http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22674564/
I can't believe that the ACLU is actually going to defend Senator Craig on this.

Privacy in a public bathroom? Cut me a break. Senator Craig pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor for misconduct in a mens room. He was trying to appeal his guilty plea because of political embarrassment. In an earlier thread about Senator Craig, someone mentioned that without the introduction of new evidence, it is unlikely that an Appeals Court would have sympathy for the man. If Senator Craig wanted to use the expectation of privacy to defend himself, the time to do that would have been before entering a guilty plea. But then that would only embarrass the poor man further. Craig simply doesn't want his wife and the public to know that he's been messing around with other men but the genie is already out of box on this one.
Apart from using the toilet and reading a girlie magazine, I honestly can't tell if the ACLU seriously believes that privacy in a bathroom means being able to do sexual acts in a stall.

Does the ACLU have a case on this one? If a person is in a bathroom stall and the stall is closed, does that person have the expectatio of privacy?
Does Senator Craig have any legal basis to overturn his guilty plea?

Can somebody tell me when he got caught having sex in a bathroom stall?

If my foot taps another in a bathroom stall and I get popped for it, would I cop to a plea deal to make it go away rather than standing on principle? Yes, I would - no question about it. So, the issue seems to be, anyone can be bullied into a plea deal unfairly when no evidence exists anything happened. In other words, given what I think I know about this story, Craig has to prove a negative because no evidence exists. I think he has a case.

What is a load of crap though, is the ACLU is consistently lambasted by right-wing critics that end up needing their help. People want Craig prosecuted for being a hypocrite. I'm sorry, but being another hypocritical phony is not a crime.

What do you mean, didn't you know that tapping your foot in a public bathroom also means that you want to have sex in the bathroom? That apparently is common knowledge! (Please excuse my sarcasm)

I always jump to the defense of the ACLU whenever I get a chance. Some of their causes sound a little goofy, but it is important that somebody fights those battles. They have been very useful in helping to shape the contours of the law. (For a quick example of how cases are reasoned, here is a short, easy-reading case that is illustrative of how decisions are built upon past decisions and reasoning, extrapolating the same logic to apply to a new question.) The boundaries of the law are usually tested on weird cases, and if the ACLU didn't pick these up, nobody else would.

Is there a legitimate expectation of privacy in a public bathroom? Of course! Would you want to use one otherwise? Not me. Establishing that expectation is pretty easy when you are just talking about doing your normal bathroom business. Then, you stretch it out to see how far it goes (your right of privacy, that is ). Using the case I linked to above: Privacy from peepers? Yeah, OK (Minnesota even put that one on the books). Privacy from upskirt shots? Sure, with a little stretch of the reasoning, because nobody wants that to be legal. Privacy from police surveillance in an enclosed toilet stall? Well, the police may have had good reasons to collect that information, but they could probably get the job done without using the camera, so that's a "no."

Privacy from having sex in public bathrooms? Not such a popular notion, but worth asking, because it obviously comes up once in a while. I haven't found the 38-year old case that addresses that yet (if you find it, please post!), but I imagine it involved a more sympathetic character than Larry Craig. I'd like to see the Court's reasoning on that case. But all Craig did was make a few signals. If that was me in the next stall, I wouldn't have even known what was going on, except that some jerk had his foot in my stall, so that seems pretty innocuous to me.

I think Craig's expectation of privacy is there, but won't apply to his defense. (Anyway, you throw in any defense you can think of, and let the court rule them out one by one.) His privacy was never interfered with, in my opinion. He blew it when he invaded the next guy's privacy, and I think that charge will stick. But it doesn't seem like a huge invasion of privacy, just a creepy invasion of privacy.

Does the ACLU have a case on this one?

From my layman's point of view, I can see it. You're sitting in a stahl and tapping away. If the person next to you taps too, then communication is going on, so it seems. Should that be considered private? Can an undercover officer lure tapping? Even if the communication was for sex, was any money discussed? Is it illegal to ask someone for sex?

If so, I've been guilty of asking for sex. I imagine every sexual person in the world is guilty of that. So what exactly was the infringment again? Soliciting for free sex? Ha! Bust every person in the clubs.

