Posted on 01/16/2008 5:05:44 AM PST by IronKros
ST. PAUL, Minn. - In an effort to help Sen. Larry Craig, the American Civil Liberties Union is arguing that people who have sex in public bathrooms have an expectation of privacy.
Craig, of Idaho, is asking the Minnesota Court of Appeals to let him withdraw his guilty plea to disorderly conduct stemming from a bathroom sex sting at the Minneapolis airport.
The ACLU filed a brief Tuesday supporting Craig. It cited a Minnesota Supreme Court ruling 38 years ago that found that people who have sex in closed stalls in public restrooms "have a reasonable expectation of privacy."
That means the state cannot prove Craig was inviting an undercover officer to have sex in public, the ACLU wrote.
The Republican senator was arrested June 11 by an undercover officer who said Craig tapped his feet and swiped his hand under a stall divider in a way that signaled he wanted sex. Craig has denied that, saying his actions were misconstrued.
The ACLU argued that even if Craig was inviting the officer to have sex, his actions wouldn't be illegal.
"The government cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Senator Craig was inviting the undercover officer to engage in anything other than sexual intimacy that would not have called attention to itself in a closed stall in the public restroom," the ACLU wrote in its brief.
The ACLU also noted that Craig was originally charged with interference with privacy, which it said was an admission by the state that people in the bathroom stall expect privacy.
Craig at one point said he would resign but now says he will finish his term, which ends in January 2009.
This is silly...
The ACLU shows its true colors, once again.
Gays, child molesters, commies and traitors. Those are the only people with civil rights in the eyes of the ACLU.
Is this satire?
And some folks wonder why moms bring their little boys into the ladies’ room with them...
ML/NJ
If someone could point out that it is satire, it would make my day.
Stop the world, I want to get off. /s
Gays, child molesters, commies and traitors ARE the ACLU
The ACLU declared war on it.
He didn’t have sex, nor was he PLANNING to have sex, IN THE STALLS. That was simply where the alleged SOLICITATION to have sex took place.
I think the ACLU would have a better shot at arguing that returning a solicitation from someone for sex has an expectation of privacy, rather than arguing that actually putting two people in a stall raises an expectation of privacy.
Hard to make a bumper sticker that includes all 4 of those.
The ACLU has to pick one.
I suggest: Traitors’R’Us.
Since molesting children can be seen as a kind of treason.
Disgusting.
pub·lic /ˈpʌblɪk/
1. of, pertaining to, or affecting a population or a community as a whole: public funds; a public nuisance.
2. done, made, acting, etc., for the community as a whole: public prosecution.
3. open to all persons: a public meeting.
4. of, pertaining to, or being in the service of a community or nation, esp. as a government officer: a public official.
5. maintained at the public expense and under public control: a public library; a public road.
6. generally known: The fact became public.
7. familiar to the public; prominent: public figures.
8. open to the view of all; existing or conducted in public: a public dispute.
9. pertaining or devoted to the welfare or well-being of the community:
Am I missing something here ?????
Defending the right to sex in stalls in public restrooms? Looks like the ACLU has finally found their true calling and cause for being. Such a noble cause, not.
All participants in this are disgusting: Craig, the ACLU, and the undercover cop.
Is there any way we could see a list of exactly WHO donates to the ACLU?
Why do you ask such silly questions about the 99% of people who use the restroom for its intended purposes?
Hell. In that case, leave out the toilet and put a sign on the door saying, “Plase Confine Your Sexual Activity to This Private Room”.
Nope. Unless you're there for homosexual sex, you can't expect privacy.
Not only are gays allowed to tap their foot, they can actually crawl under the partition and tap dance in front of you.
I’m one of those moms. My soon to be seven son rarely goes into a public restroom by himself. He rolls his eyes at me but I’m taking no chances. Either my husband goes in or he comes into the ladies with me.
=====================================
For doing his job?
For trying to maintain public decency for families and children who are trying to use the bathroom for its proper purpose?
For trying to stop a disgusting public nuisance?
Or just for being a cop?
I sure wouldn't want his job and I'm glad he's doing it. Someone needs to stop this perverted disgusting behavior.
Personally I think cops should just hose these pervs down with Freeze + P and forget about due process, because not only are the bathroom privileges being abused by the pervs so is due process.
Folks this is getting way out of control we have to figure out how to out smart the commie ACLU..People have a problem letting their little boys go into these restrooms alone as it is..
