State v. Kraft
| Decision Date | 19 August 2020 |
| Docket Number | 4D19-1751,4D19-1738,4D19-1805,4D19-1756,4D19-1691,4D19-1677,4D19-1748,4D19-1783,4D19-1663,4D19-1694,4D19-1669,4D19-1656,4D19-1684,4D19-1750,4D19-1659,4D19-1742,No. 4D19-2024,4D19-1806,4D19-1774,4D19-1717,4D19-1767,4D19-1743,4D19-1749,4D19-1718,4D19-1765,4D19-1739,4D19-1715,4D19-1685,4D19-1704,4D19-1766,4D19-1741,4D19-1776,4D19-1662,4D19-1775,4D19-1763,4D19-1753,4D19-1672,4D19-1658,4D19-1772,4D19-1678,4D19-1754,4D19-1773,4D19-1692,4D19-1755,4D19-1673,4D19-1661,No. 4D19-1499,4D19-1666,4D19-1664,4D19-1697,4D19-1777,4D19-1761,4D19-1785,4D19-1710,4D19-1764,4D19-1668,4D19-1752,4D19-1712,4D19-1744,4D19-1781,4D19-1703,4D19-1709,4D19-1701,4D19-1708,4D19-1779,4D19-1711,4D19-1675,4D19-1732,4D19-1733,Nos. 4D19-1655,4D19-1760,4D19-1702,4D19-1762,4D19-1759,4D19-1734,4D19-1770,4D19-1667,4D19-1745,4D19-1809,4D19-1671,4D19-1771,4D19-1688,4D19-1740,4D19-1657,4D19-1706,4D19-1682,4D19-1683,4D19-1676,4D19-1670,4D19-1679,4D19-1707,4D19-1674,4D19-1803,4D19-1686,4D19-1778,4D19-1714,4D19-1680,4D19-1687,4D19-1699,4D19-1807,4D19-1757,4D19-1700,4D19-1769,4D19-1747,4D19-1716,4D19-1737,4D19-1768,4D19-1693,4D19-1784,4D19-1746,4D19-1665,4D19-1713,4D19-1681,4D19-1719,4D19-1808,4D19-1780,4D19-1689,4D19-1690,4D19-1782,4D19-1705,4D19-1758,4D19-1695,4D19-1804,4D19-1698,4D19-1736,4D19-1735,4D19-1696,4D19-1660,4D19-1499,s. 4D19-1655,4D19-2024 |
| Parties | STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Robert KRAFT, Appellee. State of Florida, Appellant, v. Robert Freels, et al, Appellees. State of Florida, Appellant, v. Hua Zhang, Lei Wang, Lei Chen, and Shen Mingbi Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Amit Agarwal, Solicitor General, and Jeffrey Paul DeSousa, Deputy Solicitor General, Tallahassee, for appellant.
Derek L. Shaffer, William A. Burck, and Sandra Moser of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, Washington, D.C., and Alex Spiro of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, New York, NY, Pro Hac Vice; and Frank A. Shepherd of GrayRobinson, P.A., Miami, for appellee Robert Kraft.
Michael Ufferman of Michael Ufferman Law Firm, P.A., Tallahassee; and Andrew B. Metcalf of the Law Offices of Green, Metcalf & Lazan, Vero Beach, for appellees Robert Freels, et al.
Tama Beth Kudman of Tama Beth Kudman, P.A., West Palm Beach, for appellee Hua Zhang.
Kathleen S. Phang of Katie S. Phang, P.A., Coral Gables; Zachary P. Hyman of Berger Singerman LLP, Miami; Christopher N. Bellows and Edward Diaz of Holland & Knight LLP, Miami; William N. Shepherd and Jeff Schacknow of Holland & Knight, West Palm Beach, for appellee Lei Wang.
Michael S. Brown of the Law Office of Michael S. Brown, PLLC, Orlando, for appellees Lei Chen and Shen Mingbi.
Donnie Murrell, West Palm Beach, Amicus Curiae for Due Process Institute.
David Oscar Markus, National Co-Chair, Amicus Committee, Miami, Amicus Curiae for National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.
Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and Justin F. Karpf, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, Amicus Curiae for The Florida Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.
Leonard Feuer of Leonard Feuer, P.A., West Palm Beach, Amicus Curiae for Professor Stephen A. Saltzburg, Esq. of George Washington University Law School and Professor Ronald Goldstock, Esq. of New York University School of Law.
Harvey J. Sepler of Rimon, P.C., Hollywood, Amicus Curiae for The Independence Institute.
In these three consolidated cases,1 the State of Florida appeals trial court orders granting motions to suppress non-audio video surveillance that was recorded with hidden cameras covertly installed inside massage parlors suspected of housing prostitution activity. We find the trial courts properly concluded that the criminal defendants had standing to challenge the video surveillance and that total suppression of the video recordings was constitutionally warranted.
