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."

Sex in restroom stalls is private, ACLU says - Capitol Hill - MSNBC.com

1) IMO, ACLU loses.

2) "REASONABLE" expectation.
I would love to see the precedent to see what the context was for that statement.

This is another important case that the ACLU will take a lot of heat on - but, as a test case, it has far reaching implications.

If it's found that people do NOT have an expectation of privacy, it will be harder for men who get into women's restrooms to be indicted for invasion of privacy,...etc.

Like all ACLU test cases, it's not THIS case that is so important, it's the legal parameters set for all future cases.

Also, their case says that there was no law broken because NO SEX TOOK PLACE. There is nothing illegal about flirting - in a public bathroom or anywhere else. And if there IS something illegal about flirting, then we have to start building more jails immediately. He might have been asking for sex - but intended for it to take place in a motel room or somewhere else. The bottom line is - as creepy as I find t his whole scenario - the cop jumped the gun in this case.

I am glad the ACLU took this case. The whole thing just didn't smell right to me some how. SO what if he's gay and doesn't admit it and lives a double life. People in Idaho are a little more reserved and change very slowly in what is acceptable to their peers.
Frankly, the way that he has conducted his life is sad, but not at all unlike homosexuals have acted for years until they started coming out of the closet.
Furthermore, I think Larry Craig is probably on that generational cusp where he was just too old to change. Evidently he has become comfortable with a dual life style.
When he was being raised (and in what atmosphere) there was no way he could have gotten into politics-something he loved and was good at.
Besides, he is a good senator as far as the voters are concerned and I am one who voted for him when I lived across the state line from where I live now.
If I could I would vote for him again. This is by no means the worst thing a congressman has done. And if he can face the music, why not let him?

__________________
Frugal tip: To keep potatoes from budding, place an apple in the bag with the potatoes.

How to Fold a Shirt

Salty's Blog

The ACLU should lose on this...

Public restrooms are just that...PUBLIC...

The state(county, city, etc.) has a right to impose restrictions on what they've set up...

__________________
"You get the respect that you give" - cnredd

Another "trial" balloon...this dog wont hunt...

__________________
"Destiny must be shaped and not left to mere chance."..Spencer Collins ..

1) I briefly tried searching for additional information on "reasonable" with regards to the actual precedent.
I found nothing.
"Reasonable expectation of privacy" as a qualifier implies that there are issues where there are also "unreasonable" expectations of privacy.
Quite frankly, considering the subject matter of the previous law I find it difficult to believe that "reasonable expectation of privacy" covers the CAPABILITY to have public sex. The ACLU is really reaching on that one...
I tried to think as to what could possibly be included in "reasonable expectation of privacy" on the issue. The best I could come up with is that if somebody yanked open the door and took a picture, that would be an "unreasonable" invasion of privacy. It would be "unreasonable" for anybody who was using the toilet for legitimate purposes.
Just my two cents worth....

2) Unfortunately, when L Craig denies anything took place at all with all sorts of b.s. excuses, it's hard to delineate what really happened.
If they busted him for what could be at best interpreted as "flirting", then they are jumping the gun.

3) I heard this next "argument" last night, and thought it was just as absurd.

Seeking to have his guilty plea in a bathroom sex sting erased, the attorneys for Sen. Larry Craig of Idaho argue in a new court filing that the underlying act wasn't criminal because it didn't involve multiple victims.

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.

Larry Craig: Disorderly conduct law requires multiple victims; hand signal protected speech

Obviously, the law states that the conduct hsa a "tendency to alarm or anger others".

It doesn't require that it ACTUALLY DID "alarm or anger others". The use of the word "tendency to" demonstrates that if "others" had been present, they would have been "alarmed" or "angered".
You don't include the word "tendency" if your intent is to demand that ACTUAL VICTIMS (plural) had to be involved....

As far as reasonable privacy is concerned, I might expect that those who use the restrooms for their intended purpose might wish for some of that, themselves. Having two people engaged in sex in the closed, public space in which they find themselves strikes me as a violation of THEIR right to privacy.

EXCLLENT point to an angle I haven't thought of!...

__________________
"You get the respect that you give" - cnredd

Evil thought, but as usual I just can't pass on it. This makes me wonder about ACLU lawyer sexuality. Are they adept at the Larry Craig seated tap dance?

That doesn't mean that there isn't an expectation of privacy.

If they lose, it could mean, with no expectation of privacy, they may not be able to keep men out of women's rooms.

Of course, there is an expectation of privacy.