If a person is in a bathroom stall and the stall is closed, does that person have the expectatio of privacy?

I imagine so, but the law is flabby on the notion of privacy. You see, it's not in the Constitution.

Does Senator Craig have any legal basis to overturn his guilty plea?

I am really in the dark on this. I have no idea how that works, not having been before a judge as a defendent since the 1970s. Too many illegal grins, you know. It was in Minnesota, it was a very sloppy bust (oops, wrong house but you have this baggy, see? Haha, gotcha), and even the judge was laughing. Probation and a fine, no adjudication (record). Things were a lot looser back then.

Now you might get busted for tap dancing in the can. It is rediculous, and even more so that the victim is one of those pushing to make us all cow-tow to the Religious Right's agenda.

And who comes riding to the rescue? Why, the UCLA! Dirty pinko commies.

1.) In the same vein as AuthorMusician, I have to say yes. There are private places on public property. The bathroom stalls, while hardly a shining refuge from prying eyes, offer a measure of protection against would-be voyers. This limited protection can thereby safely be defined as a barrier of some kind, which in most cases does establish the groundwork for an act or acts performed in privacy. The relativity of that privacy is up to you and/or parenter[s].

2.) Expectation, certainly. No one likes to believe what they do behind any closed door can be known by anyone else.

3.) I am no great scholar of this case or any real case similiar to this. I would have to say, however, that the ACLU would not waste their time trying to advance his attempt without some kind of legal basis.

Does the ACLU have a case on this one? If a person is in a bathroom stall and the stall is closed, does that person have the expectatio of privacy?
Does Senator Craig have any legal basis to overturn his guilty plea?

I don't really understand the theory the ACLU is arguing in this case and how it's relevant to Craig's case. In the cited article that ACLU was said to be arguing that sex in a bathroom stall was legal under Minnesota court rulings, and that may well be true. But Craig was accused of solicitation for sex, not having it. Those are two different things and I don't see how the ACLU theory applies.

I would think Craig would be arguing either an entrapment (difficult because he's pled guilty), or a gross misunderstanding on the part of the police officer who arrested him. That's also difficult to argue in an appeal because it is a trial issue kind of defense as is the entrapment claim. At the best Craig could argue to be allowed to withdraw his guilty plea and take the case to trial instead. Nothing in the ACLU filing really does that.


Aquilla

Does the ACLU have a case on this one? If a person is in a bathroom stall and the stall is closed, does that person have the expectatio of privacy?

Yes... in Minnesota, at least. The case State v. Bryant, as far as I've read, dealt with sex in a bathroom at a store. The ruling stated, basically, police surveillance of an enclosed toilet stall violates the user's Fourth Amendment right to privacy. I couldn't find a direct link to the case, but I found a description here:

http://www.sodomylaws.org/sensibilities/minnesota.htm

and a reference here:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getc...808&invol=1.

Interestingly enough, the MN Supreme Court held that if the door was removed from the stall, there would be no expectation of privacy.

Does Senator Craig have any legal basis to overturn his guilty plea?

I'll have to look further into this one.

Does the ACLU have a case on this one? If a person is in a bathroom stall and the stall is closed, does that person have the expectation of privacy?

Yes - if there was no expecation of privacy within a bathroom stall, why bother to have a door? Why have walls except to have somehing to hang the toilet roll (bathroom tissue?) holder on? Why not just have a row of toilet bowls in plain view of anyone who walks into the restroom? Oh yes, faecal disinterest - the vast majority of people would rather not see someone else taking a dump. We'd mostly prefer not to hear it either, but inevitably some sounds leak under the door.

Hmm.

Strikes me that there are plenty of other things we'd rather not see or hear, and two men having sex is one of them for most people. Best keep that behind closed doors too. As for feet encroaching under partitions into neighbouring stalls - if that on it's own is automatically code for something other than constipation, I need to go see my proctologist. (Hell, I need to get one, then go see them.)

But the Senator did plead guilty, which I can't imagine was because he felt his own motives were entirely innocent, "wide stance" or not.

Does Senator Craig have any legal basis to overturn his guilty plea?

