Today's Boston Globe has an update on everyone's favorite NFL team owner:

The case will be heard by a Florida appeals court.   The lower court judge has asked the appeals court to consider 3 questions:

1.  Does Kraft 4th Amendment issues here to argue.   I assume the judge is referring to the claim that the evidence presented to get the "sneak peek" video cameras installed was flawed and fatally so as no due diligence was applied to learn if there was probable cause for the warrant.   (I maintain that this will be the vehicle that gets this before the SCOTUS.)

2.  Did LE apply correct standards to when they would roll the film to the events they viewed in the massage parlor?  The "dropped his boxers" was the standard used, but was that the least invasive?   (I could see a court deciding that that was a reasonable standard.)

3.Did the lower court get it all wrong entirely such that the warrant was OK to begin with?  (This one is very odd.  Why would a judge, once having made a ruling decide to ask if he was right?)

 
To see the article you need a Boston Globe subscription, so you may not find this, but perhaps a wire service will pick it up.

The Globe reporter, John R Ellement seems to actually have a brain.   So refreshing these days.