U.S. Senator Arrested (And Things I Didn't Know About Propositioning Gay Sex)

[molson]

I have no idea how this story avoided the media for 2 months, but US Senator Larry Craig (Idaho) was arrested and pled guilty to misdemeanor Disorderly Conduct back in June for trying to get some action in a Minneapolis airport bathroom

http://www.idahostatesman.com/eyepiece/story/143517.html

The abridged version:

According to the police reports, a man, later identified as Craig, kept watching the undercover police officer through a crack in the stall. Craig then entered the next-door stall and placed his luggage against the opening under the stall door.

"My experience has shown that individuals engaging in lewd conduct use their bags to block the view from the front of their stall," said the officer, Sgt. Dave Karsnia, in the report.

The report continued: "At 1216 hours, Craig tapped his right foot. I recognized this as a signal used by persons wishing to engage in lewd conduct. Craig tapped his toes several times and moves his foot closer to my foot. I moved my foot up and down slowly. While this was occurring, the male in the stall to my right was still present. I could hear several unknown persons in the restroom that appeared to use the restroom for its intended use. The presence of others did not seem to deter Craig as he moved his right foot so that it touched the side of my left foot which was within my stall area."

The report said Craig swiped his hand beneath the stall divider several times, and Karsnia showed his police identification under the stall.

"With my left hand near the floor, I pointed towards the exit," the report said. "Craig responded, 'No!' I again pointed towards the exit. Craig exited the stall with his roller bags without flushing the toilet. ... Craig said he would not go. I told Craig that he was under arrest, he had to go, and that I didn't want to make a scene. Craig then left the restroom."

Craig was detained about 45 minutes and questioned by officers at the Airport Police Operations Center. At one point, the police report said, Craig handed the arresting officer a business card that identified him as a U.S. Senator and said "What do you think about that?"

Craig denied any lewd intentions and told police he has a "wide stance" in the bathroom and reached down to pick up a piece of paper from the floor.

"It should be noted that there was not a piece of paper on the bathroom floor, nor did Craig pick up a piece of paper," Karsnia wrote in the report.

[JimboJ]

Am I missing something here? Its illegal to tap your foot in a mens room stall??

[Crim]

Color me naive, but I don't see how any of this is actionable by law enforcement...? If it all happened as the officer reported, it seems like a case of "the Senator was clearly up to something dirty, but we can't prove his intent, so let it go".

I mean, as a juror, I'd be hard pressed (does that qualify as a clever double entendre?) to convict someone for lewd conduct based on what I just read in that post.

[molson]

Am I missing something here? Its illegal to tap your foot in a mens room stall??

I wonder if they tried any cases as part of this "sting", it would be a tough case.

Though, it seems like it would take quite an effort to touch feet with the guy in the stall next to you.

[Crim]

And besides, if loving anonymous men's restroom sex is wrong, then I don't wanna be right!

[Noop]

Gay guys have sex in bathrooms? No wonder they have so many diseases...

[Senator]

Damn.

[Swaggs]

If someone in the stall next to me touched my foot, I would probably be traumatized and never be able to go in public again.

[MrBug708]

What did you know about propositioning gay sex?

[DaddyTorgo]

so wait...it's illegal to proposition someone?? wtf? so how does a person go about hooking up with another person?

it's not like he offered to pay the guy or anything. This is just stupid

[molson]

What did you know about propositioning gay sex?

Hey, this story's not about me.

[Lathum]

If someone in the stall next to me touched my foot, I would probably be traumatized and never be able to go in public again.

there are worse thing they could touch

[JPhillips]

If there was no intent Craig wouldn't have pleaded. There have been rumors about Craig for years, although I never heard that he was into anonymous sex.

btw- Just to creep you out a bit, airports are probably the most used places for anonymous gay sex.

[Noop]

If someone in the stall next to me touched my foot, I would probably be traumatized and never be able to go in public again.

I don't use public bathrooms for anything other then taking a piss. I feel weird when someone tries to talk to me when I am pissing.

[Young Drachma]

Well you know those western libertarian types....

[Maple Leafs]

Gay guys have sex in bathrooms? No wonder they have so many diseases...
Gay guys will have sex anywhere, with anyone, under pretty much any circumstances.

You know why? Because they're guys.

Seriously, if straight guys thought there was even the slighest chance that they could get anonymous sex by tapping their foot next to a woman, every shopping mall in America would look like the encore from Riverdance.

[Lathum]

do we have any openly gay guys on this forum?

[molson]

do we have any openly gay guys on this forum?

I was just thinking the same thing - I don't remember any.

[Maple Leafs]

do we have any openly gay guys on this forum?
I don't think so. I believe one semi-prominent member had said they identified as bi, but were currently in a relationship with a woman.

[Logan]

I've thought about asking that before, but figured it wasn't my place to do so.

[Noop]

Gay guys will have sex anywhere, with anyone, under pretty much any circumstances.

You know why? Because they're guys.

Seriously, if straight guys thought there was even the slighest chance that they could get anonymous sex by tapping their foot next to a woman, every shopping mall in America would look like the encore from Riverdance.

In a public bathroom? Yuck.

[StarBuck]

Yup. tapping the foot of the person next to you in the bathroom is a sign of someone wanting to engage in sex.

It's pretty well known that rest stops along major highways are places for this to occur.

[Noop]

do we have any openly gay guys on this forum?

I believe there is one and he is a lawyer.

[Logan]

In a public bathroom? Yuck.

I don't see how you can "catch" anything while engaging in any type of sex that you couldn't get by using the bathroom for what it's intended for.

[Buccaneer]

Well you know those western libertarian types....

Hey. :mad:



:)

[DaddyTorgo]

i'm not getting how this is anything illegal though. unless you're going to charge them under like "attempted sodomy" or something. Otherwise isn't it just two consenting adults? no $$ changing hands, no physical proof that anything was going to occur in the bathroom. The senator could just say "yeah I wanted to pick him up and take him to a hotel room."

[molson]

i'm not getting how this is anything illegal though. unless you're going to charge them under like "attempted sodomy" or something. Otherwise isn't it just two consenting adults? no $$ changing hands, no physical proof that anything was going to occur in the bathroom. The senator could just say "yeah I wanted to pick him up and take him to a hotel room."

I guess the element of intent is placing all the luggage in such a way that it blocks the view of the stall he was in. But that's very thin.

I'm guessing most people caught up in this just take the disorderly conduct conviction (which amounts to a fine), rather than fight it. Especially someone in the position of a republican senator from Idaho affiliated with a Mormon candidate's presidential campaign.

[Swaggs]

i'm not getting how this is anything illegal though. unless you're going to charge them under like "attempted sodomy" or something. Otherwise isn't it just two consenting adults? no $$ changing hands, no physical proof that anything was going to occur in the bathroom. The senator could just say "yeah I wanted to pick him up and take him to a hotel room."

I think lewd conduct (or attempted lewd conduct) in a public location is the issue. He wasn't tapping the guy's foot to offer to buy him a drink--he made the universal sign to request dirty bathroom nookie from a stranger.

[Logan]

Note to self: next time you're having trouble crapping, don't tap your foot anxiously.

[Young Drachma]

Hey. :mad:



:)

As it turns out, I happen to be one of those due to my location just to the north of you. Hence the joke. ;)

[SFL Cat]

I don't see how you can "catch" anything while engaging in any type of sex that you couldn't get by using the bathroom for what it's intended for.

The idea of any type of sex in a public restroom is just NASTY...I've been in some bathrooms so filthy that I didn't even want to stay in it to take a piss. I realize airport bathrooms are nicer than your run-of-the-mill roadside stops, but still...yuck.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Note to self: next time you're having trouble crapping, don't tap your foot anxiously.

QFT

[albionmoonlight]

That does seem pretty weak.

If the undercover officer were a woman, and the Senator came up to her in a bar and bought her a drink and made "a signal used by persons wishing to engage in lewd conduct," I don't think that you would have an arrest at that point.

