THE GAME WHILE HE WAS USING THE

RING DOORBELL'S MICROPHONE.

LAURA: ROBERT KRAFT PLEADED NOT

GUILTY TO SOLICITING

PROSTITUTION AT A FLORIDA A.

A JUDGE RULED SURVEILLANCE

VIDEOS FROM THE A CANNOT BE USED

IN THIS CASE.

BUT LAWYERS ARE QUESTIONING THAT

AND SUGGESTING KRAFT COULD BE

FACING A FELONY CHARGE INSTEAD

OF TWO MISDEMEANOR COUNTS.

WHAT IS THE ARGUMENT FOR HIS

FOURTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS.

JOINING US, A FORMER PROSECUTOR

AND TRIAL ATTORNEY.

PROSECUTORS TURNING YOU HAVE THE

HEAT.

AS A FORM PROSECUTOR, WALK US

THROUGH WHAT THAT MEANS.

IT SOUNDS LIKE AN UNUSUAL MOVE.

HOW WOULD THIS CHANGE HOW

PROSECUTORS PROCEED IN THE CASE.

>> THIS IS A SURPRISE TO ME.

THERE IS A SUPPRESSION ISSUE.

KRAFT'S ATTORNEYS GOT VIDEO

SURVEILLANCE SUPPRESSED.

PROSECUTORS SAID TO THE JUDGE

THERE WAS NO HUMAN TRAFFICKING.

SO WHEN I READ THE FLORIDA LAWS

I DON'T SEE A FELONY THAT COULD

BE FOR TRAFFICKING.

THERE ARE MISDEMEANORS HE'S

CURRENTLY CHARGED WITH.

IF THEY ARE THREATENING THIS,

WHY DIDN'T YOU CHARGE THE THIRD

DEGREE IN THE FIRST PLACE.

I THINK THIS IS DISINGENUOUS FOR

THE PROSECUTOR TO THREATEN THE

THIRD DEGREE WHEN THEY ONLY

CHARGED MISDEMEANORS TO THIS

POINT.

LAURA: WHAT DO YOU DO IF YOU ARE

IN ROBERT KRAFT'S ATTORNEY'S

SHOES?

WHERE DO YOU THINK YOU WOULD DIG

YOUR HEELS IN ON A DEFENSE WITH

THIS?

>> THE FIRST THING I WOULD DO IS

TELL MR. KRAFT NOT TO BE MAKING

ANY PUBLIC STATEMENTS.

THERE IS A FAIR PROBABILITY THAT

IF THE STATE DOES NOT WIN THE

APPEAL TO REVERSE THE DECISION

FOR THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THE

VIDEOTAPE, THEY WILL NOT BE ABLE

TO PROVE THE CASE.

BECAUSE THAT JUDGE SUPPRESSED

THE FACT HE WAS PULLED OVER AND

IDENTIFIED.

THEY WOULD NOT HAVE KNOWN FOR

SURE THAT IT WAS ROBERT KRAFT

RSH UNTIL THEY PULLED HIM OVER

AND I.D.'D HIM.

THERE HAS BEEN NO DISCUSSION IN

THE MEDIA ABOUT ARE THEY WILLING

TO TESTIFY?

THERE IS A CHANCE THIS CASE

WON'T BE ABLE TO STAND ON ITS

OWN MERITS.

LAURA: WHEN THE JUDGE RULED THE

POLICE DID NOT HAVE A SNEAK AND

PEEK WARRANT.

WHAT DO YOU DO WITH THE FIVE

DAYS OF TAPE THAT WERE ROLLED ON

AT THE DAY A WHICH CAUGHT WHO

KNOWS WHAT ON SURVEILLANCE.

DOES ALL THAT GO AWAY IF THE

WARRANT WASN'T PROPER?

KRAFT'S ATTORNEYS, THEY ARE

TALKING ABOUT HOURS AND HOURS OF

TAPE.

