| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Howee
Joined: 27 Nov 2009
Posts: 15737
Location: OREGON (in my heart)
Back to top |
|
justintyme
Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 8407
Location: Northfield, MN
Back to top |
 Posted: 05/14/19 6:42 pm ::: |
Reply  |
|
| Excellent ruling. Kudos to the judge.
_________________
↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
|
|
justintyme
Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 8407
Location: Northfield, MN
Back to top |
|
Howee
Joined: 27 Nov 2009
Posts: 15737
Location: OREGON (in my heart)
Back to top |
|
justintyme
Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 8407
Location: Northfield, MN
Back to top |
| Posted: 05/14/19 8:36 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Howee wrote: |
| justintyme wrote: |
| Unless you mean you wouldn't mind them putting a camera in the changing room of a store... |
Well, honestly....*I* wouldn't mind at all. The Rest of The Universe might, tho. 
I've done massages in legit salons. I certainly appreciate folks not wanting that experience broadcast for general viewing. But if footage of me getting a massage helps a criminal investigation....?? God bless the viewers!
Now, I must agree: Dr.'s office, Dentist, etc., should not be a place for surveillance. But a questionable massage parlor potentially dealing in sex trade work is also quite different....how does one balance Right to Privacy with protection and justice for innocents being abused? |
The balance is what the judge was ruling on.
This isn't him saying that you can never record in these rooms, it is that there needs to be protections in place to keep innocent people's privacy in check. In this case, there are two issues:
1) The judge issuing the warrant needed to specify exactly how the police were supposed to view the recordings. Typically this involves them being able to sample the tapes at a certain interval for a very short prescribed amount of time looking for probable cause. If none is found they must stop and move on to the next person. It is only with cause can they then watch for a longer time, and even then that time is limited by reasonability.
The judge rules here that the issuing judge erred by not ordering these restraints, which made the warrant unlawful.
2) By Florida law, recordings are only supposed to be used in the investigation of high level felony crimes (like murder and rape). The idea being that catching these sorts of criminals serves the public to a degree that outweighs the potential violation of privacy. To use an extreme example, it's not going to bother me at all to be videotaped because they have probable cause there is a serial killer in the building, while it would bother me a great deal if it were to catch a jaywalker.
Here the judge pointed out that this was all misdemeanor level prostitution charges, not high level crimes that people were charged with. If people actually got hit with sex trafficking, this ruling likely would have gone differently as it would have changed that metric.
So this was all about the balance, and what the judge was ruling (and imo due to the evidence of this case, rightfully so), is that the balance was all out of whack and thus needed to be thrown out to protect people's civil liberties.
_________________
↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
|
|
|
|