I'm less sure of this one. He'd have a case to plead not guilty in the first place, but once he's pleaded guilty I didn't think there was much point in changing the plea in most circumstances* - certainly it would colour the jury's opinion in any subsequent trial if even the defendent thought they were guilty until someone else told them they might not be.

That said, perhaps the guy pleaded guilty more because he'd done something he was ashamed of (quite possible in the circumstances) than because he really believed he'd broken any law on the statute book (as distinct from a moral law which he might believe in).

* Clearly, if the initial guilty plea has been obtained under duress (for example) there'd be grounds for accepting a plea change.

Does the ACLU have a case on this one? If a person is in a bathroom stall and the stall is closed, does that person have the expectatio of privacy?
Does Senator Craig have any legal basis to overturn his guilty plea?
Ludicrous, as much of the trash supported by the far left group of cool aid drinkers. This is the same group that wants to force the Boy Scouts to have homosexual Scout Leaders – ya right.

People in bathroom stalls should have the right to limited privacy as they use the facility – but not for sex.

Well, as a far left cool aid drinker, let me ask- what sex?

Great talking point Ted - now explain it.

As one who prefers Bourbon I have to question why the ACLU is even involved in this case with their argument. Where's the nexus between the charges against Craig and any supposed right to have sex in a public restroom? Craig didn't ask the ACLU to involve itself in this case, they filed an amicus brief on their own. Full employment for liberal lawyers perhaps?

Care to "splain that, DR?


Aquilla

Ted, I have to beg the question: Why is the government regulating what goes on in the bathroom? Isn't that a little invasive? And if it is mutually agreed upon sexual interaction, who is being harmed? A door exists, and there are "walls" barring participants from bathroom adventures from the eyes of the public unless they are very curious.

Oh, and as a side-note, no one's trying to force the Boy Scouts to hire or encourage homosexual leaders, they're trying to get them to remove bylaws preventing them from participating based on something so trivial. But that's another debate entirely.

The ACLU is involved because of a presumed right to privacy not because of a right to have sex. Do you understand this difference or is the question just tongue-in-cheek baiting?

Well, I have to ask a question- is it legal to film people in the restroom without thier consent in public restrooms in Minnesota? Should it be legal, and is this a national right, or a right that should be left up to individual states to legislate rules of privacy regarding the potty?

I would have to see some comments on those areas before I could form an opinion.

Pretty much, if it is illegal to film someone in a public restroom while in the potty and not have thier explicit consent- I would say that the right to privacy in the stall has been established, anyone care to expound on that one? I am no lawyer, but that seems like a reasonable guideline to start to define "privacy"?

Privacy for what? For having sex (which he didn't) or for soliciting for sex (which is was he was charged with doing). Is it your claim that a person can break the law as long as they do it in a place where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy?


Aquilla

Well, yes Aquilla. There are quite a few precedents for this- I will let you look at this google search:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=A...to+privacy+laws

It appears to me that the right to privacy often trumps crimes commited while in private. Marijuana can't be made illegal in Alaska in your home because of our very strong right to privacy clause in our state constitution. We have been going back and forth on that issue for over twenty years.

Same with the Texas Sodomy laws- it was basically decided that the law itself was unconstitutional, if I am reading this correctly (NOT a lawyer ) that the rights of human beings to do things while in private trump laws making that behavior illegal.

Does that sound about right ?

Privacy for being in a closed bathroom stall.


Yeah, he did plead guilty to solicitation. I can't say I completely understand the relationship to privacy vs. to an undercover cop in a neighboring bathroom stall.


I wasn't aware I made any claims. I just corrected your statement about why the ACLU is taking the case.

Not really, not as an absolute. Should be a line drawn there somewhere I'd think. I'm sure even in the rugged frozen tundra of the Alaskan frontier people can't commit murder as long as they do it in the privacy of their home.




I don't understand that relationship either. That's why I posed the question about the ACLU filing......



That's why I asked for a clarification. I'm still not sure just how the ACLU's argument concerning privacy rights is relevant to this particular case.


Aquilla

A reasonable expectation of privacy is what gets a lot of evidence thrown out of court, so it does factor in. For instance, there is the "plain sight" doctrine - if a cop pulls your car over for speeding, he can expand a search based on what he can see "in plain sight". If he sees a joint sitting on your car's floor, he has probable cause to go ahead and search your vehicle. If it's in the glovebox or the trunk, and he opens it up without your permission and sees the joint, he can't use that evidence, nor can he expand his search based on that evidence.

