Lawsuit Against Jupiter Police Department
Lawsuit Against Jupiter Police Department
Lawsuit Against Jupiter Police Department
Defendants.
Plaintiff John Doe, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, files this Amended
Class Action Complaint against the Town of Jupiter Police Department (the “Jupiter Police”),
Detective Andrew Sharp #412/1101 of the Jupiter Police (“Sharp”), and David Aronberg, State
Attorney for the 15th Judicial District Florida (“Aronberg”) (collectively, “Defendants”) and alleges
as follows:
INTRODUCTION
1. The United States Constitution protects individuals’ rights to privacy and freedom
from unreasonable searches. Accordingly, the government is allowed to intrude into private property
and video record conduct only when it can show probable cause that: (a) specific grave crimes are
being committed; (b) additional evidence of those crimes is needed; (c) no other means of obtaining
that evidence is available; and (d) any intrusion will be narrowly tailored to avoid excessive invasion
of privacy.
Case 9:19-cv-80513-DMM Document 10 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/19/2019 Page 2 of 13
around January 19, 2019 by spying on him while he was in a state of undress in a private massage
room at a private spa facility, despite having failed to meet the constitutional requirements to
3. This action is brought as a class action of persons who patronized the Orchids of Asia
Day Spa (the “Spa”) from January 18, 2019 to January 22, 2019, were videotaped without their
knowledge or consent while receiving a lawful massage, and have not been charged with any crime
for their patronage of the Spa during the referenced time period.
4. Mr. Doe brings this action to hold Defendants accountable for their knowing
5. This is an action at law and in equity pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for deprivation
under color of state law of rights, privilege, and immunities secured by the Constitution.
THE PARTIES
7. The Town of Jupiter Police Department is a law enforcement agency located within
8. Andrew Sharp is employed as a detective by the Jupiter Police, is over the age of 18,
on information and belief is a resident of Palm Beach County, Florida, and is being sued in his
individual capacity for knowingly violating Mr. Doe’s and the class members’ constitutional rights.
Sharp is the affiant on several publicly-available affidavits sworn in connection with the
investigation described below, from which this action arises. Upon information and belief, Sharp
2
Case 9:19-cv-80513-DMM Document 10 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/19/2019 Page 3 of 13
9. David Aronberg is the State Attorney for Palm Beach County, Florida, is over the age
of 18, on information and belief is a resident of Palm Beach County, Florida, and is being sued in his
individual capacity for knowingly violating Mr. Doe’s and the class members’ constitutional rights.
The Florida State Attorney’s Office, 15th Judicial District, is a Florida government agency tasked
with the prosecution of criminal offenses in Palm Beach County, Florida, which includes Jupiter,
Florida.
10. John Doe1 is an adequate class representative because he, like all members of the
proposed class, suffered the same injury (invasion of privacy under §1983) caused by the same
unlawful conduct (unconstitutional/unlawful video recording), which was committed by the same
defendants, at the same location (the Spa), on approximately the same dates (from January 18, 2019
to January 22, 2019). Moreover, like all members of the proposed class, John Doe was recorded
without his permission and while receiving lawful massage therapy. Neither John Doe nor the other
members of the class have been charged with any crimes relating to or arising from the conduct that
11. The class is defined as patrons of the Spa from January 18, 2019 to January 22, 2019,
who were video-taped without their knowledge or consent while receiving a lawful massage and
have not been charged with any crime for their patronage of the Spa during the referenced time
period.
12. Damages would be readily ascertainable as to the effect of the unlawful activity on
1
“John Doe” or “Mr. Doe” will refer to the individual. “John Does” and “Jane Does” will refer
to the members of the putative class.
3
Case 9:19-cv-80513-DMM Document 10 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/19/2019 Page 4 of 13
13. Questions of law common to the class, include, without limitation, whether:
b. Defendants obtained the “sneak and peak” warrant for the video surveillance
recorded; and
video record patrons of the Spa, including while disrobed and receiving
14. Upon information and belief, the size of the class is at least 17 members, including
John Doe. Discovery is needed to ascertain the full size of the class.
15. John Doe seeks class certification pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
23(b)(1) because prosecuting separate actions would create a risk of inconsistent or varying
adjudications with respect to individual class members that would establish incompatible standards
of conduct for Defendants. Moreover, prosecuting separate actions would create a risk of
adjudications with respect to individual class members that, as a practical matter, would be
dispositive of the interests of the other members not parties to the individual adjudications or would
4
Case 9:19-cv-80513-DMM Document 10 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/19/2019 Page 5 of 13
16. John Doe seeks class certification pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
23(b)(2) because Defendants have acted or refused to act on grounds that apply generally to the
class, so that final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief is appropriate respecting the
class as a whole.