>> THE JUDGE'S RULING PREVENTS

IT FROM BEING USED IN A

PROSECUTION AGAINST THE

DEFENDANT.

BUT IT'S NOT THAT THE VIDEO WILL

BE DESTROYED.

MAYBE THERE WILL BE SOME CIVIL

PIECES WHERE THAT COULD BE USED.

THOSE ARE GREAT QUESTIONS.

BUT THE GREATEST IMPACT ON THE

COURT'S RULING IS IT CAN'T BE

USED IN THE PROSECUTION AGAINST

CRAFT.

IF THIS VIDEO CANNOT BE USED BY

THE PROSECUTOR, I DON'T KNOW HOW

THEY WILL PROVE THE CASE AGAINST

KRAFT.

ARE THEY GOING TO TURN TO THE

PEOPLE GIVING THE SEXUAL FAVORS?

WILL THEY BE ABLE TO IDENTIFY

ROBERT KRAFT WITHOUT JUST THE

MEDIA REPORTS?

ALL GREAT ISSUES FOR KRAFT AND

THE DEFENSE TEAM.

THEY DID A GREAT JOB SO FAR.

LAURA: THERE IS ALSO THE ISSUE

OF AT LEAST FOUR PEOPLE WHO

LEGITIMATELY RECEIVED MASSAGES

WITH THEIR CLOTHES OFF WHEN

CAMERAS WERE ROLLING.

YOU GO IN AND YOU THINK YOU ARE

GETTING A MASSAGE.

WHAT CAN BE DONE ABOUT THAT AND

WHERE WILL IT GO FROM HERE?

>> THAT IS THE EXACT REASON WHY

THE JUDGE GRANTED THE MOTION TO

SUPPRESS THE VIDEOTAPE.

HE SAYS THAT'S UNREASONABLE.

HE'S GOT FOUR PEOPLE WALKING

INTO A BUSINESS ESTABLISHMENT

FOR LEGAL REASONS, AND AS THEY

ARE UNROBING FOR A MASSAGE THEY

ARE BEING VIDEOTAPED.

THAT GETS TO THE WHOLE POINT OF

THE FOURTH AMENDMENT, AND THE

REASONABLENESS.

HERE IT WAS NOT REASONABLE.

NOT ONLY THIS JUDGE, BUT FOUR

OTHER JUDGES IN FLORIDA RULED IN

THESE TYPE CASES THAT THAT'S

OVERLY BROAD.

ROBERT KRAFT'S LAWYERS ARE DOING

A GREAT JOB.

LAURA: THE CASE MAY BE ELEVATED

TO A FELONY.

WHAT'S YOUR BIGGEST TAKEAWAY

FROM WHERE THE CASE STAND RIGHT

NOW?

THERE IS STILL MORE TO COME.

>> THE APPEAL WILL BE DECIDED.

IF KRAFT'S ATTORNEYS ARE

SUCCESSFUL, I THINK THE CASE

WILL DISMISS THIS.

THE THIRD DEGREE WAS IN THE

BRIEF.

IT WASN'T A PUBLIC STATEMENT.

I DON'T ANY THEY WILL GO THAT

ROUTE.

>> I THINK THE JUDGE IS MAKING A

LEGALLY CORRECT MOVE.

I THINK THE PROSECUTORS -- THEY

ARE GOING AFTER A 78-YEAR-OLD

MAN WHO IS A WIDOW.

MARRIED FOR 48 YEARS, HE HAS

DONE TREMENDOUS THINGS FOR THE

NFL.

I THINK THEY ARE USING HIM FOR

THEIR OWN PURPOSES.

I DON'T SEE WHY IF THEY ARE NOT

CHARGE OTHER CITIZENS WHO

ALLEGEDLY GO TO THESE

ESTABLISHMENTS FOR ILLEGAL

REASONS, WHEN THEY GET CHARGED

WITH A MISDEMEANOR, WHY ARE THEY

TARGETING A MAN LIKE ROBERT

KRAFT WHO IS SUCH A