<div>All-</div>
<div> </div>
<div>In the following comments, I am not stating what I think is proper conduct in these sorts of situations. I personally do not think public bathrooms should be used as "pick-up" places, nor as places for any other conduct (no second hand tobacco smoke please!) beyond the usual utility.
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>I am not claiming to know exactly what the law in Minnesota states, nor what Craig's conduct exactly was, nor what he exactly intended by that conduct, nor exactly what behavior the police officer involved did or did not engage in that may have "invited" Craig to make contact, nor exactly how well or not the officer documented exactly what Craig did. I offer these comments to raise points that it seems, from my layman's perspective (no law degree), should be fully addressed to explore all the legal and ethical complexities of this case, apart from the emotional biases, partisanship and assumptions of "guilty till proven innocent" that have run rampant. Yes, Craig pled guilty, but there are various situations where those facing charges will plead guilty when their guilt is still open to question, and even in cases where the accused knows they are innocent. This is well known.
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The account of Craig's conduct in the bathroom, as far as I know, is based on Craig's or the officers account. There are no other witnesses that are cited. There are no video or audio documents of the encounter. How long did Craig stare into the stall? There is no objective record of this time period, like a video with a clock would offer. Is it beyond the realm of possibility that the officer dislikes politicians of Craig's persuasion, and is thus inclined to slant his account of Craig's conduct against Craig? And even if not, there is no doubt that law enforcement will sometimes slant their accounts dealing with suspects placed under arrest to ensure the arrest appears as justified as possible, even if they have no "bias" against the accused.
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Assuming Craig was open to the possibility of a "meeting" of some sort in the bathroom, was the officer giving any signals well known to be "interpreted" as an invitation? If so, the officer was inviting Craig to make some sort of contact. Thus Craig's intention in this context may not have been to invade anyones privacy who was not inviting such an invasion.
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Consider that Craig never touched the officer beyond bumping feet, nor said a word to him, till the officer identified himself. Furthermore, how far do assumptions of privacy extend in a public bathroom? We all know that men stand next to each other in a rather "exposed" condition in bathrooms, and if someone glances the "wrong" way, assumptions of various intentions may arise. In a stall, of course, there is more of an assumption of privacy, but stalls are usually not designed to be so private that no outside view is possible, even for someone not intending to look into the stall. The gaps around the door are often surprisingly large. I imagine it might be relevant to measure how large these stall door gaps are, to determine how easily someone could innocently glance into a stall. They also often have large open areas on the bottom of the doors and walls, which now that I think about it, seems rather odd. Why don't bathroom stall doors and walls always extend nearly to the floor, with door jams and wall gaps that cannot be easily glanced through, if protecting privacy is a major concern? This would render the alleged conduct in this case much more difficult.
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Anyway, the assumption of total privacy, it seems, is perhaps not reasonable in a public restroom. Thus the gross misdemeanor charge of invasion of privacy might be challenged on the basis that first, the officer invited his privacy to be invaded by giving well known signals that he was inviting a meeting (entrapment?), and that a public restroom offers limited assumptions of total privacy in the first place.
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Also, is inquiring in a bathroom if someone is interested in consensual adult conduct somewhere else illegal? There are many laws on the books regarding sexual conduct of various kinds that are no longer enforced, and are thus viewed as de facto no longer applicable. It might be a moot point whether Craig or the officer specifically asked, verbally or otherwise, after the stall gazing and foot bumping, whether the other wanted to get a room somewhere for consensual adult contact. The alleged unlawful conduct Craig engaged in, invasion of privacy and disorderly conduct, had already occurred. However, if actual explicit conduct was agreed upon to occur in the bathroom, this would rise to a much clearer expression of intention to commit "disorderly conduct," or sex in a public place. This did not occur.
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>This case has been portrayed in the media that Craig was caught in a bathroom sex sting operation. Then why do the charges against Craig explicitly have nothing to do with sex? The exact charges against Craig could be leveled against a prankster who was peering through the stall door cracks, laughing, and throwing spit wads at the stall occupant under the door, with sex the last thing on their minds! It seems if a bathroom sex sting operation was the intent, explicit intent to have sex in the bathroom should have been the standard the officer applied to make an arrest.