The idea that you can go from a signal saying "Hey, let's have sex" to "This guy was attempting to have sex in public" seems like a major stretch.

[Logan]

The idea of any type of sex in a public restroom is just NASTY...I've been in some bathrooms so filthy that I didn't even want to stay in it to take a piss. I realize airport bathrooms are nicer than your run-of-the-mill roadside stops, but still...yuck.

If you're trying to say that you can't understand how a guy could get it up when there's shit on the walls, I'll agree with you. I was just commenting on the health aspect of it. Once my piece comes out of my pants, it's exposed to all the same elements whether I'm about to take a leak or about to get a hummer.

FROM A CHICK.

[Sgran]

Rumor was in Chicago that Marshall Fields (RIP) was the place to get gay sex in the bathroom. Supposedly the toyboy... SPOILER ALERT!!! ... STOP READING IF YOU'RE SQUEEMISH... would kneel in a very large Marshall Fields shopping bag to hide his pressence.

[JPhillips]

According to the Idaho Statesman a man claims Craig had sex with him in a restroom at Union Station. Craig pleaded guilty because he knew exactly what he was doing and didn't want that to get out.

As much as I think the guy is a hypocrite, I also feel sorry for him. Living in the closet can destroy an individual and in this case, like Foley before him, the inability to express his sexuality led him to make incredibly reckless decisions.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Gay guys have sex in bathrooms? No wonder they have so many diseases...

Don't Stop Believing.

.

[DaddyTorgo]

That does seem pretty weak.

If the undercover officer were a woman, and the Senator came up to her in a bar and bought her a drink and made "a signal used by persons wishing to engage in lewd conduct," I don't think that you would have an arrest at that point.

The idea that you can go from a signal saying "Hey, let's have sex" to "This guy was attempting to have sex in public" seems like a major stretch.

that's exactly the point i was trying to make earlier, just expressed much more clearly. thanks albion.

[Noop]

.

Well I posted those lyrics so people don't stop believing that race doesn't play apart in the vick thread. I have nothing against gays but I don't play on or near that side of the field.

[MikeVic]

I get a bizarre feeling from this thread for some reason.

[wbatl1]

A former chairman of the MARTA board (Atlanta's mass transit authority) was caught having gay sex in the bathroom of the atlanta airport maybe six months ago. It was even worse for him, because the guy he was doing it with had flown in from somewhere else and was going to fly out that day, implying, of course, a paid sex type situation.

[molson]

A former chairman of the MARTA board (Atlanta's mass transit authority) was caught having gay sex in the bathroom of the atlanta airport maybe six months ago. It was even worse for him, because the guy he was doing it with had flown in from somewhere else and was going to fly out that day, implying, of course, a paid sex type situation.

So he paid $300+ for a flight but not $50 for a hotel room?

There's "something" about airport bathrooms that we're not getting the allure of.

[KWhit]

So he paid $300+ for a flight but not $50 for a hotel room?

There's "something" about airport bathrooms that we're not getting the allure of.

It's gotta be the musky aroma.

[rkmsuf]

According to the police reports, a man, later identified as Craig, kept watching the undercover police officer through a crack in the stall.

wtf

[rkmsuf]

http://cbs13.com/video/[email protected]

[Maple Leafs]

http://cbs13.com/video/[email protected]
If you think I'm clicking random links in this thread, you're crazy.

[rkmsuf]

If you think I'm clicking random links in this thread, you're crazy.

it's a reinactment brought to you by some news team.

the best part is the woman holding the divider.

[MikeVic]

http://cbs13.com/video/[email protected]

wtf, so the divider woman hasn't used a stall before?

And that guy is wearing black dress pants with brown sandals. That's some kind of fashion crisis I think. He can't be gay.

[rkmsuf]

wtf, so the divider woman hasn't used a stall before?

And that guy is wearing black dress pants with brown sandals. That's some kind of fashion crisis I think. He can't be gay.

yeah, you catch that "I never..." then she cut herself short. What, never was in a stall before?

[MikeVic]

yeah, you catch that "I never..." then she cut herself short. What, never was in a stall before?

That's exactly what I was talking about. Do women's washrooms everywhere have dividers that go all the way to the ground?

[rkmsuf]

That's exactly what I was talking about. Do women's washrooms everywhere have dividers that go all the way to the ground?

we might have to consult the Stalls thread

[rkmsuf]

That's exactly what I was talking about. Do women's washrooms everywhere have dividers that go all the way to the ground?

the better question is if the foot tapping is generally practiced in the lesbian world

[MikeVic]

the better question is if the foot tapping is generally practiced in the lesbian world

Hmm... maybe another question to pose in the Stalls thread.

[dawgfan]

I'm with the majority here - what exactly did this guy do that should be deemed illegal? There doesn't seem to be any indication that the officer was portraying himself as a prostitute. Is Minneapolis so homophobic that propositioning another man is a crime?

In his petition to enter a guilty plea, Craig acknowledged that he "engaged in (physical) conduct which I knew or should have known tended to arouse alarm or resentment."

Tended to arouse alarm or resentment? Seriously? By that reasoning any attractive woman in a provocative outfit should be arrested, because it would be "alarming" to any hetero guy and cause resentment in those guys' wives or girlfriends.

[Schmidty]

If somebody started doing that mating call in the next stall, I would be annoyed and such, but I don't really think that the fact that I'm annoyed should mean that this guy gets arrested. It's not like the guy flashed his dick and licked his lips while tweaking his left nipple.

[molson]

I think you have to look at this from the other side, too.

Obviously, gay sex in the Minneapolis airport bathroom has been a big problem, if they're utilizing undercover detectives to hang out in stalls.

So what's the solution? Wait for gay sex to happen and then bust 'em? Not ideal. They clearly did their homework and are waiting for a number of elements to take place before they arrest and charge (with a broad misdemeanor statute that covers a lot of ground, doesn't make you register as sex offender, and really doesn't look too bad on your record):

1. Conceal view of feet with luggage
2. Stare at person in next stall
3. Tap feet
4. Move feet to where they're actually touching other person

And maybe other stuff that's not in the article. Individually, none of this amounts to anything, but together, it's a guy trying to get laid in the stall. They could give him a friendly warning at that point, or charge him with a low-level misdemeanor that amounts to a fine. By going the charging route, they're at least recouping some of the costs of the investigation, which I think most of us can agree, is worthwhile.

[Easy Mac]

Wait, so how long did the cop sit at the stall before he was finally approached? That job would have to suck, sitting on a toilet 8 hours a day so hopefully someone would approach you for gay sex. The things he must have smelled...

[molson]

This was just released - a photograph taken by the undercover detective:
<br>
<a href="http://www.imagehosting.com"><img src="http://www.imagehosting.com/out.php/i1074915_0828202.jpg" width="236" height="312" alt="Image Hosting" border="0"></a>

[dawgfan]

So what's the solution? Wait for gay sex to happen and then bust 'em? Not ideal.
Maybe it's not "ideal", but it's the only fair way of dealing with this issue. Because otherwise it's arresting someone on the suspicion of what they might eventually do, and that's just a little too Orwellian Thought Police-ish.

[molson]

Maybe it's not "ideal", but it's the only fair way of dealing with this issue. Because otherwise it's arresting someone on the suspicion of what they might eventually do, and that's just a little too Orwellian Thought Police-ish.

IMO, crime prevention is at least equally as important in the criminal justice system as punishing someone after the fact. Criminal statutes and prosecutorial strategies have evolved to better facilitate this, but we're nowhere near punishing anyone's thoughts - actions are still always required. But we're less and less content to tell someone "hey, nothing we can do until he actually beats the crap out of you or kills you", etc. (Not saying this is as serious as that, just giving an example). But imagine if your young son was in a stall, and there was gay sex going on in the stall next door. Most people would be pissed off, wondering what the hell the police were doing to prevent that.

It's pretty sad though that the real emphasis of his press conference, at least here in Idaho, was the denials of his homosexuality. THAT seems to be the big sin here. I was in a room with a bunch of Idaho cops at work today, and they were all looking at his picture in the paper, which the same comment "he doesn't look gay".