17. John Doe seeks class certification pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
23(b)(3) because the questions of law and fact common to class members predominate over any
questions affecting only individual members, and a class action is superior to other available
methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating this controversy. If Defendants are found liable as to
one class member, including John Doe, they will be liable as to all class members. Moreover, a class
action is required because, adjudicating this matter in separate actions could lead to conflicting
18. The claims of John Doe are typical, if not identical, to those of absent class members.
19. Class counsel consists of highly-regarded law firms and attorneys with extensive
experience prosecuting class actions and §1983 claims. Class counsel and John Doe will fairly and
20. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
21. Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) and (c). The wrongful
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
22. In October 2018, the Jupiter Police began a prostitution investigation of massage
5
Case 9:19-cv-80513-DMM Document 10 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/19/2019 Page 6 of 13
24. Through Internet research, Sharp became suspicious that the Spa was involved in
prostitution.
25. Sharp visited an Internet forum called www.rubmaps.com, where individuals freely
26. According to Sharp, there were several posts about the Spa on www.rubmaps.com,
27. Sharp also claims to have surveilled the Spa for an extended period of time in
November 2018, during which he claims to have only seen men enter the Spa, despite the fact that
28. Without probable cause and without a warrant, Sharp requested that an inspector from
the Florida Department of Health perform a warrantless search of the Spa. That investigator, Karen
Herzog, interviewed each of the employees present in the Spa, and took pictures of their
identification and a fridge and a freezer. Herzog also completed a report indicating that the Spa was
29. After that, Sharp continued to surveil the outside of the Spa. Specifically, he would
watch men enter the Spa and then, upon departure, the Jupiter Police would follow them until they
purportedly committed a traffic violation, at which time they were pulled over and interviewed. A
number of these men purportedly described receiving low-level sexual services—in particular,
30. When shown photographs of the individuals previously identified as the Spa’s
employees, a number of these men admitted that particular Spa employees had performed massage
as well as sexual services on them and/or had accepted payment in exchange for the same.
6
Case 9:19-cv-80513-DMM Document 10 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/19/2019 Page 7 of 13
31. All of these men described receiving towels or napkins from Spa employees with
32. Jupiter Police personnel rifled through the Spa’s trash multiple times and obtained
33. Jupiter Police personnel obtained a “wage and hour” report from the State of Florida
for the Spa’s managers, which showed those managers’ reports of their own income. Sharp would
later describe this report as “evidence that the majority of the income generated by the [Spa] was a
result of prostitution crimes . . . and [the managers] were deriving support from the money generated
from the prostitution crimes being committed by and through the [Spa].”
34. Sharp also “determined that the Comcast cable bill and the Florida Power and Light
bill for the [Spa] were being paid by this business,” which he claimed provided further evidence that
the Spa’s president was “deriving support … through the crimes of prostitution she is engaging in
35. The Jupiter Police also identified and sought to search bank accounts and deposit
36. In short, within weeks of commencing its investigation, the Jupiter Police and Sharp
had obtained overwhelming evidence that certain masseuses were engaging in low-level prostitution
at the Spa, and that the Spa’s managers were both participating in those sex acts and deriving support
from others’ low-level prostitution, and therefore had no basis or need to video record Mr. Doe while
II. The Jupiter Police Install Spy Cameras In The Massage Rooms At The Spa
37. On January 18, 2019, upon information and belief, the Jupiter Police caused a false
“suspicious package” warning to be issued for the Spa. Having evacuated the Spa, the Jupiter Police
7
Case 9:19-cv-80513-DMM Document 10 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/19/2019 Page 8 of 13
then entered and installed video monitoring equipment in rooms in which clients received massages,
38. The Spa and its employees and managers were given no formal notice of the issuance
39. The Jupiter Police were able to monitor and record the activity in the Spa’s massage
rooms in real time, and did so for a period of approximately five days, starting on January 18, 2019.
40. On or around January 19, 2019. Mr. Doe entered the Spa and received a massage,
41. Mr. Doe had a reasonable expectation of privacy when he entered that private room,
therapist.
42. From January 18, 2019 to January 22, 2019, John Does and Jane Does of the class
also patronized the Spa and received lawful massages while undressed in private massage rooms.
43. Each of the John and Jane Does of the class had a reasonable expectation of privacy.
44. On information and belief, the Jupiter Police recorded Mr. Doe, John Does, and Jane
Does while undressed and receiving massages. Mr. Doe, John Does, and Jane Does did not engage in
any sexual or illegal activity at any time while receiving their massages at the Spa.