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>As the ACLU case defending Craig points out, it is protected speech for adults to discuss the possibility of consensual meetings, even in bathrooms. The non verbal "signals" exchanged regarding the possibility of meetings might thus be protected speech, an interpretation that no doubt will not be met with equanimity by all. However, if they engage in sex in the bathroom, charges of having sex in a public place, or disturbing the peace, or disorderly conduct apply, not laws against discussing the possibility of consensual adult contact that may occur somewhere private, if such laws exist, which would be or are unconstitutional, if you take the ACLU's view.
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Ted Moffett</div>
<div> </div>
<div><span class="gmail_quote">On 9/28/07, <b class="gmail_sendername">Sunil Ramalingam</b> <<a href="mailto:sunilramalingam@hotmail.com">sunilramalingam@hotmail.com</a>> wrote:</span>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">Paul,<br><br>Craig was offered a one-for-one: Plead to one, the other goes away. It's a<br>standard offer here too. I'm inclined to agree with you that the conduct
<br>involved in the charge he pled to is not particularly egregious; if you came<br>to me and had been charged with only that one count, we might well want to<br>fight it on a number of grounds. And yes, the cop could have built a
<br>stronger case by waiting it out. Perhaps he was tired of sitting there with<br>his pants down.<br><br>But you're looking at it in a vacuum; you can't ignore the other charge,<br>which is the more dangerous one for Craig. Yes, it's possible that one
<br>stares into space. I do it too, but not through a crack between toilet<br>partitions behind which sits a man I would assume to be defecating, or at<br>least half-naked. I'll bet you don't do that often either.
<br><br>The officer's testimony would contradict that explanation; he says Craig was<br>deliberately staring at him. It's possible he's wrong, but if Craig gets<br>his plea back and goes to trial, seems to me he would have to take the stand
<br>to refute the cop's testimony. Does he really want to be cross-examined on<br>that point? I don't think so.<br><br>Sunil<br><br><br>>From: Paul Rumelhart <<a href="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com">godshatter@yahoo.com
</a>><br>>To: Tom Hansen <<a href="mailto:thansen@moscow.com">thansen@moscow.com</a>><br>>CC: 'Donovan Arnold' <<a href="mailto:donovanjarnold2005@yahoo.com">donovanjarnold2005@yahoo.com</a>>, 'Sunil Ramalingam'
<br>><<a href="mailto:sunilramalingam@hotmail.com">sunilramalingam@hotmail.com</a>>, <a href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">vision2020@moscow.com</a><br>>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Senator Larry Craig Challenges Guilty Plea
<br>>Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 22:00:46 -0700<br>><br>>I've posted on this before, but I might as well do it again, I guess.<br>><br>>I don't think that Senator Craig should be punished by the law for<br>
>something as stupid as bumping another man's foot, looking through a crack<br>>in a door, or moving his hand under the partition. Couldn't the officer<br>>have done whatever was expected next, which I presume is to come over to
<br>>his stall, and wait for him to make an undeniable request for sex (verbally<br>>or bodily) before arresting him?<br>><br>>As for the peeping through the door thing, am I the only person around here<br>>that will sometimes stare into space when I'm thinking about something
<br>>deeply, only to "come to" with the realization that I've been staring at<br>>someone the entire time? I'm not saying I do this every day, but I've done<br>>it before. I can't be the only one. I'm not saying that is what happened to
<br>>Craig, but it's definitely possible.<br>><br>>I can also see an occasion where someone might want to plead guilty to<br>>something they didn't do in an attempt to avoid certain people finding out<br>
>about it. That doesn't speak too highly of him if he did that, but a guilty<br>>plea to a misdemeanor doesn't mean the person did it absolutely. If you<br>>think he is the kind of guy that solicits sex in a public bathroom, why is
<br>>it so unbelievable that he might have lied to gain a perceived advantage?<br>><br>>Paul<br>><br><br><br>=======================================================<br>List services made available by First Step Internet,
<br>serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.<br> <a href="http://www.fsr.net">http://www.fsr.net</a><br> mailto:<a href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">Vision2020@moscow.com</a><br>=======================================================
<br></blockquote></div><br>