[dawgfan]

IMO, crime prevention is at least equally as important in the criminal justice system as punishing someone after the fact. Criminal statutes and prosecutorial strategies have evolved to better facilitate this, but we're nowhere near punishing anyone's thoughts - actions are still always required. But we're less and less content to tell someone "hey, nothing we can do until he actually beats the crap out of you or kills you", etc. (Not saying this is as serious as that, just giving an example). But imagine if your young son was in a stall, and there was gay sex going on in the stall next door. Most people would be pissed off, wondering what the hell the police were doing to prevent that.
And yet what was he busted for? Some actions that were supposedly signals that Craig was soliciting for sex? Even if that's what Craig was doing, how does anyone know if he was intending to have sex in that bathroom stall? If not, who the fuck cares if he was soliciting for sex?

That's my issue with arresting him - he was busted for making some gestures, not for actually engaging in anything disruptive. Your comparison to situations of assault or murder are poor ones in this case - if the crime they're trying to prevent is public sex (and I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt that they're targeting any public sex, not just gay male public sex), then yes, they need to wait until it's actually happening, or at the very least until the suspects are in a much more obvious state of what's about to happen (i.e. they're both in the same stall and removing clothing). Bothering someone's sensibilities (which is what this prevention of public sex is about) is something much less serious than physical assault.

[sterlingice]

he made the universal sign to request dirty bathroom nookie from a stranger.

I dunno why but the wording of this just made me laugh :D

SI

[sterlingice]

I'm with the majority here - what exactly did this guy do that should be deemed illegal? There doesn't seem to be any indication that the officer was portraying himself as a prostitute. Is Minneapolis so homophobic that propositioning another man is a crime?

In his petition to enter a guilty plea, Craig acknowledged that he "engaged in (physical) conduct which I knew or should have known tended to arouse alarm or resentment."

Tended to arouse alarm or resentment? Seriously? By that reasoning any attractive woman in a provocative outfit should be arrested, because it would be "alarming" to any hetero guy and cause resentment in those guys' wives or girlfriends.

That quote above is the first thing that I've seen that makes me think there might be more to this story. I'm pretty sure the cops aren't putting "engaged in physical conduct" in a report to describe an innocent little gesture that could easily be misconstrued.

SI

[dawgfan]

That quote above is the first thing that I've seen that makes me think there might be more to this story. I'm pretty sure the cops aren't putting "engaged in physical conduct" in a report to describe an innocent little gesture that could easily be misconstrued.

SI
Well, that's the thing isn't it? Nothing else that's been reported from this story (including all of the info repeated from the police report) indicates there was anything more than this supposed signaling that Craig did.

[Young Drachma]

The fact that he pleaded guilty tells me everything I need to know. You don't just fucking plead guilty to shit, if you new the gestures weren't intended to be something serious.

So I don't want to hear that he was "rushed" into a guilty plea. You're a US Senator. He knows exactly what he was doing, he got caught and just wants to brush it under the rug, he won't run for re-election next year and hopes his actions don't hurt the party in-state too much.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I was prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt pretty far until I read the details in this story.
http://apnews.myway.com//article/20070829/D8RAF71O1.html

See, I can believe that
-- the bag in front of the stall door was just a random thing
-- the foot tapping was just a nervous habit
-- the foot touching thing was just accidental, clumsy, or something innocent

But this part is where he lost me
Craig then passed his left hand under the stall divider into Karsnia's stall with his palm up and guided it along the divider toward the front of the stall three times

I'm forty years old and not once in my life has my hand passed under a stall divider. Hell, for all I know you break an invisible beam & lasers blow your hand off if you reach under there. I'm just struggling to find any reasonable explanation for that part of it. Even if he dropped a wad of money big enough to choke a horse, he's not groping under the stall, he gets his unwiped ass off the can & makes sure his anonymous neighbor doesn't hightail it out of there with his cash.

Sorry Senator, but plausible deniability just isn't there at this point.

[dawgfan]

The fact that he pleaded guilty tells me everything I need to know. You don't just fucking plead guilty to shit, if you new the gestures weren't intended to be something serious.
So he knew he was propositioning for sex - BFD. Until he's literally moments away from engaging in public sex (i.e. not in a separate stall) I don't see where his action is something worthy of arresting him for. Why not arrest every "playa" in the meat-market bars propositioning women? I mean, some of those propositions might lead to public sex, right?

Unless there is more to this story, I just don't see where there was enough justification for his arrest.

[dawgfan]

I'm forty years old and not once in my life has my hand passed under a stall divider. Hell, for all I know you break an invisible beam & lasers blow your hand off if you reach under there. I'm just struggling to find any reasonable explanation for that part of it. Even if he dropped a wad of money big enough to choke a horse, he's not groping under the stall, he gets his unwiped ass off the can & makes sure his anonymous neighbor doesn't hightail it out of there with his cash.

Sorry Senator, but plausible deniability just isn't there at this point.
I agree - I have no doubts he was propositioning. But I don't see how that alone is worthy of him being arrested.

[Young Drachma]

So he knew he was propositioning for sex - BFD. Until he's literally moments away from engaging in public sex (i.e. not in a separate stall) I don't see where his action is something worthy of arresting him for. Why not arrest every "playa" in the meat-market bars propositioning women? I mean, some of those propositions might lead to public sex, right?

Unless there is more to this story, I just don't see where there was enough justification for his arrest.

I get that. But that's my point. Why wouldn't a lawyer fight this? Why would he just plead guilty? Everyone that talked about it today, pretty much said the same thing. That they didn't think it was enough to arrest him and they're all paranoid now.

But...that's what I'm saying. If it was an isolated incident, then no way he just gives in and pleads guilty.

But they proved their point when he's pleading guilty and would rather kill this story rather than letting it sit out there and instead plays the "I've been railroaded card." I thought it was a smart move by whoever is advising him to tell him to get it out of the media, because it's not like he'd have to resign...and it's easier to get it done with and say "I didn't do anything wrong" than to actually face the charges.

[JonInMiddleGA]

But I don't see how that alone is worthy of him being arrested.

That seems pretty simple: because he violated two different statutes according to his plea.
http://media.idahostatesman.com/smedia/2007/08/28/17/Plea_Petition.source.prod_affiliate.36.pdf

The disorderly conduct charge seems pretty cut & dried.
http://ros.leg.mn/bin/getpub.php?pubtype=STAT_CHAP_SEC&year=2006&section=609.72
"Engages in offensive, obscene, abusive, boisterous, or noisy conduct or in offensive,obscene, or abusive language tending reasonably to arouse alarm, anger, or resentment in others."

Someone trying to pick me up while I'm hypothetically taking a dump seems likely to "arouse alarm, anger, or resentment in others".

Now the second charge is the one that had me scratching my head at first after reading the story & then the statute at
http://ros.leg.mn/bin/getpub.php?pubtype=STAT_CHAP_SEC&year=2006&section=609.746

609.746 INTERFERENCE WITH PRIVACY.
Subdivision 1. Surreptitious intrusion; observation device. (a) A person is guilty of a gross misdemeanor who:
(1) enters upon another's property;
(2) surreptitiously gazes, stares, or peeps in the window or any other aperture of a house or place of dwelling of another; and
(3) does so with intent to intrude upon or interfere with the privacy of a member of the household.
(b) A person is guilty of a gross misdemeanor who:
... surreptitiously gazes, stares, or peeps in the window or other aperture of a sleeping room in a hotel, as defined in section 327.70, subdivision 3, a tanning booth, or other place where a reasonable person would have an expectation of privacy and has exposed or is likely to expose their intimate parts, as defined in section 609.341, subdivision 5, or the clothing covering
the immediate area of the intimate parts; and (2) does so with intent to intrude upon or interfere with the privacy of the occupant. ...

