Skip to main content

Exit WCAG Theme

Switch to Non-ADA Website

Accessibility Options

Select Text Sizes

Select Text Color

Website Accessibility Information Close Options
Close Menu

Florida Case & All Criminal Charges Dropped Against Robert Kraft


In late September, Florida prosecutors officially dropped all criminal charges of solicited prostitution against Robert Kraft in connection with the case brought against him last year, alleging that he engaged in these acts at the Orchids of Asia Day spa. The case fell apart earlier in August when the Florida appeals court upheld the district court ruling that the police violated Fourth Amendment protections in setting up unlimited, continuous surveillance of the spa that captured all clients, including those who engaged in both illegal and legal acts, and barred the evidence from being introduced at trial.

As a result, prosecutors were left with insufficient evidence to support a prosecution and, according to statements released by state attorney general Ashley Moody, continuing to appeal the case to the state Supreme Court could have broad, negative implications affecting law enforcement in future cases. A judge will now decide whether the footage will be permanently destroyed, pursuant to a motion filed by Kraft, even though prosecutors have indicated that felony charges against the owner and manager of the spa will still move forward. A class-action case has also been filed against the state attorney who filed charges against Kraft and a number of other men.

Another Win for Fourth Amendment Protections & Minimizing Surveillance

Prosecutors frequently argue that the Fourth Amendment allows judges to issue warrants if police demonstrate probable cause and they need only specify the location of the search and what can be seized.  In this case, police set up the video recording to run indiscriminately in each of the facility’s rooms for the entire three days of the investigation, capturing every patron who went into the facility–regardless of whether or not they were engaging in any illegal activities–and police failed to describe how they would minimize their surveillance in their warrant applications, ultimately arguing that they were not required to do so, and afterward even that they had effectively done so by only recording for three days total.

However, in throwing out the video evidence due to constitutional violations, several judges chastised the police for how they procured warrants to install the hidden cameras. A number of rulings out of the US Supreme Court have expanded Fourth Amendment protections, including some that specifically apply to electronic surveillance used by police. As a result, the decision is an important one in terms of upholding surveillance minimization requirements in order to protect civilians’ rights.

What About Privacy Rights?

Kraft also argued that he and other patrons possessed a reasonable expectation of privacy in the rooms where they were recorded, although prosecutors argued that even if their privacy rights were violated, only improperly-seized evidence should be thrown out and any and all other recordings permitted as evidence in the case. In addition to holding that the recordings violated rights against unreasonable searches and seizures, the appeals court also held that this type of “covert, intrusive video surveillance is subject to heightened standards and procedures,” while not directly speaking to the right to privacy, However, the concurrence affirmed the decision based on the guarantee of this right by Florida’s Constitution, as well as Florida’s statutory prohibition against the use of audio surveillance for prostitution-related offenses.

If You Have Any Questions About Sex Crime or Other Criminal Charges in Florida, Contact Our Defense Team Today

If you have any questions about sex crime offense charges or any other criminal charges in Florida, contact the Orlando criminal defense attorneys of The Baez Law Firm for a free consultation to find out how we can use our vast experience, resources, and skills to serve you.



By submitting this form I acknowledge that form submissions via this website do not create an attorney-client relationship, and any information I send is not protected by attorney-client privilege.

DISCLAIMER: This website contains information about The Baez Law Firm that includes testimonial statements from persons who are familiar with the firm's services. The testimonials shown are not necessarily representative of every person's experience with us. Testimonials from every client are not provided. As no two situations or persons are identical, the facts and circumstances of your situation may differ from those for which testimonials are shown. This website also includes information about some of the past results that we have obtained for our clients. Not all results are provided, and the results shown are not necessarily representative of all results obtained by us. No two situation are exactly alike; every person's situation is unique and the outcome for each person depends on the individual facts.

The information on this website is for general information purposes only. Nothing on this site should be taken as legal advice for any individual case or situation. This information is not intended to create, and receipt or viewing does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship.

Skip footer and go back to main navigation