Sex in restroom stalls is private, ACLU says

[Gunny]

Associated Press
updated 2 hours, 48 minutes ago

ST. PAUL, Minnesota - In a legal effort to help a U.S. senator, the American Civil Liberties Union is arguing that people who have sex in public bathrooms have an expectation of privacy.

Republican Senator Larry Craig is asking the Minnesota Court of Appeals to let him withdraw his guilty plea to disorderly conduct related to a bathroom sex sting at the Minneapolis airport last year.

Craig was arrested by an undercover police 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 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 the undercover officer to have sex in public, the ACLU wrote.

Even if Craig was inviting the officer to have sex, the ACLU argued, his actions would not 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 a bathroom stall expect privacy.

more ... http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22674564/

 

[jillian]

But they took the side of a right wing lawmaker... does that get them brownie points?

 

[Gunny]

But they took the side of a right wing lawmaker... does that get them brownie points?

Nope. They still suck.

I think the whole thing is stupid from the start. Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending Craig, but I do defend his right to presumption of innocence. If the ACLU had stopped there I would at least agree with them on this one issue. Even blithering idiots get something right by chance on occasion.

 

[jillian]

Gotta tell you... I always thought it was stupid that grown men needed protection from being hit on (cause that's really all Craig did). But I do like the irony of the ACLU helping him since I suspect he has all kinds of lovely things to say about them.

 

[Gunny]

Gotta tell you... I always thought it was stupid that grown men needed protection from being hit on (cause that's really all Craig did). But I do like the irony of the ACLU helping him since I suspect he has all kinds of lovely things to say about them.

Stating Craig was hitting on someone is speculative. He says he wasn't.

I don't find so much irony in it when you get to the part where the ACLU is trying to push the notion of an expectation of privacy in a public restroom.

That's right in line with their nonsensical approach to things.

 

[jillian]

Ah... but are they wrong?

 

[Gunny]

Ah... but are they wrong?

IMO, yes. "Public" restroom. Kind of says it all. What expectation does one have to privacy in public?

 

[jillian]

IMO, yes. "Public" restroom. Kind of says it all. What expectation does one have to privacy in public?

so the first charge they filed against Craig was wrong then?

 

[82Marine89]

But they took the side of a right wing lawmaker... does that get them brownie points?

Brownie points? Gay sex? Ewwwwwwwwwwww.

 

[doniston]

It doesn't matter in the slightest---- HE PLED GUILTY"

 

[hjmick]

It doesn't matter in the slightest---- HE PLED GUILTY"

To misdemeanor disorderly-conduct charges.

 

[Shogun]

IMO, yes. "Public" restroom. Kind of says it all. What expectation does one have to privacy in public?

uh, I think it's a fair to expect privacy while taking a shit in a public restroom. By your logic was Chuck Berry innocent of breaking assumed privacy in public restrooms by installing video cameras??

Berry's business enterprises (1980s-90s)

In the late 1980s, Berry owned a restaurant in Wentzville, Missouri, called The Southern Air.[16] He also owns a custom built estate in Wentzville, which he dubbed Berry Park. For many years, Berry hosted rock concerts throughout the summer at Berry Park. However, he eventually closed the estate to the public due to the riotous behaviour of many of the guests.

In 1990, Berry was sued by several women who claimed that he had installed a video camera in the ladies' bathrooms at two of his St. Louis restaurants. A class action settlement was eventually reached with 59 women on the complaint. Berry's biographer, Bruce Pegg, estimated that it cost Berry over $1.2 million plus legal fees.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chuck_Berry



useless trivia: My hometown is about 14 miles away from Wentzville.

 

[watermark]

Propositioning of sex in a bathroom does not mean that you want to have sex with the person... in the bathroom.

 

[watermark]

It doesn't matter in the slightest---- HE PLED GUILTY"

To "disorderly conduct". This should never have even been raised as an issue. People have the right to communicate with each other. Using this code, no one would've even known what they were doing. That said, tapping your foot /= I want to have sex, and this whole thing has been blown way out of proportion.

 

[Gem]

Thank you, ACLU. The next time I wanna have noisy sex in my workplace bathroom...I'll be sure to refer to you when my school district wants to fire me!

 

[Shogun]

Just to clarify... I do think that privacy is implied in public restrooms considering the Chuck Berry example. However, I do not think that privacy extends to sexual activity in a public restroom. I think that it is fair to assume that privacy applies insomuch that the public space is being used for its intended purpose.


Now, I hate the idea of minimizing the opportunity for some to join the mile high club. However, I have to admit that arguing privacy when a stewardess busts in on sex at 20k feet is pretty silly. So, to, should privacy not be an excuse for the George Micheals out there. That being said, I don't think that toe tapping is any different than some dude hitting on a gal. I think that there is a big difference between what may or may not be an accurate translation of a code and actually busting him smoking the pole in a public restroom.

 

[Gunny]

so the first charge they filed against Craig was wrong then?

I don't even pretend to know, and honestly, don't really care. What I heard was Craig was tapping his foot in a stall in a public restroom and got busted for it.

Was he trolling for sex or humming a song will doing his business? I have no idea.

Assuming he was doing the former, what law did he violate? I'd like to know because I don't see much difference in that scenario with what he did and hitting on a woman in a bar. Is THAT illegal as well in that state?

If you're going to bring up the fact he just paid the fine or whatever he did as evidence, that in and of itself is not conclusive, IMO. I've gotten speeding tickets in states I had no intention of returning to even if i could have. I paid the fine -- an admission of guilt. And I know damned well I was not doing 85 through NM in a ragtop jeep ... it'd rattle your teeth out of your skull at 70.

 

[pegwinn]

SNIP

"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 a bathroom stall expect privacy.

more ... http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22674564/

If he thinks the kids on the playground are questioning his manhood due to his foot tapping etc....... wait till they read the highlighted portion that disses his skilz.......

Yuh c'n always count on the ACLU

 

[Dirt McGirt]

I think they're going about it all wrong. Instead of arguing whether stalls in restrooms should be considered public or private, they should define the universal hand signals for "hey man, I'm out of toilet paper," and "hey man, would you like to have some gay but sex?". It's in the public's interest to sort out which hand signal constitutes which action because misconstruing the gesture can be a little embarrassing for both parties.

 

[actsnoblemartin]

on that note how about a gay bathroom , then nobody gets hurt, until they enter the bathroom

I think they're going about it all wrong. Instead of arguing whether stalls in restrooms should be considered public or private, they should define the universal hand signals for "hey man, I'm out of toilet paper," and "hey man, would you like to have some gay but sex?". It's in the public's interest to sort out which hand signal constitutes which action because misconstruing the gesture can be a little embarrassing for both parties.