After reading the original incident report (http://media.idahostatesman.com/smedia/2007/08/28/14/craig_police_report.source.prod_affiliate.36.pdf), it looks like he was charged under this one for looking through the crack in the stall at the undercover cop. Since there's no indication that Craig had to do anything out of the ordinary to see into the next stall, I think this might have been a more questionable charge ... but then again he did plead guilty to it.

Looks to me as though the first charge is what he was arrested for, while the second one was tacked on as a bit of piling on.

[molson]

I don't see where his action is something worthy of arresting him for. Why not arrest every "playa" in the meat-market bars propositioning women? I mean, some of those propositions might lead to public sex, right?



It's like the hunting v. dog fighting debate all over again.

You're describing two completely different things. The issue isn't that someone's actions "might lead to public sex". The crime is actually soliciting public sex. That's quite a difference.

A case like this, if it went to trial, would consist of more than the newspaper article blurb. There would be expert testimony about how such trysts are typically arranged, info on the senator's flight schedule (so we could see whether a hotel was even an option), his statements about picking up a piece of paper (and the fact that there wasn't a piece of paper, and that he couldn't produce said paper later). Potentially, the state could even introduce evidence of prior public bathroom sex that he took part in, to show proof of intent (this might be the real reason he plead guilty)

Not a slam dunk case, but a jury would convict. I mean, what do you think he was doing?

[molson]

Looks to me as though the first charge is what he was arrested for, while the second one was tacked on as a bit of piling on.

I thought I saw a clip on the news tonight about the second charge being dismissed in exchange for the guilty plea on the first charge.

I agree that it was "piling on", done exactly for this purpose of reaching a resolution.

[flere-imsaho]

I find myself agreeing with JIMGA here, which feels odd, but there you go.

Another thing I think people haven't considered is that I suspect the MN police aren't trying so much to arrest people as to dissuade them from using the bathrooms at the airport for sex. I can see the strategy here being that you catch a few guys for soliciting, get them to plead guilty for misdemeanors, and sooner or later the word gets out and people don't view these spots as good places to pick up men anymore.

[lordscarlet]

I find it amusing that people think a senator was railroaded and can't understand why people think Vick was. I assume they are both guilty, considering they both admitted to being guilty in a court of law. They both have enough money and power that they could put up a good defense if they were innocent. Now, I don't really understand what was so illegal about this case, but apparently it was.

[albionmoonlight]

Some discussion here: http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2007_08_26-2007_09_01.shtml#1188338033

[dawgfan]

You're describing two completely different things. The issue isn't that someone's actions "might lead to public sex". The crime is actually soliciting public sex. That's quite a difference.
You're missing my point then - how can we be sure that Craig's actions were definitely going to lead to public sex? That's my issue with all of this, that there was a pretty significant assumption being made in this case.

A case like this, if it went to trial, would consist of more than the newspaper article blurb. There would be expert testimony about how such trysts are typically arranged, info on the senator's flight schedule (so we could see whether a hotel was even an option), his statements about picking up a piece of paper (and the fact that there wasn't a piece of paper, and that he couldn't produce said paper later). Potentially, the state could even introduce evidence of prior public bathroom sex that he took part in, to show proof of intent (this might be the real reason he plead guilty)

Not a slam dunk case, but a jury would convict. I mean, what do you think he was doing?
I think he was soliciting for sex. But I can't know for sure whether he intended to engage in sex in one of those stalls, or somewhere else in public.

Let's keep in mind here that we are all relying on the supposed expertise of this officer regarding the "signals" that Craig was giving. The officer probably does know what he's talking about, but given that all of the communication in this incident was non-verbal, I think a prosecutor would have a hard time convicting if Craig had a decent lawyer. I mean, c'mon - where he placed his luggage, a series of foot movements, peeking through the cracks in the stalls - that's hardly as definitive as someone saying "Hey, you wanna come over to my stall and fuck?"

Whether or not Craig actually had time based on his flight booking to go to a hotel is irrelevant - from what we know of the officer's report, the officer had no way of knowing that information. And the Senator's past actions are only relevant if the officer knew who he was targeting.

I understand that public sex in the Minneapolis Airport bathrooms has been a problem, and that the cops are trying to address this by arresting those who are soliciting. My issue here is that there is a significant assumption was made at the point at which Craig was arrested, and that is that Craig was definitely intending to have sex in one of those stalls. At the very least, they needed to both be in the same stall before there was justification to arrest Craig, otherwise he was arrested for publicly soliciting sex and not soliciting for public sex.

[dawgfan]

I find myself agreeing with JIMGA here, which feels odd, but there you go.

Another thing I think people haven't considered is that I suspect the MN police aren't trying so much to arrest people as to dissuade them from using the bathrooms at the airport for sex. I can see the strategy here being that you catch a few guys for soliciting, get them to plead guilty for misdemeanors, and sooner or later the word gets out and people don't view these spots as good places to pick up men anymore.
I get what they are doing - I just think that they need more proof of intent than appears to be the case with Senator Craig, otherwise it just feels like a targeted attack on gay male sexual solicitation. I don't have a problem prosecuting for public sex. I do have a problem with prosecuting for public solicitation of sex.

[dawgfan]

Some discussion here: http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2007_08_26-2007_09_01.shtml#1188338033
Thanks - this guy does a great job of articulating my point of view:

People should not have to tolerate actual sexual conduct in public places, but that's not what happened here. Craig's conduct was not obscene, abusive, boisterous, or noisy. The officer might have considered Craig's actions "offensive . . . conduct . . . tending reasonably to arouse alarm, anger, or resentment in others." But if that's so, it seems a pretty thin basis for charging him. A reasonable person faced with Craig's alleged behavior would have moved his foot away and/or muttered a simple "no thanks" or "stop that," which likely would have brought an end to it. A continuation of the unwelcome behavior might then have been enough to charge him with something, but again, that didn't happen. In fact, the officer tapped his own foot in response, indicating the interest was mutual.

[MikeVic]

I don't get how you have sex in a stall? Wouldn't the four legs and noise kind of give that away. Or is someone going to be holding themselves up by the stall's walls, or maybe kneeling on the seat?

[MikeVic]

Thanks - this guy does a great job of articulating my point of view:


In fact, the officer tapped his own foot in response, indicating the interest was mutual.


Aha! So the cop wanted sex, but maybe the guy saw him and didn't like what he saw, so then backed out of the sex before it happened. And now the cop is angry and wants to arrest him.

[dawgfan]

I find it amusing that people think a senator was railroaded and can't understand why people think Vick was. I assume they are both guilty, considering they both admitted to being guilty in a court of law. They both have enough money and power that they could put up a good defense if they were innocent.
I don't know what was going through Craig's head when he pleaded guilty, but here's a plausible theory:

He's a closeted gay man who figures his career and his marriage would be toast if this incident came to light. In his daze of shame and panic, he figures that fighting this charge would unquestionably bring the incident into public knowledge, and knowing that while he might win the case, he would also be viewed by nearly everyone as a closeted gay man. Whereas if he just pleads guilty and pays the fine, he thinks there's a chance that this would escape public notice.

Now, I don't really understand what was so illegal about this case, but apparently it was.
See, that's my whole point - why was what he did considered illegal? Or more accurately (since as JiMGa points out, the statute under which he was charged is broadly applicable and vaguely worded) why was his particular action prosecuted?

[JPhillips]

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/8cQ3Y4OIhgU"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/8cQ3Y4OIhgU" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

[flere-imsaho]

He's a closeted gay man who figures his career and his marriage would be toast if this incident came to light. In his daze of shame and panic, he figures that fighting this charge would unquestionably bring the incident into public knowledge, and knowing that while he might win the case, he would also be viewed by nearly everyone as a closeted gay man. Whereas if he just pleads guilty and pays the fine, he thinks there's a chance that this would escape public notice.

I think this is exactly what happened. Had he been thinking clearly, he may have realized that as a U.S. Senator, there's no way this ever doesn't make it into the public space, but given that he was soliciting for sex in public anyway, I think it's safe to assume he wasn't thinking clearly from the beginning.