Say that cop peeked under the stall or through the crack in the door and noticed Craig was snorting some coke - he probably would not be able to act on that, because Craig's reasonable expectation of privacy is that he would not be watched in the stall. But if Craig dropped his vial and it rolled into sight of the cop as he was sitting on his toilet, that evidence would be OK.

While that probably shouldn't apply in this case (because the issue is Craig's interference with another person's privacy rights), the defense might argue all sorts of stuff in the alternative, and courts often address those arguments in enough detail to establish some precedent.

Lots of interesting questions in this case. The ACLU gets involved here because it's important to define the edges of the law - not necessarily for bathroom sex, but in other applications of the same or similar laws.

I believe the privacy argument would go as follows. If you have a presumption of privacy, such as your automobile or home, then the undercover cop could not search without probable cause or a warrant. Did sliding a foot under a bathroom stall qualify as probable cause in and of itself? It's an interesting case because without well defined boundaries on what does and does not qualify, abuses can clearly occur. Can an undercover cop just look over a bathroom stall because he wants to? Still, this case in particular is problematic as a test case because Craig already pleaded guilty to the charge.

Both of your examples go to the very strong expectation of privacy a person has in their own home, but not any inherent right to smoke weed or commit sodomy. Those states would have had no problem prosecuting anybody caught in public. The cases that brought down the sodomy statutes were all about weighing their privacy rights in their homes against the state's interests(?) in stopping that behavior. So it was not so much about a right to do things while in private, but their right not to be unduly bothered in their homes - it's a fine distinction, but it's there - and the hurdles the state had to overcome to gather evidence, get a warrant, enter the house, search, etc. in those cases.

To my knowledge there was no search, or gathering of any evidence in this case. I don't think the police officer looked over the stall wall either. This entire case was based on the actions of Larry Craig and the interpretation of those actions by the police officer. I don't see any way that a "right to privacy" is relevant. Wide stance, reaching for a paper or whatever are things that could be used in a defense in trial court, not too likely in an appeals court though. I really don't understand what legal point the ACLU is attempting to make in this case.


Aquilla

Yes, it's the interpretation that matters. The undercover cop chose to interpret Craig's actions as probable cause for arrest. If there's a presumption of privacy, then I believe a higher standard (other than a wide stance and foot tapping) would be required. At least, that's how I imagine the ACLU would argue it.


Did the cop have the right to arrest Mr. Craig? Ultimately, that's what the ACLU is arguing.

In looking closer at Bryant, I don't think the ACLU has a case. In the Bryant case, the officers positioned themselves on the roof and looked down into the stalls... a clear violation of privacy. That is nowhere near what happened in this case. Where did the invasion of privacy occur? Did the officer ever look into Craig's stall? No... in fact, Craig looked into his.

I think the ACLU is trying to claim that if the police monitor the bathroom that it's an invasion of privacy... I would argue that's too broad an interpretation.

As far as withdrawing his guilty plea, I don't think Craig has a case. The petition that he signed and mailed to the District Court entering his plea states - according to Wikipedia - "I understand that the court will not accept a plea of guilty from anyone who claims to be innocent... I now make no claim that I am innocent of the charge to which I am entering a plea of guilty." Having read, signed and mailed that, how can he now take it back?

State v. Bryant involved the police conducting surveillance in the bathroom of a Montgomery Ward store. There was a hole in a partition separating two of the stalls and the Montgomery Ward store was concerned about homosexual activity occurring in the bathroom owing to the hole. And so instead of fixing the hole in the one partition they had the cops look down into the stalls through a ventilator in the bathroom roof.

There is a reasonable expectation of privacy in the stalls, but such can be defeated by either having no doors or simply posting a sign on the main entry door to the bathroom warning of possible surveillance [as is the circumstance with those rooms we all use to try on clothes]. There is also the matter of "plain view", which not only covers things viewed but also things heard.

