Well, they're arguing that he doesn't have standing to assert someone else's 4th amendment rights, not his own. The prosecutors are trying to get the Court to rule that each case, and each video, must be considered separately (so throw out only the ones of innocent people), while Kraft's attorneys were successful in arguing that the blanket warrant, which covered a lot of videos, was flawed and therefore anything captured under it is out. The prosecutor's argument is circular though. "Kraft is guilty so he doesn't have a right to stop an illegal serarch." I don't see how arguing that someone's guilt is a "virtual certainty" if they could just use the excluded evidence helps the prosecutors. It looks really desperate, and if I'm the appeals judge, I say, "Well, duh." to that argument. Sneak and peek warrants are definitely worrisome though.