I agree that this setup by the police is splitting very fine hairs, legally, but they're probably thinking that the ends justify the means. I'm inclined to add a couple more mitigations to their setup:

1. Let's be honest, who solicits for sex (straight or gay) in airport public bathrooms? I'm not sure the "well, he could have taken him to a hotel room" argument really flies, either. In all likelihood, someone soliciting for sex in this manner is looking for a quick handjob/blowjob. Now, if Craig was making a pass at a guy at an airport bar, it's a completely different story, and the police would be way out of line there.

2. In this day and age, I can definitely see a scenario where an openly gay man could take this to court and win on the "I was going to ask him if he wanted to go back to a hotel room" defense. However, knowing several openly gay men, I'm not inclined to believe they'd approach someone in this manner. Contrary to popular belief, the majority of openly gay men (as opposed to closet cases like Craig) do not prefer to have sex in public restrooms (restrooms in nightclubs excepted, but then those are excepted for pretty much everyone).

[molson]

You're missing my point then - how can we be sure that Craig's actions were definitely going to lead to public sex? [/i]



We know that his actions definitely weren't going to lead to public sex, because he was talking to a detective. My point was it's irrelevant anyway - the crime isn't public sex, it's soliciting public sex. The crime is completed when he solicits the sex. (so impossibility of carrying out the act isn't a bar to a crime like this) If you disagree that should be illegal, then fine.


I think he was soliciting for sex. But I can't know for sure whether he intended to engage in sex in one of those stalls, or somewhere else in public.


The beyond a reasonable doubt standard for a jury trial isn't anything close to "100% sure". The probable cause for arrest is FAR lower. It's a circumstantial case, some juries would shit on it, but it can be tried with a straight face.


I mean, c'mon - where he placed his luggage, a series of foot movements, peeking through the cracks in the stalls - that's hardly as definitive as someone saying "Hey, you wanna come over to my stall and fuck?"


It would be interesting case, no doubt. Not impossible for the prosecution though.



Whether or not Craig actually had time based on his flight booking to go to a hotel is irrelevant - from what we know of the officer's report, the officer had no way of knowing that information. And the Senator's past actions are only relevant if the officer knew who he was targeting.



It's the defendant's intent that matters, not the witnesses. The officer could have been a civilian who wasn't even involved with the sting, and knew nothing about what was going on, or what those signs meant. If he could later testify about what he saw, a case could possibily be built.


At the very least, they needed to both be in the same stall before there was justification to arrest Craig, otherwise he was arrested for publicly soliciting sex and not soliciting for public sex.

Obviously, they don't want things to get to that point. The law allows the them to charge and arrest before then, so I agree with their decision to do so. A jury trial would be crapshoot, but I doubt many of these cases would get that far.

[dawgfan]

My point was it's irrelevant anyway - the crime isn't public sex, it's soliciting public sex. The crime is completed when he solicits the sex. (so impossibility of carrying out the act isn't a bar to a crime like this) If you disagree that should be illegal, then fine.
I'm not necessarily saying that action shouldn't be illegal - I'm saying that I find it difficult to prove that the actions of Senator Craig in this case were clearly "soliciting public sex". Soliciting sex, yes, with very little doubt.

It's the defendant's intent that matters, not the witnesses. The officer could have been a civilian who wasn't even involved with the sting, and knew nothing about what was going on, or what those signs meant. If he could later testify about what he saw, a case could possibily be built.
But your earlier contention was that Craig's flight plan and past sexual practices could be brought up as circumstantial evidence, and I'm saying I think they are irrelevant. The officer arrested Craig on the assumption he was being solicited by Craig for public sex. The only info the officer had was the non-verbal communication that occurred. From what we know from the police report, the officer had no way of knowing Craig's flight booking, and he didn't appear to know who Craig was ahead of time, so the only relevant evidence in this case is what occurred in that bathroom.

Obviously, they don't want things to get to that point. The law allows the them to charge and arrest before then, so I agree with their decision to do so. A jury trial would be crapshoot, but I doubt many of these cases would get that far.
I don't find it at all unreasonable for the bar to be that the officer has to enter the stall of the target, with the target obviously acting like he's expecting some kind of sex to occur before an arrest is made. If we disagree on this, so be it. To me, it's an important distinction of intent - I think there's a significant enough assumption being made in the Craig case that it should be challenged. The fact that Craig chose not to at the time I think speaks far more to his attempt as a U.S. Senator to stay closeted than his belief that it was a fair arrest.

[dawgfan]

I think this is exactly what happened. Had he been thinking clearly, he may have realized that as a U.S. Senator, there's no way this ever doesn't make it into the public space, but given that he was soliciting for sex in public anyway, I think it's safe to assume he wasn't thinking clearly from the beginning.
Yep.

I agree that this setup by the police is splitting very fine hairs, legally, but they're probably thinking that the ends justify the means. I'm inclined to add a couple more mitigations to their setup:

1. Let's be honest, who solicits for sex (straight or gay) in airport public bathrooms? I'm not sure the "well, he could have taken him to a hotel room" argument really flies, either. In all likelihood, someone soliciting for sex in this manner is looking for a quick handjob/blowjob. Now, if Craig was making a pass at a guy at an airport bar, it's a completely different story, and the police would be way out of line there.
I guess I fail to see why the police in this case shouldn't take the next logical step in such a case and enter the stall of the target before making the arrest - to me, doing so takes nearly all of the uncertainty out of such a case, and I don't see the downside to taking that step. Either the target says "Hey, whoa, what the fuck are you doing?" or he doesn't; if he doesn't, he gets arrested. Either way, the officer leads the target out of the stall and clearly identifies himself as an officer to any other people there (which also serves a warning to the public). If the target didn't object to the officer entering the stall, he gets arrested. If he did object, the officer states that they are on the lookout for people soliciting for public sex in those bathrooms and warning the target that his actions fit that description.

[molson]

But your earlier contention was that Craig's flight plan and past sexual practices could be brought up as circumstantial evidence, and I'm saying I think they are irrelevant. The officer arrested Craig on the assumption he was being solicited by Craig for public sex. The only info the officer had was the non-verbal communication that occurred. From what we know from the police report, the officer had no way of knowing Craig's flight booking, and he didn't appear to know who Craig was ahead of time, so the only relevant evidence in this case is what occurred in that bathroom.


I don't think we disagree that much. You just see "weak case, shouldn't be charged/prosecuted", and I see "weak case, but it could legally and justly get to a jury with enough work from the prosecutor".

Prior bathroom sex might be relevant under Minnesota's version of Federal Evidence Rule 404(b), where prior "bad acts" can't be admitted to show someone acted in conformance with the prior acts, but they can be admitted for other purposes, including proof of intent. So that might fly here.

Similar deal with the airline times. I would try to admit those to cut out any possibility that he was propositioning hotel sex, but I would expect the defense attorney to fight that as well.

[molson]

Either the target says "Hey, whoa, what the fuck are you doing?"

That would be a pretty big problem if the detective was wrong. We're talking lawsuit trouble.

Of course, one could say, "well, if they're not sure, they shouldn't be arresting". But even after the officer takes the guy out the bathroom, there will be a further investigation before anyone's charged (he'll talk to the suspect, etc.).

[dawgfan]

That would be a pretty big problem if the detective was wrong. We're talking lawsuit trouble.
And yet just the signaling alone that Senator Craig is alleged to have given was enough in your book to arrest and prosecute him. If the signaling alone is worthy of arrest in your book, I don't see how proceeding further with the undercover operation subjects the police department to greater risk of a lawsuit.

[molson]

And yet just the signaling alone that Senator Craig is alleged to have given was enough in your book to arrest and prosecute him. If the signaling alone is worthy of arrest in your book, I don't see how proceeding further with the undercover operation subjects the police department to greater risk of a lawsuit.

Arresting and charging requires probable cause, which is a pretty low standard.

Presence of probable cause, IMO, does not warrant a privacy instusion at the level of barging in one someone in a stall in this type of case. It's just not necessary, since there's no reason to fear destruction of evidence (like if there were drugs inolved) and no reason to fear for officer saftey. The detective can just knock and tell him to get out.