I don't see the ACLU's point here at all. The expectation works both ways and so the Minnesota statute claimed to be overbroad isn't such here, as one ought to be able to reasonably expect that the gal or guy in the stall next to us won't be tapping our one foot while we are attending to waste disposal [as it were]. That's the response here to this absurd claim of "it isn't a crime to solicit sex in public". You can hit on me just about anywhere you like, but no tapping the side of my foot while I'm using the facilities as that's a bit too much. Of course, the ACLU gets this too, and so the ACLU is also claiming that the police officer in the other stall initiated the foot tapping. And, of course, the original charge had something to do with interfering with the privacy of another.

Lastly, the man is dumb as a post and devoid of all morals. Dumb because he has nothing to gain here as his case rests in part on the premise that he has the protected right to solicit men to have sex in a public bathroom [but he's not gay, or so he says, and maybe someone should get his position on whether he's bisexual]. He's devoid of all morals since he waited to tell his wife of the arrest until just before it all became public [so about two weeks worth there]. Needless to say, his wife is not thrilled with either circumstance. Oh, and if it is ever a case of "misconstruing my actions", then never ever, never ever, never ever say in the recorded police interview that the arresting officer "entrapped" you [as entrapment only applies when the cops did not misconstrue your actions]. And truly lastly, hopefully the ACLU will advise the man that he himself better not do any misconstruing, since if he taps the wrong foot that is offended by the contact, then in the described circumstance he will have committed a battery and be liable for nominal and maybe even punitive damages.

I was thinking this as well. Per bathroom sex, I have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the public privy, but I also have a reasonable expectation that I can send my nine year old son into the male restroom and not have him subjected to moans of '(well, use your imagination)' and rocking stall doors. I have a reasonable expectation that I can urinate in the restroom, but I also have a reasonable expectation to not get urinated on while in the restroom. I just don't see these thoughts as conflicting. It's a public restroom, therefore it offers less "expectation of privacy" than one's bedroom (or some secluded, nonpublic area) would. And surveillance cameras just wouldn't be tolerable in public restrooms the way monitoring (same-sex personel) is currently permitted in changing rooms.

Furthermore, another difference in the aforementioned case comparison (in addition to thoughts so far) is that the changing rooms in that instance were provided specifically for privacy, so that patrons could feel comfortable to change into store clothes. That isn't the case for public restrooms. Public restrooms are provided out of necessity, not for the interest of privacy. The privacy is secondary, a courtesy but not the reason they are provided in the first place. Essentially (from what I understand) the argument would be that since the airport provides restrooms (an obligation by both necessity and mandated by law, I'm sure) it is thereby also provided an area for couples to copulate in. And, by the way, while they're at it they should be free to solicite others via the bottoms of the stall doors. The whole thing seems ludicrous beyond belief to me.

Lol, this subject is amusing. Why the hell anyone would want sex in a bathroom is beyond me anyway. Thats a dirty nasty place that is a far cry from a bed. Well I'm not sure what to think of Senator Craig, and I don't know what he was up to, if anything, but the idea that people should defend him on the bases of privacy rights is ridiculous. People should have privacy to relieve themselves, not screw around in a public bathroom. I agree with you Mrs P. its ludicrous but thats the downside to living in a free society, you have to put up with those who want rights to do the most obsered things. I have heard worse than that believe it or not.

I don't think the ACLU is here to defend bathroom sex or anything like that. What struck me about this case was how a seemingly innocuous little action led to a man getting arrested. From what I can gather about the case, the cop basically arrested him on the basis of his foot - were there even any words spoken?

Think about solicitation. They can't arrest you for making eye contact, or simply smiling at a prostitute - you have to make a specific offer to pay for sex. Anybody who ever watched Law & Order knows that one. Your intentions have to be very clear.

So without ever seeing Craig's face, without (I think) ever speaking to the guy, the cop runs him in on the basis of Craig's foot touching his foot. Can you really call that probable cause when compared to the standard for solicitation?

The only thing I can think of that could justify the cop's actions is that the foot thing violated Minnesota's privacy statute because the cop had an expectation of privacy himself - not getting his foot footsied by the guy in the next stall. He might have been able to build on that violation to justify peeking in and seeing Craig doing something else, I don't know.... But it seems the cop is determined to push the signal-for-gay-sex angle and not just the invasion of privacy, and I can't figure out how he got there.