These cases arise from investigations conducted by three law enforcement agencies on two massage parlors. We summarize the relevant facts of each investigation and the procedural posture leading to these appeals.
Detectives with the Martin County Sheriff's Office were investigating prostitution and possible human trafficking at massage parlors in Martin County. They alerted a Jupiter Police Department detective about the Orchids of Asia Day Spa in the Town of Jupiter because one of Orchids of Asia Day Spa's former employees was allegedly managing the massage parlor being investigated in Martin County.
The Jupiter detective began researching websites that advertise prostitution services and found ads classifying the spa as a massage business where female employees offer a sexual act involving manual manipulation of the male genitals for money.
Jupiter police surveilled the spa for several days and observed more than 100 men enter and remain for 30 to 60 minutes. A few women entered the spa, and they exited soon after, leading the detective to conclude that the female patrons had not obtained prostitution services. The spa kept odd hours, sometimes staying open until midnight.
The detective contacted and shared his concerns with an investigator with the Florida Department of Health, who conducted an annual inspection. During the health inspection, the spa's manager appeared nervous. As the inspector entered rooms containing beds, clothing, a flat iron, and other personal items, the manager tried to cover things with a blanket.
During the health inspection, Jupiter police saw a woman discard something in the dumpster outside the spa. Police pulled trash from the dumpster and retrieved tissues with seminal fluid. Police also found receipts matching a name ("Lulu") seen on one of the illicit massage websites. In furtherance of their investigation, police pulled over four men seen leaving the spa, and each one admitted to the detective that they paid a fee to receive manual stimulation at the end of the massage. Three of the men identified the spa employees that provided the services.
The Jupiter detective then applied for a warrant to install secret, non-audio video cameras in the spa and to monitor and record the video. A magistrate issued a warrant allowing police to install hidden cameras at the spa in places where prostitution was believed to be occurring and in the lobby. The warrant prohibited cameras in areas where prostitution was not suspected, such as the kitchen, bathroom, and personal bedrooms.
The warrant allowed non-audio video recording for no more than five days to obtain evidence of prostitution and the felony offense of deriving support from the proceeds of prostitution. The warrant did not discuss or otherwise direct any police conduct related to "minimization," and the detectives were not given any type of formal written instructions about how to minimize.
Using a phony bomb threat to clear the building, police installed hidden cameras in four of the spa's massage rooms and in the lobby. Three detectives monitored and recorded video from the hidden cameras over five days. The cameras recorded video continuously, but Jupiter detectives monitored the video feeds only during business hours.
The detectives toggled between the video feeds when they displayed or when they thought they might soon display criminal conduct. They focused on the end of the massages because the sexual conduct typically occurred at the end. In all, police recorded 25 spa customers pay for sexual services. Ten more customers were suspected to have paid for sex, but the offenses could not be confirmed due to dim lighting. Four customers, including two women, were recorded who did not engage in illegal activity.
In Kraft , 4D19-1499, the appellee was filmed visiting the spa on two occasions and was stopped by the police while driving away after his second visit. He was later charged with two misdemeanor counts of soliciting prostitution.
In Zhang , 4D19-2024, the spa's employees—including the owner (Hua Zhang) and manager (Lei Wang)—were charged with misdemeanor and felony prostitution-related offenses.
Kraft and the spa employees moved to suppress the videos of the prostitution offenses on several grounds. The county court in Kraft's misdemeanor case granted the motion to suppress because the search warrant was deficient in failing to set out "minimization"2 procedures and because police did not sufficiently minimize the recording of conduct outside the scope of the warrant.
Additionally, the county court in Kraft's case certified three questions of great public importance:
This court accepted jurisdiction.
Likewise, the circuit court in Zhang suppressed the videos on the same grounds, and the state has timely appealed both matters.
The Indian River County Sheriff's Office began investigating the East Sea Spa in Sebastian, Florida, after learning that other law enforcement agencies were combating illicit massage businesses in their jurisdictions. A sergeant discovered that the spa had posted ads for sexual services on websites. The assigned sergeant surveilled the business and observed a disproportionate number of men visiting the spa. Many of the men looked around the parking lot suspiciously before entering. One man, a registered sex offender, fled the spa upon seeing a uniformed officer in the parking lot.
The sergeant pulled trash and located tissues with seminal fluid. He stopped two men leaving the spa, and they admitted that they paid for sexual gratification at the end of the massage.
The sergeant suspected that the female massage workers were living in the spa. Throughout his surveillance, he never saw the women leave at...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Taig v. City of Vero Beach
...Court Judge granted the motion to suppress, and the Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed. Id. ¶ 96; id. at 296-303; State v. Kraft, 301 So.3d 981 (Fla. 4th Dist. Ct. App. 2020). The appellate court first held that the individuals had standing to raise a challenge under the Fourth Amend......