Robert Kraft sex spa case falling apart after judge rules ‘prostitution video’ cannot be used as evidence because Patriots owner was naked, giving him a reasonable expectation of privacy
- Robert Kraft and his defense team are likely preparing a Motion to Dismiss after a judge ruled that two vital bits of evidence in the case would be out at trial
- Video of women allegedly performing sex acts on the Patriots owner was tossed because he was naked, and thus had an expectation of privacy ruled the judge
- As a result, the judge ruled that subsequent traffic stop that was conducted by police was ‘unlawful,’ because he was identified to officers from the video
Robert Kraft scored not one, but two big wins on Monday in a Florida courtroom.
It was ordered by Judge Leonard Hanser that hidden camera footage which allegedly showed multiple women performing sex acts on the embattled billionaire for money could not be used as evidence in his upcoming trial.
Furthermore, the subsequent traffic stop of Kraft which was conducted on the basis of that video was also tossed by Judge Hanser, who ruled it was ‘unlawful.’
The crucial off-season victory by Kraft’s defense team will likely be followed with the filing of a Motion to Dismiss.
State’s Attorney Dave Aronberg and his team in Palm Beach County are hard at work as well not doubt, preparing a motion to appeal Judge Hanser’s ruling.
Offseason win: Robert Kraft (above at the Super Bowl in February) and his defense team are likely preparing a Motion to Dismiss after a judge ruled that two vital bits of evidence in the case would be out at trial
The buff stuff: Video of women allegedly performing sex acts on the Patriots owner was tossed because he was naked (above), and thus had an expectation of privacy ruled the judge
Drive by: As a result, the judge ruled that subsequent traffic stop that was conducted by police was ‘unlawful,’ because he was identified to officers from the video (above)
Kraft’s defense team had been relentless in their quest to get the video evidence in the case thrown out, filing more than 20 motions over the past month
His attorneys listed a number of reasons why the tape should not be admissible in court, but it was ultimately their argument that Kraft had a reasonable expectation of privacy under the Fourth Amendment that swayed then judge to rule in the defendant’s favor.
‘Seeking even legitimate services in a spa normally involves removing all or most of a person’s clothing, behavior almost as private as would occur in a home,’ wrote Judge Hanser.
He went on to state that it was the Court’s belief that ‘society objectively supports as reasonable’ an individual’s expectation of privacy in this instance.
There were also number of other points that had been made by the defense team which Judge Hanser agreed with in his motion, including the fact that police investigating the case took far too many liberties once a judge had signed off on a search warrant.
‘[F]irst the search warrant itself is insufficient,’ noted Judge Hanser.
‘[A]nd, second, minimization techniques were not employed.’
The most glaring example of the latter according to Judge Hanser was the fact that women were filmed by the hidden cameras despite there being no mention of the spa providing illegal services to female clients.