John, I think what has me confused (and maybe just about everyone else) is that I don't see the connection between what the ACLU is arguing in their amicus brief and the Craig case. The ACLU's argument may very well be rock solid in legal foundation, but it does seem to me they are making an apples argument for a case involving oranges. I don't see how a right to privacy applies in a solicitation case, even one as frankly bizarre as this one.


Aquilla

For everyone's perusal, I offer the amicus brief itself, which will surely be a better source than media stories:

ACLU's Amicus Brief

They are basically saying that the law used to arrest Craig is constitutionally overbroad. From reading the Amicus, their case seems to make some sense. But then again, I'm just an ACLU-lovin, Communist-leanin, no-good pansy liberal.

A “bathroom” is where you can and should have the expectation of privacy to do what the stall was intended for with some laditude perhaps. Some folks may want to chance cloths in there for example. But imo having sex in the stall is well beyond reasonable. How do you explain the noises coming form the stall to your 10 year old?

If you go along with the idea that you should be able to have sex (any kind) in evey place you can expect to “have privacy” then should we include:
All bathrooms – regardless of where they are including schools?
Phone booths?
Department store changing areas?

If you say no – why?

The ACLU will generally defend what they consider a “gay rights” issue like this regardless of how outlandish it may be.

I must be behind the power curve on this topic. I know the media has accused Craig of lewd conduct and prostitution, but I haven't found anything official supporting that. According to police reports, he was charged with two crimes. The first one was 'Interference with Privacy'. Here is what the report describes as 'Interfering with Privacy':
"by surreptitiously gazing, staring or peeping in the window or other aperture of a sleeping room in a hotel, a tanning booth, or other place where a reasonable person would have an expectation of privacy and has exposed or is likely to expose their intimate parts or the clothing covering the immediate area of the intimate parts and doing so with the intent to intrude upon or interfere with the privacy of the occupant."

Ok, so he looked in a stall. I don't know if that should be illegal, but it is, so I can't argue that.

The second crime was 'Disorderly Conduct'. From the police report, I would argue that Craig may not have been as willing to comply to be arrested, but who is? I don't know if disorderly conduct would be a good way to describe his actions according to the report.

Even after this story has been in the headlines, and people have been talking about it, I would be willing to bet that the common citizen would not be able to tell you what the signals are in a mens public bathroom to ask the person sitting in the next stall for sex are. How many times do you have to slide your fingers under the partition to ask for sex?

This case makes good headlines, but I don't think it means that Craig is gay, but I could be wrong.

While I agree that the potential for strange parental dialogue exists, the constant "think of the children" philosophy cannot always be applied to deny the rights of full-fleged citizens in any capacity.

A phone booth is a place of expected auditory privacy, but the same principle applies. If someone wished to extend the right to privacy for sexual exploits, I would exercise my right to throw a tarp over said booth.

Changing areas generally have walls or curtains that would make them cousins of bathrooms, so right on.

That's a bit of a blanket statement since I attend high school and I can assure you that there are straight couples engaging in bathroom sex.

I know each state might have different laws, but isn't sex in public illegal pretty much across the nation? If not, aren't there indecent exposure laws in place?

That's the whole issue at debate: Are public restrooms a place of privacy or are they still "public?" And sure, perhaps. But no one has X-Ray vision that I know, so making the case for Indecent Exposure would require someone sticking their head underneath the stall to see what's going on, which I am sure the occupant[s] would then file a counter-suit concerning invasion of privacy by the person checking for any Indecent Exposure.

Everyone is indecently exposed in the bathroom, that's why they are private.

While I might agree to the latter part of your post...

Seriously. It seems that their interpretation of the law is accurate, but then again obviously their brief will be convincing.

My indignation with this situation is that he plead guilty knowing that he was soliciting sex in a restroom at the airport.

Granted, it's speculation, but I'd have to imagine for them to have a "sting" operation at the restroom that there were issues with this. If the law is found to be ineffective, what can the police do? Let homosexuals have sex with wanton abandonment in the restroom? I dunno about that...