And that's without even accounting for the potential debacle of a "false charge" into a stall with an innocent person.

So ya, I'd be willing to investigate further based on the signals, but that's only the start of the investigation - you're also going to talk to guy and see whatever evidence you can find at the scene (condoms out, whatever). So I wouldn't be barging into anyone's stalls - guilty or innocent.

[lordscarlet]

Arresting and charging requires probable cause, which is a pretty low standard.

Presence of probable cause, IMO, does not warrant a privacy instusion at the level of barging in one someone in a stall in this type of case. It's just not necessary, since there's no reason to fear destruction of evidence (like if there were drugs inolved) and no reason to fear for officer saftey. The detective can just knock and tell him to get out.

And that's without even accounting for the potential debacle of a "false charge" into a stall with an innocent person.

So ya, I'd be willing to investigate further based on the signals, but that's only the start of the investigation - you're also going to talk to guy and see whatever evidence you can find at the scene (condoms out, whatever). So I wouldn't be barging into anyone's stalls - guilty or innocent.

No one said anything about barging in. We're talking about taking a step toward accepting the alleged invitation. At best, the evidence may suggest that Craig wanted to have sex, there is no indication of that being true, much less that he wanted to do it right there.

[dawgfan]

So ya, I'd be willing to investigate further based on the signals, but that's only the start of the investigation - you're also going to talk to guy and see whatever evidence you can find at the scene (condoms out, whatever). So I wouldn't be barging into anyone's stalls - guilty or innocent.
I'm not saying the officer should barge in - I'm saying he should continue to pursue the situation to confirm the suspicion generated by the non-verbal signals, and that can be accomplished by tapping on the stall door. Tapping on the stall door and having the suspect invite him in is clearly an indication that the officer's suspicions were correct. If the officer is wrong and the suspect doesn't immediately offer for him to enter, than the officer has a decision to make - did he already have enough evidence through the non-verbal signals to make an arrest or not?

I don't see how we're going to come to an agreement on this - to me, the non-verbal signals aren't enough to warrant an arrest, as there's not enough proof IMO that public sex is about to take place based off the signals. I believe the officer needs to take another step in the process to confirm the intentions, and that such a step carries no downside.

[molson]

I'm not saying the officer should barge in - I'm saying he should continue to pursue the situation to confirm the suspicion generated by the non-verbal signals, and that can be accomplished by tapping on the stall door. Tapping on the stall door and having the suspect invite him in is clearly an indication that the officer's suspicions were correct. If the officer is wrong and the suspect doesn't immediately offer for him to enter, than the officer has a decision to make - did he already have enough evidence through the non-verbal signals to make an arrest or not?



Above you said "enter", and that was what I was responding to, but if you just meant "tap on the door and wait for invitation" as above, then ya, I agree with that. (I still don't think you NEED that to arrest, but it sure as hell makes the case stronger, and like you said, there's no reason not to do it).

Edit: On the other hand, the detectives might have reason not to tap if the typical way these things goes down doesn't involve that. Let's say their info is that one person taps, the other person taps, they touch feet for five seconds, and then one just goes in the other stall, with no tap. That'd be pretty foolproof unless you had aggressive detectives doing what they did in MN.

[JonInMiddleGA]

... not enough proof IMO that public sex is about to take place based off the signals.

Maybe I'm missing something in your argument here, or maybe I'm splitting too fine a hair on the wording of the statute he was charged under, but here goes anyway.

While the story revolves around the sex aspect of this, and even the investigation & subsequent charges are connected to the sex aspect there's really no mention of sex, public or otherwise, in the actual statute.

The disorderly charge basically requires some action that would tend to "to arouse alarm, anger, or resentment in others.". The second charge, interference with privacy, has to do with looking into a private location "has exposed or is likely to expose their intimate parts ... or the clothing covering the immediate area of the intimate parts".

The way the disorderly statue reads, there's nothing that requires intent for public sex to be an element of the crime. It might be argued reasonably that the charge fails to meet an initial criteria "knowing, or having reasonable grounds to know that it will, or will tend to" cause upset to someone else. But there's really no requirement for the accused to have had any intention or desire for public sex for the charge to be valid.

On the second charge (which I guess we've decided was dimissed even though it's in his plea agreement?) there's nothing about sex either, just about looking into an area where someone is likely to have exposed their saucy and/or naughty bits.

[molson]

The disorderly charge basically requires some action that would tend to "to arouse alarm, anger, or resentment in others.". The second charge, interference with privacy, has to do with looking into a private location "has exposed or is likely to expose their intimate parts ... or the clothing covering the immediate area of the intimate parts".

The way the disorderly statue reads, there's nothing that requires intent for public sex to be an element of the crime. It might be argued reasonably that the charge fails to meet an initial criteria "knowing, or having reasonable grounds to know that it will, or will tend to" cause upset to someone else. But there's really no requirement for the accused to have had any intention or desire for public sex for the charge to be valid.



Agreed, but before anybody says that statute would cover a million things people do every day, it's important to point out that the statute is still limited by the Consitution or caselaw. An seemingly innocent act that may otherwise appear to fit under the statute may very well be excluded by a prior court's decision. On the other hand, I'm sure there's some acts that are well established in the courts as falling under the statute (I'm guessing this innocent is one of them).

[Chubby]

dawgfan - soliciting does not mean what you think it means.

[dawgfan]

Maybe I'm missing something in your argument here, or maybe I'm splitting too fine a hair on the wording of the statute he was charged under, but here goes anyway.

While the story revolves around the sex aspect of this, and even the investigation & subsequent charges are connected to the sex aspect there's really no mention of sex, public or otherwise, in the actual statute.

The disorderly charge basically requires some action that would tend to "to arouse alarm, anger, or resentment in others.". The second charge, interference with privacy, has to do with looking into a private location "has exposed or is likely to expose their intimate parts ... or the clothing covering the immediate area of the intimate parts".

The way the disorderly statue reads, there's nothing that requires intent for public sex to be an element of the crime. It might be argued reasonably that the charge fails to meet an initial criteria "knowing, or having reasonable grounds to know that it will, or will tend to" cause upset to someone else. But there's really no requirement for the accused to have had any intention or desire for public sex for the charge to be valid.

On the second charge (which I guess we've decided was dimissed even though it's in his plea agreement?) there's nothing about sex either, just about looking into an area where someone is likely to have exposed their saucy and/or naughty bits.
I'm not disputing the wording of the ordinance, just saying it's worded in a very broad manner and that I find it upsetting that the police in Minneapolis appear to be using that statute to pursue arrests for just publicly soliciting sex, if that is indeed all that they were arresting Senator Craig for. I can see justification for pursuing those soliciting for public sex, but simply publicly soliciting for sex is dubious, because then you have a situation where a division of society can claim that they are being unfairly targeted.

[dawgfan]

Dola - and if they are arresting him for just being a public pest and not for soliciting sex, then that's even more dubious IMO.

[Chubby]

I'm not disputing the wording of the ordinance, just saying it's worded in a very broad manner and that I find it upsetting that the police in Minneapolis appear to be using that statute to pursue arrests for just publicly soliciting sex, if that is indeed all that they were arresting Senator Craig for. I can see justification for pursuing those soliciting for public sex, but simply publicly soliciting for sex is dubious, because then you have a situation where a division of society can claim that they are being unfairly targeted.

Stick up for those hookers!

[dawgfan]

dawgfan - soliciting does not mean what you think it means.
Oh really? Tell me what I think it means then?

[dawgfan]

Stick up for those hookers!
You do realize that "solicit" has more meanings than just offering sex for payment, right?

[Chubby]

You do realize that "solicit" has more meanings than just offering sex for payment, right?


Do you?

You're complaining about the fact that he was caught soliciting for sex when that's exactly what the statute states is against the law.

[Chubby]

I agree - I have no doubts he was propositioning. But I don't see how that alone is worthy of him being arrested.


Because evidentally that is the law.

[dawgfan]

Do you?

