or assault by a Police Officer under wraps. "We are opting to withhold the video of the assault because it will be hurtful to the victim's family, and besides, we really shouldn't have this in the first place because it was all a big mistake. We're really trying to look out for the victim here, swear."
Having the ability to hold law enforcement accountable is far more important than saving a few people some embarrassment or agita.
PDs can absolutely blur the faces of people, assuming they have the technology (it can be expensive, but larger PDs surely have it). It's used frequently.In terms of "innocent" bystanders or 3rd parties being harmed by the release of the video , couldn't their bodies or faces be pixilated or otherwise made unidentifiable on the video? I remember watching the old Cops TV show as a kid and the producers on the show always managed to pixilate the faces of the bystanders in a crime scene. Why couldn't that be done in this case?
I imagine "unpixalating" technology has improved over the decades
I'm pretty sure you just have to yell "Enhance!" at the computer screen a few times, and the image will resolve to incredible levels of detail...I imagine "unpixalating" technology has improved over the decades
Mission Impossible 7 is set to be released in 2021, so I bet they aren't using their computers till at least next summer. Should be able to get those cheap on loan.I'm pretty sure you just have to yell "Enhance!" at the computer screen a few times, and the image will resolve to incredible levels of detail...
"This system is encrypted with a truly random key the same length as the encrypted data! ... Okay, I'm in."Mission Impossible 7 is set to be released in 2021, so I bet they aren't using their computers till at least next summer. Should be able to get those cheap on loan.
I respect your POV RR. Can you please be more specific?We still doing "phrasing?"
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=phrasingI respect your POV RR. Can you please be more specific?
I know I come off with a lot of negative passion on this. Maybe I incorrectly phrased but I honestly don't know what you mean.
I'm pretty sure you just have to yell "Enhance!" at the computer screen a few times, and the image will resolve to incredible levels of detail...
Yes, but not from a public shaming by ME.a public shaming from the NFL