I'm not too sure Mike and Jamie would be thrilled with me citing sources, but there are heterosexual websites and literature detailing a vibrant cruising scene also. The very idea that this is a homosexual issue is like sterotyping every gay male so that he must have HIV/AIDS. It's just untrue. And while it's more socially acceptable for the entry to a public restroom for two men or two women to engage in the sexual activity, it's not just a homosexual issue.

And I have to agree, the guilty plea does override any sort of legal intervention at this point; or at leaast, it should.

So are you trying to posit that if this had been a woman in the men's bathroom, (let us assume that despite her obvious female attributes she managed to slip unnoticed into a stall), making obvious overtures at sex, the police officer on the job would have...what? Just smiled knowingly, nodded his head in patronizing approval, and walked away?

Heterosexuals ave sex in bathroom stalls, yeah. And guess what? They get arrested too.

But, this argument is completely off-topic: there was no sex in the public restroom involving either Senator Craig or the undercover cop. There was an arrest (and subsequent admission by Craig) for solicitation of sex. The question we need to focus on is: does inferred solicitation involving foot-tapping and a wide-stance exceed the "reasonable expectation of privacy" standard?

This case in particular, though, does not make a good test case as Craig has already admitted to solicitation.

That is a good point, but the public sex issue still remains. I am not an attorney or a legislator, or even a resident of MN, so would there be a law that forbids public sex? It is my position that even though there is a certain amount of privacy expected in a public bathroom, it still remains that the bathroom is public space. I would venture a guess that most people would accept the fact that at various times, the public would be considered to be "exposing themselves" in a public restroom, however at those times, they are utilizing the facilities that the room was intended. I doubt many would agree that due to the implied privacy, that one could do anything they wanted behind the stall door.


This is where most people are mistaken. No where was any charge of solicitation made, except by the media and other talking heads. If you read the original complaint, there is no violation of any prostitution laws. No one has admitted or charged anything about solicitation. The charges, as I have already summarized were disorderly conduct and interference with privacy.

Thanks for the correction, scubatim. I wonder if interference of privacy works both ways with this case? Regardless, since Craig did admit to these charges, it's a wonder if the ACLU has any case at all.

I admit that I don't have a law degree, but it would seem that if he already plead guilty to the crime, that it would be hard to get an appeal, especially since I doubt his attorney was a public defender that did not fully represent him. One would think that unless there was some gross violation of court rules that the ACLU would be fighting a losing battle from the beginning, but I guess we are going to have to sit back and watch.

You do bring up a good point, though. Was Mr. Craig's right to privacy violated by the cop? Did the cop peer through the crack between the door and the stall partition? Did the cop showing his badge under the partition violate Craig's privacy?

Of course I don't know the exact set up of the bathroom in question, but how does the cop know that Craig wasn't just standing outside of a random stall waiting for one to open up, then after standing there for a couple of minutes realized that there was an open stall? I would admit that if Craig had put his eye near the space between the door and partition, that would be a gross violation of the law, but if he was standing there looking at the door, couldn't the cop misinterpret where Craig was looking and thought he was looking into the stall? I have been in a situation that I was waiting for a stall after a movie at a theater in a busy bathroom where all the doors were closed. Someone pushed on one of the doors and it was open and went right in. Silly me, I was waiting for nothing. I had assumed the stall was taken, but didn't check. Apparently the doors were designed to swing shut on their own. I did stand there and watch the doors, if someone that was in a stall saw me standing there could see my eyes, does that mean that I was peering through, or that I was just waiting for an open stall?

Thank you, quarkhead, for digging up the amicus curiae brief submitted by the ACLU.

Well, we were all way off on our guesses. The privacy law has little to do with their defense. Rather, they are challenging the disorderly conduct statute on a freedom of speech argument. The statute prohibits "engaging in offensive, obscene, or noisy conduct or language," and this covers protected speech, making the statute overbroad and unconstitutional. The ACLU mentioned that this statute was challenged before (In re S.L.J., 263 N.W.2d 412 (1978), which I still can't find for free), and found to be overbroad, but the court "saved" the statute by interpreting it to only cover "fighting words" (words likely to incite violence). That would not apply in this case. (As some background, here is how cities handle the statute.)