45. Upon information and belief, the Jupiter Police shared these recordings with other
individuals and organizations pursuing or acting in parallel with the Investigation, including officers
employed by the Jupiter Police, Aronberg, and, on information and belief, the Martin County
Sherriff and the Martin County DA, who were running a related investigation.
8
Case 9:19-cv-80513-DMM Document 10 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/19/2019 Page 9 of 13
IV. The Jupiter Police Charge Individuals With Misdemeanor Solicitation of Prostitution
46. On February 19, 2019, about a month after its illegal surveillance operation finished,
law enforcement raided the Spa, executed several other search warrants, and arrested its two
managers.
47. A few days later, the Jupiter Police Department filed misdemeanor charges against a
48. Mr. Doe, John Does, and Jane Does have not been accused of or charged with any
crime.
49. Pursuant to Florida’s Public Records Law, “all state, county, and municipal records
are open for personal inspection and copying by any person.” Fla. Stat. § 119.01(1).
50. The State has received hundreds of requests for the surveillance videos taken by
Defendants. While the media intervening in the underlying criminal actions have attested they are
not seeking video of lawful activity, the class members are concerned that the videos of them will be
released to the media or other members of the public pursuant to the hundreds of public record
51. Defendants indiscriminately video recorded John Doe knowing that they were doing
so unlawfully and knowing the high risk that the video could be publicized, including through
52. Defendants knew that the risk of public access demands would be particularly acute
in the present case, as certain of the defendants charged with misdemeanor solicitation of prostitution
53. Despite knowing this, Defendants made no effort to protect John Doe’s privacy
rights, which they had already violated. On the contrary, they admitted that the surveillance footage
9
Case 9:19-cv-80513-DMM Document 10 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/19/2019 Page 10 of 13
of innocent victims like Mr. Doe would be of little or no value to any party to the criminal
proceedings. Nonetheless, Defendants agreed to release the surveillance footage without objection.
54. Then, after promising in open court that they would not release the surveillance
absent a court order directing them to do so, Defendants filed a notice of intent to release the
surveillance footage to the media. This lead to a hearing before Judge Hanser in State v. Zhang and
State v. Wang, Case No. 50-2019-CF-001606 (Circuit Court for the 15th Judicial District in and for
Palm Beach County, Florida), who ordered on April 17, 2019 that the surveillance footage could not
55. Within 24 hours of that order, however, the surveillance footage, which was
exclusively in the possession and control of Defendants, suddenly was being shopped to various
news outlets. Upon information and belief, the individual(s) shopping the video surveillance are
involved in law enforcement. The Defendants either have recklessly allowed one of their employees
to steal and attempt to sell the video or, worse, are intentionally seeking to release the video to force
a plea bargain from the defendants while trampling the privacy rights of the Does.
COUNT 1
56. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges the allegations set forth above as though fully set forth
herein.
57. Mr. Doe and the class members had a reasonable expectation of privacy when they
were at the Spa, including while in private rooms located on private property at the Spa.
58. The Defendants’ actions, including their monitoring and recording of Mr. Doe’s and
the class members’ conduct while located in a private room located on private property, deprived
Mr. Doe and the class members of their rights, privileges, and immunities secured and guaranteed by
10
Case 9:19-cv-80513-DMM Document 10 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/19/2019 Page 11 of 13
a. violated Mr. Doe’s and the class members’ right to be free from unreasonable
search and seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States
Constitution;
b. violated Mr. Doe’s and the class members’ Fourteenth Amendment Right to
c. violated Mr. Doe’s and the class members’ constitutional right to privacy;
and
60. In doing so, the Defendants acted willfully, maliciously, and in violation of law,
61. As a result of Defendants’ actions, Mr. Doe and the class members suffered invasion
63. Mr. Doe has retained undersigned counsel to represent his and the class members in
WHEREFORE, Mr. Doe requests the Court certify the proposed class and enter judgment:
(c) awarding reasonable costs and expenses incurred in this action, including, to the
11
Case 9:19-cv-80513-DMM Document 10 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/19/2019 Page 12 of 13
(d) enjoining the Defendants from publicizing or otherwise transmitting to any other
any and all video, audio, photographic, or other recordings, or any images or other
(e) ordering the Defendants to identify any person or organization to whom they
previously transmitted or granted access to, or who may have accessed, any and all
(f) requiring the Defendants to submit affidavits to the Court, within fourteen (14) days
compliance with the Court’s order described above in (d), and providing the
(g) granting such other relief as the Court deems just and proper.
12
Case 9:19-cv-80513-DMM Document 10 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/19/2019 Page 13 of 13
-and-
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on April 19, 2019 I electronically filed the foregoing document
with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which will send notification of such filing to
13