Sex in restroom stalls is private, ACLU says

[Captain Jack Sparrow]

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

[smithie]

Originally Posted by Captain Jack Sparrow

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

usually I am alone, anyway

[Menno of Verona]

Craig and the ACLU....strange bedfellows....pun intended

[Jack Dublin]

The ACLU is often wrong, as they would be in this. So is that court ruling.

So Craig is a card-carrying ACLU member now?

[Cameron]

I can see the argument that people have some "expectation of privacy" inside the stall of a public restroom.

But, I still don't want people having sexual relations of any kind in them.

And I expect the court to say that.

[Hexexis]

Originally Posted by Cameron

I can see the argument that people have some "expectation of privacy" inside the stall of a public restroom. ...

Of course: with regard to using it for that which it was designed.

Sounds like an easy entre, as it were, for ACLU to sue mfrs. of public toilet stalls when some tryster smacks his head on the handicap bar during rough foreplay. ACLU joins Bush admin. in twisting the meanings for public & private to suit their own wacky purposes.

[Hexexis]

Originally Posted by Menno of Verona

Craig and the ACLU....strange bedfellows....pun intended

Strange queen-size bedfellows: ACLU best beware of Larry "Fecal Volcano" Craig & that well-known wide stance.

[Baltimatt]

Originally Posted by Cameron

I can see the argument that people have some "expectation of privacy" inside the stall of a public restroom.

But, I still don't want people having sexual relations of any kind in them.

And I expect the court to say that.

Agreed.

"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.

I'm still trying to parse that one!

[Baltimatt]

Here's another legal argument

An appeals brief filed Tuesday contends that Minnesota's disorderly conduct law "requires that the conduct at issue have a tendency to alarm or anger 'others'" — underscoring the plural nature of the term. Craig's brief goes on to cite other convictions that were overturned because the multiple-victim test wasn't met. His lawyers apply the same logic to his case.

...

Appellant's alleged conduct in this case affected only a single individual — Sergeant Karsnia," the Craig brief says. "It did not — and could not affect 'others' as the disorderly conduct statute requires, and therefore, does not satisfy that element of the statute." The brief also argues that Karsnia himself could not have been offended by the alleged conduct because "he invited it." The alleged conduct, Craig's lawyers added, doesn't rise to the level of being "offensive, obscene, abusive, boisterous or noisy."

Gee, why didn't he get a good lawyer the first time?

[Wizard777]

I was expecting this. SCOTUS consistently rules that as long as the people make an attempt to conceal their activities. They have a reasonable expectance of privacy. The concealment doesn't have to be absolute. Just like with drug cases where police look through a crack in the blinds. If you look through a crack in the stall door. You are invading their privacy.

The way places get around that is not whining to a judge. They remove the stall doors. If you cannot conceal your activities. You have no reasonable expectance of privacy.

[osprey]

What about "public" restrooms don't they understand. Having sex in public is against the law. Craig seems to be INTENT on proving that he's not gay and by doing so proves that he IS.

[banner1124]

The ACLU is insane.

[MLArthur]

Craig is damned either way on this one. If the stall is a place with an expectation of privacy where one can have sex, then he is guilty of disorderly conduct by looking into the officer's stall through the crack in the door thereby invading his expectation of privacy.

[Taki]

In my mind, whomever owns the bathroom has the right to say who can and cannot have sex in it.

Nor is it an unreasonable infringement for the state to proclaim that sex in public bathrooms controlled by the state isn't allowed.

[johman]

What does it really matter, just as long as the citizens from Idaho (and other states) flush despicable politicians like this to the cesspools where they belong?

[Captain Jack Sparrow]

Originally Posted by Baltimatt

Here's another legal argument



Gee, why didn't he get a good lawyer the first time?

He was too busy pleading guilty when he got caught!

[Hexexis]

Originally Posted by MLArthur

...thereby invading his expectation of privacy.

Oh, I'm sorry, but expectation of privacy limited to the four fool groups: politicians, entertainers, journalists, & terrorists. Rest of America has expectation that it'll be shot in the back by Administration Sturmabteilung. There: now carry on.

[buffy]

Lolz.

Have y'all seen the animated Crackle video?

The Village People are in a public restroom singing I ... Am ... So ... Gay to the tune of Y.M.C.A., complete with Sen Larry Gay popping out of the stall to join the chorus each time.

Hysterical.

[Baltimatt]

buffy--

How dare you post something like that without a link!

Is this it?

[Up2DaRack]

Originally Posted by Baltimatt

buffy--

How dare you post something like that without a link!

Is this it?

See, this is why I love this board!