You're complaining about the fact that he was caught soliciting for sex when that's exactly what the statute states is against the law.
Yeah, I do, but thanks for assuming I'm a moron.

Substitute the word "proposition" if you feel that "soliciting" can only imply sex for payment.

Now that we've addressed your grammatical complaint, do you have anything to add to the debate?

[dawgfan]

Because evidentally that is the law.
And I'm saying that publicly propositioning someone for sex being against the law is dubious and probably unconstitutional.

Since you are critiquing my choice of the word "solicit", should I point out your misspelling of "evidently", or should we drop the petty grammatical arguments?

[JonInMiddleGA]

And I'm saying that publicly propositioning someone for sex being against the law is dubious and probably unconstitutional.

Umm ... huh?
Okay, wait, maybe I get what you're trying to say.

Would it be something like:
Okay = "Hey babe, wanna screw?"
Still illegal = "Hey babe, I'll give you $20 for a quick screw."

[dawgfan]

Umm ... huh?
Okay, wait, maybe I get what you're trying to say.

Would it be something like:
Okay = "Hey babe, wanna screw?"
Still illegal = "Hey babe, I'll give you $20 for a quick screw."
You got it. Sorry if people were assuming I was adding sex for pay into the argument - that wasn't my intent. Since there hadn't been any mention of sex for pay in either the Senator Craig story or earlier in this thread, I assumed people would understand my usage of the word "solicit" was not the usage referring to prostitution.

Senator Craig was propositioning the guy in the next stall (the policeman) for (free) sex. The difference between this and any other proposition of sex (random guy at the bar asking the nearest girl at closing time if she wants to go home with him) isn't enough IMO to warrant being deemed a crime. You can argue the context (a public bathroom stall) makes it worse, and I'll grant you that if you're a random guy getting propositioned in such a way in that setting it would be uncomfortable, but not something that requires that law enforcement become involved IMO - a simple "fuck off" should suffice.

[ThunderingHERD]

I like a good Republican gay sex scandal as much as the next guy, but I'm with dawgfan on this.

First of all, you have to buy that this foot tapping business is some kind of pervasive secret handshake that specifically means "let's fuck in public." I'm not buyinig such a strict interpretation. I don't doubt that he was attempting to proposition the guy, unless we know that he intended it to take place in public, who cares? I have a hard time believing that guys never pick up other guys in bathrooms and then go fuck in private.

So we don't know that he was angling for dirty bathroom sex. Of courses, there's still the matter of disorderly conduct. But the officer makes it very clear that he realized he was being propositioned and responded with the (allegedly) well-known "go for it, big guy" signal. So, if we buy the cop's interpretation (which we have to in order to have a case at all), then there was a plain communication between the two and Craig knew that he had been given the green light. So how was he being disorderly? For all I know, he was going to pass a note under the stall with a phone number or room key--is that illegal?

[molson]

For all I know, he was going to pass a note under the stall with a phone number or room key--is that illegal?

That could be his defense, and if he took the stand and a jury believed him, acquittal city.

But the state isn't required to conclusively rule out every possible alternative explanation for activity prior to arrest. That's what due process rights are for.

[st.cronin]

His political career may be over, but he may have a future as an NFL cheerleader.

[molson]

Three new tidbits from listening the police audio, just released

1. the police initiated the arrest by handing a card under the bathroom stall saying "Police", and verbal contact. No barging in, which I still think would be inappropriate in any event.

2. The officer was sitting to the senator's right. During the "flirting", the senator took his left (far) hand, and put it underneath the door facing the the officer. Apparently, that's also a part of this mating ritual. It's also something that takes a lot of effort to do. Another small piece of evidence that wasn't reported in the early stories, and probably the most damning evidence that this wasn't a mere coincidene (like tapping a foot might be)

3. The senator said "you shouldn't go out trying to entrap people". I don't know if that stands up an admission in court (probably not). But it's pretty close.

[Logan]

I thought we were all past the point of determining whether he was trying to pick up a guy and rather if he was trying to pick up a guy to have sex with in that bathroom.

[molson]

At the end of the day, I feel bad for the guy. In the closet his whole life in a super-conservative state, now his sexuality is revealed in highly embarassing fashion, and it's going to cost him his entire career.

He doesn't deserve all that for what he did.

[Glengoyne]

...

2. The officer was sitting to the senator's right. During the "flirting", the senator took his left (far) hand, and put it underneath the door facing the the officer. Apparently, that's also a part of this mating ritual. It's also something that takes a lot of effort to do. Another small piece of evidence that wasn't reported in the early stories, and probably the most damning evidence that this wasn't a mere coincidene (like tapping a foot might be)
....

I'm glad I'm not the only one left clueless about how this works.

You tap your foot...and then encroach with your foot under the stall wall, and make contact with someone in the other stall.

I guess if they don't snap your damn leg off an the ankle, then they are game.

So it's on.

What the hell happens then?

You reach under the stall and start groping around?

There is still a wall between the two willing partners. Who goes under? The tappee?

I mean, am I wrong for just not being able to get over the fact that there are several mechanics involved in this would be act that I don't understand?

[Jon]

And I'm saying that publicly propositioning someone for sex being against the law is dubious and probably unconstitutional.

It's not unconstitutional. Sting operations already been ruled deemed constitutional. Stings like this have been used for ages to get arrests and convictions of people before they do anything wrong. I would say that approximately 1/3 of arrests are based on stings.

Although on an interesting side note, the law may be challenged as unconstitutionally targeting gays. This likely wouldn't fly in federal courts and most state courts, but some states provide greater protection to gays under their state anti-discrimination laws and constitutions.

[JPhillips]

Perhaps Sen. Craig isn't leaving?

Roll Call, a Capitol Hill political newspaper, posted a voice mail tonight that Craig may have inadvertently left at a wrong number Saturday morning. In it, Craig says he changed the wording in his speech and that "this thing could take a new turn or a new shape."
Whiting confirmed that the message is Craig's. Here is the transcript of the message:

"Yes, Billy, this is Larry Craig calling. You can reach me on my cell. Arlen Specter is now willing to come out in my defense, arguing that it appears by all that he knows that I have been railroaded and all that.

"Having all of that, we have reshaped my statement a little bit to say it is my intent to resign on Sept. 30. I think it is important for you to make as bold a statement as you are comfortable with this afternoon, and I would hope you could make it in front of the cameras.

"I think it would help drive the story that I’m willing to fight, that I’ve got quality people out there fighting in my defense, and that this thing could take a new turn or a new shape, it has that potential. Anyway, give me a buzz or give Mike a buzz on that. We’re headed to my press conference now.

"Thank you. Bye."

[flere-imsaho]

At the end of the day, I feel bad for the guy. In the closet his whole life in a super-conservative state, now his sexuality is revealed in highly embarassing fashion, and it's going to cost him his entire career.

He doesn't deserve all that for what he did.

Well, yes and no.

Yes, on a human level I feel bad for the guy for the reasons you state above. But on another level if you just take a look at Craig's voting record on gay issues, and what he's said over time, it's difficult to have too much sympathy. Craig's done more than most U.S. Senators to create a hostile legislative environment for gay rights, so it's more than a little ironic that this has come back to haunt him.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Well, yes and no.

Yes, on a human level I feel bad for the guy for the reasons you state above. But on another level if you just take a look at Craig's voting record on gay issues, and what he's said over time, it's difficult to have too much sympathy. Craig's done more than most U.S. Senators to create a hostile legislative environment for gay rights, so it's more than a little ironic that this has come back to haunt him.

Agreed. It looks like the chickens have come home to roost...

[molson]

Is it necessarily inconsisent to be a closeted gay and yet against things like gay marriage? I mean, self-hate is a part of the closet experience, I'd imagine.

[flere-imsaho]

Is it necessarily inconsisent to be a closeted gay and yet against things like gay marriage? I mean, self-hate is a part of the closet experience, I'd imagine.

It's not inconsistent, of course.

