A Woodbury massage therapist charged with prostitution is accusing police of fabricating information for a search warrant to get themselves inside the establishment.
Chulalak Ratsbouth, 29, of Plymouth is also criticizing undercover officers, saying they stayed for a full 60-minute erotic massage when just a few minutes would have sufficed.
Ratsbouth is asking the court to dismiss the case against her, according to motion papers filed in Washington County District Court on Aug. 25. She also filed a notice that she will present an entrapment defense to the jury, if the case goes to trial.
Woodbury police are defending their investigation.
“We stand by what our detectives put in,” Cmdr. Jay Alberio said Thursday. “Our detectives aren’t going to falsify anything with the goal of charging someone with a crime.”
Ratsbouth was charged in June with gross misdemeanor engaging or soliciting prostitution in a public place. She has not yet entered a plea.
On April 14 and April 21, undercover officers went to Oriental Touch Massage in Woodbury posing as customers, each requesting a session with “Victoria.” The first officer, a Woodbury police investigator, requested sexual contact for money, but “Victoria” declined. The second officer, who was unidentified in court documents, claimed that “Victoria” touched his genitals and touched him with her breasts.
“Victoria” turned out to be Ratsbouth, an employee of the massage business.
http://liarcatchers.com/civil_investigations.html
The police investigation began with a tip from a “concerned citizen,” who suggested illegal activities were taking place at the business at 7700 Hudson Road. Ratsbouth contends that either the tipster lied, unbeknownst to police, or investigators willingly used false information to get their search warrant approved.
She points to statements in the application for the search warrant attributed to nearby shop owners and a FedEx delivery person. Those people later told a private investigator hired by Ratsbouth and her defense attorney that they “were never interviewed by the Woodbury police and report never making the statements alleged in the warrant and its affidavit,” Ratsbouth’s motion papers state. “Indeed, they were surprised they were even mentioned in the warrant.”
Alberio scoffed at the accusation.
“The detectives wouldn’t knowingly put inaccurate information in an application for a search warrant,” he said.
Ratsbouth is requesting a hearing to determine whether the search warrant contains falsifications and, if so, whether the search warrant supports probable cause without them. She is also asking the court to order disclosure of the anonymous tipster’s identity.
In another motion, Ratsbouth is seeking dismissal of the charges. She claims her constitutional right to due process was violated because police participation was “sufficiently outrageous.”
According to the second undercover officer’s report, the alleged sexual contact occurred at the beginning of the scheduled appointment, yet he “continued to enjoy the massage and sexual contact for the full 60 minutes of the entire massage,” the motion papers state.
“Not once did the officer object to this contact or discontinue it, despite (having) all the evidence he would ever need to submit a case for prostitution charging,” her motion states. “The officer’s conduct in this investigation went far beyond what is necessary, and their actions are repugnant.”
Alberio said it takes time to build a case and to “negotiate your deal” and that investigators go in knowing there are parameters.
If the case goes forward to a jury trial, Ratsbouth has invoked her right to an entrapment defense. In a final motion, she claims she was induced to commit a crime.
“Ms. Ratsbouth denies that she engaged in sexual conduct with the undercover police officer,” her motion states. “(H)owever any sexual contact that may have occurred was inadvertent and/or due to the entrapment of the undercover police officer.”
Her next court hearing is Sept. 29. Her attorney, Ryan Garry, has requested the appearance of the two undercover officers – primarily the one who reported extensive sexual contact – in order to question them.
“The moment this sexual touching supposedly occurred was the moment this thing should have stopped. But this guy let it go on and on and on,” Garry said. “If (the officer) says what’s in his report is true, then it’s a violation of due process. If he says his report isn’t true, then he lied.”
Alberio said he understands the defense attorney is doing his job, but he doesn’t like the approach.
“In Woodbury, we stand by our work and hold ourselves to a high level of integrity,” he said.
