I see that he is now going for a jury trial.

"hung" jury have to be all male by definition?  I agree that would certainly help in a case like this.  

In the original thread on this topic I posted a link that'll lead you to the affidavit filed in support of the warrant. Right now the fight is over whether the video evidence should be excluded, but it's not specifically on constitutional grounds. IIRC, Kraft's lawyers are arguing that there was no true legal basis for the traffic stops on clients leaving the spa. Since information (extracted via fear and intimidation, no doubt) from those clients was included in the affidavit, then everything is tainted and should be thrown out. They're also arguing that LE mischaracterized the info from the health inspector and that LE didn't exhaust reasonable alternatives before resorting to the extreme tactic of covert video recording.  IMHO, even if it doesn't happen on clear constitutional grounds, anything the court does that slaps down LE's Gestapo-like tactics would be a plus.  It would at least put other agencies on notice that they won't be allowed to write themselves a blank investigative check just by labeling something as "trafficking."

I am assuming that the charge itself is based on a prostitution law of some sort.  
.
I've posted before that Kraft could do everybody a big favor and challenge the validity of such laws on multiple grounds. Consenting Adult A and Consenting Adult B consented to a concise consensual conference. No one was harmed (in any part of the process or even peripherally to the relationship) and everybody was happy with the arrangement. What right does the gov have to try to interfere with that?  None! Case dismissed! Law overturned as being in violation of the 1st Amendment:
.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE PEACEABLY TO ASSEMBLE ..." Consenting Adult A and Consenting Adult B is an assembly!

The right to bare arms.

This is why I want mrfisher on my legal team ... or as the next Attorney General.

Your version makes much more sense.

Read the article and scroll to the bottom for details on the opening salvo from Kraft's attorneys. Should be interesting.

Not to the courts, but to the outside world, trying to suppress the evidence on a technicality no longer seems like a claim of innocence.  If someone is truly innocent, the evidence should be exculpatory, even if it is embarrassing (skid marks on underwear; tiny penis; fell asleep on massage table; etc.).  
.
Even if the warrant is upheld, I'm sure Kraft lawyers have more filings up their sleeves..
.
Legally, if the video evidence is thrown out (for having been obtained on an illegal warrant), and the charges dismissed, Kraft could claim "charges dismissed" and so on.  Would he still be able to claim, to the public that is, that he is innocent? Will the public believe him? (I won't! He's a horny billionaire!)
.
More importantly, how will the NFL respond?  With the evidence and charges thrown out, Kraft could still claim that he was innocent ("It was just a massage!") to the NFL but they could still sanction him for tarnishing the image of the NFL ("$70 massage at strip mall spa? How embarrassing for the NFL!"). They probably just can't sanction him AS MUCH had the evidence been presented, regardless of the outcome at trial.  
.
NFL Sanction: evidence and charges dismissed = low
NFL Sanction: Kraft found not guilty at trial = medium
NFL Sanction: Kraft found guilty = high

I believe no matter the outcome in court the NFL will impose a fine and a suspension.  They need to do that to keep any credibility(if they have any) with the players.

He's a frickin' gazillionaire! He'll be fine no matter what the NFL decides. So what if they sanction him? Or even if they force him to sell? Then he'll no longer be an owner (boo-hoo) but he'll have even more cash to roll around in. The only thing I care about are the legal issues to be decided. The court rulings, at both the trial or appellate level, have the potential to either slap down LE's attempt to apply the label of trafficking to any/all prostitution-related activity or else give them carte blanche to go around sticking covert cameras anywhere they want.

Why?   Because Kraft very much wants to minimize any penalty the NFL will levy on him so he will fight even harder to avoid any kind of legal punishment, even to the point of challenging the basis for how LE ran this operation.  That could end up benefiting us all.

Kraft is an uber-rich guy with plenty of interests to protect, other than his NFL franchise, and high-powered lawyers at his beck and call. It's certainly possible to imagine he might fight less hard, or harder, if circumstances were different, but that's pure speculation. What's not speculation is that he's chosen to fight, whatever the motivation, and the only results with the potential to affect a wider audience are those that come about from a court's ruling(s).

his uber-riches.  Kudos to him for speculating that uber stock would be worth something someday.