STUART — A Martin County judge on Wednesday ruled prosecutors can't use as evidence videos secretly recorded by law enforcement during a sex-for-pay investigation revealed in February.

In a six-page order, Judge Kathleen Roberts ruled that Martin County Sheriff's Office detectives last fall failed to observe "strict standards" required to be followed when secretly recording spa clients while searching for evidence of criminal activity.

Stuart defense attorney Richard Kibbey, who argued the suppression motion April 24 on behalf of four clients arrested in the prostitution probe, praised Roberts’ ruling.

“We’re elated that the rule of law triumphs over a flashy press conference,” Kibbey said, referring to Feb. 19, when the Martin County Sheriff’s Office held a media briefing to announce the spa crackdown that resulted in the arrests of several spa employees and dozens of customers.

Related: Cases against accused sex spa women winding their way through courts

Sheriff William Snyder said his agency had targeted four spas in Martin County and spoke of the cases in the context of human trafficking.

Detectives in September obtained a "sneak-and-peek" warrant before installing cameras at the Bridge Foot Massage & Spa in Hobe Sound and at the Florida Therapy Spa in Stuart, investigating whether the spas were illicit paid-sex operations.

During the suppression hearing, Roberts was told that over the two weeks Martin sheriff's detectives recorded inside massage rooms, all clients who visited were recorded and "there was no effort made to separate and monitor only the illicit activity."

More: Sex spas shut down in Martin are international businesses, investigator says

In her ruling, Roberts noted that detectives relied on a minimization check list that involved not placing cameras in personal spaces such as living areas and bathrooms; video was recorded for two weeks rather than the 30 days a warrant permitted; and only recorded during business hours.

Roberts determined the measures weren’t enough to protect the innocent.

“While these may be factors in the minimization,” Roberts wrote, “the blanket storing of all surveillance of all rooms at all times, regardless of the activities occurring within falls far short of the minimization requirements required to protect innocent activity of innocent people who happened to come under the camera’s eye.”

The use of video surveillance and monitoring is an extraordinary intrusive method of collecting evidence of a crime, Roberts concluded.

More: Judge grants protection of videos in alleged sex spa case involving Robert Kraft

"The difference between surveillance and video surveillance is akin to the difference between a pat down and a strip search. Because of its highly intrusive nature, the requirements to curtail what can be captured must be scrutinized and high levels of responsibility must be met to avoid the intrusion on the activities of the innocent," Roberts wrote. "These strict standards were simply not met in this case."

Further, Roberts noted all videos recorded were collected and stored on a server.

"Indeed, the innocent client was treated the same by law enforcement as the criminal element they sought to capture," the order stated.

Kibbey said a detective testified at the suppression hearing that at least five women who received massages were recorded and the videos were kept as part of the investigation.

State to appeal

The state intends to appeal Roberts’ ruling, Assistant State Attorney Lev Evans confirmed Wednesday.

Roberts’ order will be litigated before a panel of three circuit judges seated in the 19th Judicial Circuit, but it’s unclear how long an appeal might take.

While Roberts' order is pending, Evans said the videos are off limits as evidence of a crime.

“Until we get a reversal,” he acknowledged, “we cannot use the suppressed tapes against those defendants that were part of the hearing.”

More: Spa customers say police violated their privacy

Other defendants charged in the Martin spa cases must file a similar suppression motion and in light of Roberts’ ruling, that’s expected to happen, attorney Andy Metcalf said, who represents one client in Martin and about 30 men similarly charged in Indian River County.

The state though, could agree that Roberts’ order to suppress the videos applies to all Martin defendants.

Judges in Indian River County heard similar defense motions in April, Metcalf said, and rulings are expected in mid-May.

More:Patriots owner, Robert Kraft, charged by Jupiter police in prostitution case

Meanwhile, Martin prosecutors have no plans to drop charges against any defendant who hasn’t accepted a plea deal.

“We’re going to keep fighting,” Evans said.

Kraft hearing

On Monday, a Palm Beach County judge granted a protection order preventing the release of videos in the cases of two women arrested in the Orchids of Asia Day Spa investigation in which New England Patriots owner Robert Kraft and others are accused of getting sex services.

After hearing from attorneys representing the media, Kraft, prosecution and defendants, Circuit Judge Joseph Marx said he would “piggyback” on County Judge Leonard Hanser’s earlier order that protected the release of videos reportedly depicting Kraft getting sex services on consecutive days in January.

A suppression hearing in the Orchids of Asia Day Spa case involving Patriots owner Robert Kraft continued into a third day Wednesday and involves similar issues that Judge Roberts ruled on.

VIDEO: Robert Kraft motion to suppress hearing seeks to dismiss recorded spa videos