So it's protected speech (maybe). You apparently can try to hook up in a bathroom, as long as you plan on going somewhere private, whether the other party wants to hear it or not. Which makes some sense, because you wouldn't want to run afoul of the law if you were on the street and tried to talk up some woman. A bathroom is a weird place, but love blossoms under strange conditions, right? Anybody?

All that being said, the ACLU brief describes all the creepy stuff that Craig did - it was more than footsie, and he will have a hard time getting out from under the Interference With Privacy charge. My hope is that he will have to admit that he was indeed cruising for sex, but he was planning on taking the cop to a motel. It won't come to pass, but I can hope.

So the ACLU isn't protecting bathroom sex, just a person's right to try to hook up.

P.S. The cop was working a sting operation. Good gig.

Whatever happens behind a closed stall door is just as natural as sex. The fact society creates walls and doors to hide such functions would seem to establish a private atmosphere in a public arena. So sex, which is just as natural, should be afforded the same privacy regardless.

And correct, his plea is for solicitation, but no one was harmed by his desires. It's all about two people who agree to physical feats in a stall. Is it right? Perhaps not. But that's not for anyone to inject their personal opinion into the case.

The intent of the bathroom is to, well, go to the bathroom. We accept that behind the closed stall doors, you will be doing your business. We don't expect you to be catching a quickie. With your rationale, since there is a perceived sense of privacy, why not go to the bathroom in a changing room? Being naked or the removal of clothing to any extent is just as natural as what you do in the bathroom, why not just do your duty in a changing room?

Again, I don't know who you are referring to with your "his plea is for solicitation" refers to. It has been well established that there is no proof that he was soliciting anything.

Because there is no toilet in the changing room. The fact of the matter is, any private place is a place sexual relations may be had if two or more people feel the urge, as it were. You won't be catching me in a quickie, I assure you. But I shall always defend the right of those wishing to do so because of America's right to privacy.

His guilty plea for soliciting sex isn't proof?

I admit that while Senator Craig wasn't caught engaging in bathroom sex per se, the Police had good reason to believe that's what he was soliciting. Prior to his arrest in Minneapolis, several men went to the Idaho Statesmen and testified that they had sexual encounters with Craig in public bathrooms.

If a person wants to do a quickie, the proper place for that is a motel room. Even though bathroom stalls have doors for limited privacy, a curious child could hear what's going on inside the bathroom and peer in through the cracks of the stalls if anything funny is going on. And there's no need to mention that a lot of bathroom stalls have holes drilled in through the sides, which is an invasion of privacy in itself. I won't ask what those holes were drilled for.

So what you are saying is that because the intended purpose of the private area created by the dressing room isn't for relieving yourself, you shouldn't do so. This is also true for having sex. The intended purpose of bathrooms and dressing rooms does not include sex, so you shouldn't expect to have the right to do so. If it is ok, then why would you not have sex in a bathroom or changing room?

And yes, you are wrong about his guilty plea for soliciting sex. I have pointed out more than once that he did not plead guilty to solicitation. In fact, he wasn't even charged for anything sexually related. The link is in two of my previous posts if you would like to look it up.


Did the police know that when he was arrested? Was the bathroom sex sting set up to catch Senator Craig? What evidence at the time of arrest did the police have that he wanted to have sex in the bathroom? Because his toe tapped the floor? Do you really buy that? How many men went to testify about sexual encounters? I have not heard anything on that, but needless to say, that is not evidence that he was soliciting sex in a bathroom at an airport since the cop didn't know who he was until after the fact.

If someone chooses to make the changing are a place for release, I would simply advise bringing some kind of item that will catch and store any refuse so as to make for a more pleasant experience for the next occupant.

At one time, women had an intended purpose of staying home to tend house. Intention has little to do with purpose; people think for themselves and will make choices based on circumstances. If sex in a restroom seems viable and it is private, who cares?

This is getting a bit uncomfortable. Please don't make this personal.

The fact that Craig is on-record of having had a reduced charge of disorderly conduct in place of lewd conduct is enough of a sexual nature to suggest guilt by way of solicitation. One need not have been in the bathroom at the time to know why police would intially seek to charge him with lewd conduct.