Basically the judge agreed with the defendant that the FBI breaking the internet and then pretending to be repair techs sent in to fix it was an illegal search and thus anything they saw during their visit was in admissible (suppressed).

As there were a couple of instances of that they have to file a few more motions to suppress the rest of the FBI evidence but basically it looks like the judge will come down on their side.

In general I am glad that the judge decided that way, it should never be acceptable for law enforcement to go snooping around without a warrant. However, I've also noted in such cases that when the government loses like this they often put pressure on the property owners to avoid such losses in the future, and so I would not be surprised if Cesar's and other hotel chains will start including in their room contract, language clauses that allow them to grant access to the rooms to third parties with "reasonable need".

The first nine lines of the first page. Legal documents are good like that. :-)

"Here, the government disrupted the internet service to the defendant’s hotel room in order to generate a repair call. Government agents then posed as repairmen to gain access to the defendant’s room and conduct a surreptitious search for evidence of an illegal sports betting operation. By creating the need for a third party to enter defendant’s premises and then posing as repairmen to gain entry, the government violated the defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights."

"FBI conducts search by disrupting Internet service, posing as repairmen"

A bad a precedent (government sidestepping obtaining a warrant by just shutting down utilities and posing as repairmen) was shot down by a district court despite the magistrate judge suggesting that it didn't violate the 4th amendment because the defendant was not coerced/put under duress into consent. The district judge thought otherwise.