You have DOORS on the stalls in the public restrooms where you live? You’re lucky.
Here in the Phoenix/Scottsdale are where I live, as a long distance runner I have occasion to visit many different restrooms in many parks in the area.
No doors in the men’s rooms. There are doors in the ladies’ rooms per my wife.
If you want privacy, the best you can do is try to get the stall at the end of the row so not everyone will walk by to say Hi.
one wonders if the aclu would ever stand up for the principal that income is private property which should not be subject to seizure by the government.
It cited a Minnesota Supreme Court ruling 38 years ago that found that people who have sex in closed stalls in public restrooms "have a reasonable expectation of privacy."
Sound legal strategy. What's really outrageous is that the MN Supreme Court, in 1970 made the ruling being referenced!
Yeah, that's the ticket.
But I’m confused. Is Craig now claiming that he intended to have sex in the men’s room at MSP airport?
Yes, but the joke is on civilization.
Objection circumvented.
Move to, oh say, the New Town area of Chicago, or anywhere in San Francisco for 5 years so you get a real taste of how things work and you will soon realize that what the cop was doing is the only way to minimize this sort of activity (no way to stop it completely.) In New Town in the libraries you have to go to the desk to get the key to the washroom. Which is better than having some 10-year-old walk into the washroom and come upon two men in the throes of, well, do I have to paint a picture, or do you get the point?
I’d hate to be a cop who has to work that detail. But if none did the public would scream that “Something Needs To Be Done!!!” Of course when something is done then you have those who criticize what is being done.
I strongly disagree. People should have no expectation of privacy when engaging in sexual activity in public bathrooms, parks, etc. Get a room if you have to!
I'm curious -- how do you know what he was planning to do?
Are you saying that the way these sort of "unions" work is that the 2 guys go off somewhere else to do the nasty stuff? It's pretty mystifying to me, but I'm sure these type of trysts are pretty much choreographed in practice. But what's your evidence to support that claim?
By the way, this type of legal "arguing in the alternative" pretty much destroys Craig's initial position that "I didn't do it, it's my wide stance" defense.
To clarify then, sex in public restrooms is private.
How do they even release statements like that without feeling like morons?????
hmmmm...
Hate to say it, but I think the ACLU has a point.
Look at the other side of the coin, what would you think if someone kept peering through the cracks or looked over the top of the partition while you were using a public restroom?
Would you regard that as an invasion of privacy or is that acceptable for someone to watch you taking a dump when you have specifically isolated yourself from everyone else by shutting yourself in a cubicle?
How about if they took photos of you ? It's acceptable to photograph you in public so if you have no expectation of privacy why not allow it in the public restroom?
However, even if the ACLU is right on this one it doesn't get anyone off the hook, since you can argue that your car is a private place but you can't (legally) have sex in your car in a public place, so why should a toilet stall be any different?
Not in a PUBLIC RESTROOM!!
Maybe they should pass an law that colons are "Exit Only" devices in all public restrooms.
Remember when degenerates were simply called degenerates?
Here is the crux of the ACLU’s argument:
“..sexual intimacy [that] would not have called attention to itself in a closed stall in the public restroom.”
And it’s just plain wrong. If you were in the next stall doing what the public toilet was designed for, you couldn’t help but know what was going on. Not to mention waiting for an open stall and wondering what was taking so long.
No doubt, our big-government liberaltarian friends will be along any minute to tell us why the ACLU is right here.
You won’t find it in either a public restroom or an ACLU meeting.
“Expectation of privacy” for perversion, in a public place!!!???
What they SHOULD worry about is the expectation of grievous bodily harm.
Make a pass at me or worse yet, one of my grandsons, PRIVACY will be the LAST thing on their perverted minds.
I guess I should have said there was no evidence that he was planning on having sex in the stalls. I certainly have no idea if he really was signalling for sex, or that if he was where he thought that would occur.
In my 39 years on this planet I have never, and I repeat NEVER, walked into a public restroom found to be occupied by men having sex.
Is it conceivable that gay men go into stalls, tap their feet and then exchange contact information with the purpose of meeting later at a more private location?
This is the key issue. We're not talking about peeking through the cracks nor cameras in the stalls nor any of that big brother stuff.
We're talking about common decency to allow public facilities to be used for the purpose which they are designed.
Some homeless wino is not allowed to set up housekeeping in a public restroom. Nor can I pitch a tent and overnight in a highway rest area. Why should the perverts have the right to change an intended purpose of the public facility?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