But your question was whether or not he "deserved" what he got. And my answer is "yes". Here you've got a guy who's comprehensively voted against anything approximating gay rights and has also spoken with vitriol and anger about gay people. It's hypocrisy of the highest order. Sure, you may highlight his "suffering" as a mitigating factor, but I encourage you to consider the suffering experienced by others due to his hypocrisy. Surely they "deserve" a little schadenfreude?

[Karlifornia]

So, is doing the hokey-pokey really just putting out the feelers for possible sexual partners?

[JPhillips]

This gets stranger and stranger. Now a group called the American Land Rights Association is urging a boycott on the airport.

By ambushing Senator Larry Craig, the Minneapolis St Paul Airport Police have effectively declared war on the West. They are primarily responsible for greatly weakening private property rights and Federal land use advocates in the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee and in Congress. We are urging you to make all your flight arrangements avoiding the Minneapolis-St Paul Airport for at least the next year and probably longer. We’ll keep you posted as the boycott develops. Urge your friends, neighbors and fellow workers to try to avoid any flights that take them through Minneapolis St Paul Airport. We must inflict economic pain on the airport authorities to get them to change their behavior. -----And they must apologize to Senator Larry Craig.

[flere-imsaho]

Heh. (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/24/opinion/24mon4.html?em&ex=1190779200&en=b30c3c01c051f721&ei=5070)

Senator Larry Craig, Republican of Idaho, will ask a judge this week to reverse his conviction for soliciting sex from an undercover police officer in a Minneapolis airport bathroom. He should prevail. Mr. Craig did nothing illegal, and the law he was convicted under should be held unconstitutional.

It is hard, though, to be entirely sympathetic. Mr. Craig, who is asking the court to take the extraordinarily pro-defendant step of undoing his guilty plea, has been a rubber stamp for the Bush administration’s drive to stock the courts with judges who have utter contempt for civil liberties — and for claims like his own.

After his arrest, Mr. Craig was called hypocritical for his longstanding opposition to gay rights in Congress. His legal defense, though, presents a different inconsistency. He joins a long list of conservatives who believe in a fair legal system only for themselves.

Mr. Craig pleaded guilty to a dubious charge of disorderly conduct after under-the-stall toe-tapping and shoe-bumping with an undercover police officer. His gestures may have been moving toward an illegal act — sexual indecency in a public place or prostitution — but it is hard to see what crime he committed by sending coded signals to a seemingly willing participant.

The American Civil Liberties Union has come to Mr. Craig’s defense. It says the law he was convicted under — criminalizing “offensive, obscene, abusive, boisterous, or noisy conduct” that tends to “alarm, anger or disturb others” — is unconstitutionally vague, and makes a lot of perfectly harmless speech illegal. It’s right. If boisterous conduct that disturbs others is a crime in Minnesota, the state must be planning mass arrests of the speakers at the 2008 Republican National Convention, which is being held in Minneapolis-St. Paul.

Mr. Craig has a particularly hard case to make because he signed a guilty plea, which he now wants to withdraw — something courts rarely allow. He claims he signed in “a state of intense anxiety,” in an attempt to keep news of the arrest from getting out. To succeed, he will have to show that he suffered a “manifest injustice.”

It is an odd claim for him to make. Mr. Craig has consistently voted for President Bush’s judicial nominees, helping the far right to fill the federal courts with judges who are strikingly unmoved by claims of injustice. These Bush judges are not merely legal conservatives — they have been on a hard-driving campaign to weaken or undo protections that are basic to the American system of justice.

The court’s remarkable ruling this year in Bowles v. Russell showed how far things have gone. An Ohio man challenged his criminal conviction by the deadline set by a federal judge. The Supreme Court ruled that the judge had erred by a few days — and that the man had therefore lost his right to have his challenge heard. The four liberal justices rightly said in dissent that “it is intolerable for the judicial system to treat people this way.”

Mr. Craig is hardly alone in deciding that he likes defendants’ rights after he became a defendant. Among law-and-order conservatives, it’s the norm. Oliver North got his Iran-contra convictions thrown out, with the A.C.L.U.’s help, on a relative technicality. This year, an official of the National Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee, James Tobin, got his conviction for jamming Democratic Party lines in New Hampshire on Election Day reversed on a fine point about what his “purpose” was.

It would be gratifying if conservatives who saw the legal system’s flaws up close were changed by the experience. After all, as the joke goes, a liberal is just a conservative who has been arrested. But more often, they carve out an exception to their tough-on-crime philosophy, just for themselves.

Early in her career, Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas was indicted on charges of using public employees for personal and political matters. She beat the charges, and blamed a prosecutor she said had a partisan agenda. But when the United States attorney scandal broke this year — with its substantial evidence of political prosecutions — Ms. Hutchison was quick to dismiss it as “a lot of to-do about nothing.”

Mr. Craig returned to the Senate last week. One of the first votes he cast was to support a Republican effort to block court access for detainees, people who have not gotten to see a judge or enter a plea at all.

The best thing that Mr. Craig has going for him may be that his case is being heard by a Minnesota state court, not a federal one. The last kind of judge Mr. Craig would want to appear before is one with the harsh legal philosophy he and his Republican colleagues have been foisting on the rest of us.

[path12]

Doesn't sound like he'll have much luck in the Tehran airport.

[flere-imsaho]

:D

[flere-imsaho]

Judge denies Craig's request to withdraw guilty plea, says claim was 'illogical' (http://www.idahostatesman.com/newsupdates/story/175263.html)


A judge in Minnesota has turned down U.S. Sen. Larry Craig’s effort to withdraw his Aug. 1 guilty plea, saying that his claim that he didn’t know what he was doing when he pleaded guilty to disorderly conduct was “illogical.”
Porter rejected that as a good reason to withdraw the plea. Any pressure Craig was under “was entirely perceived by the defendant and was not a result of any action by the police, the prosecutor, or the court,” he said.

Minnesota law allows a plea to be withdrawn if a “manifest injustice” occurs, but leaves it to judges to define that. Porter ruled that none occurred in Craig’s case.

“It is not a manifest injustice to force the defendant to be bound by his plea bargain and the waivers and admissions which he made in conjunction with the execution of that bargain,” Porter wrote.

He also wrote that Craig hadn’t produced any “newly discovered evidence” that would clear him.

There's more from the judge elsewhere, but basically it boils down to the judge saying "You're a smart guy. If you felt you were being railroaded into a guilty plea, you should have known not to plea guilty, or should have changed your plea in the weeks that followed the event."

[molson]

I wonder if he'll actually leave office now.

He "announced his resignation", but then has seemingly gone under the radar and just hasn't left, passing his earlier-set resignation date.

[PilotMan]

It looks like no. But he needs too.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071004/pl_nm/usa_politics_craig_dc_8;_ylt=AhK0tXbZqecw3Wgh6pWaQ9wE1vAI


WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Republican Sen. Larry Craig of Idaho reversed course on Thursday and said he would remain in the U.S. Congress despite his conviction in a sex-sting operation at an airport men's room.
<TABLE class=ad_slug_table cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD align=middle>ADVERTISEMENT
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><SCRIPT language=javascript>if(window.yzq_d==null)window.yzq_d=new Object();window.yzq_d['xRtkdULEYpM-']='&U=13bm928mj%2fN%3dxRtkdULEYpM-%2fC%3d619213.11515265.12016214.1414694%2fD%3dLREC%2fB%3d4919451';</SCRIPT><NOSCRIPT></NOSCRIPT>
In a statement just hours after a Minnesota court refused to let him withdraw his guilty plea to a misdemeanor charge of disorderly conduct, Craig said he planned to complete his third term that ends in January 2009.
"When my term has expired, I will retire and not seek re-election," said Craig, 62. "I hope this provides the certainty Idaho needs and deserves."
Craig has insisted he did nothing wrong, did not try to solicit sex from an undercover policeman and is not gay. But under pressure from fellow Republicans, he announced on September 1 he intended to resign on September 30.
He began to waffle about his resignation shortly afterward, creating uncertainty about his future even as the Idaho governor interviewed some two dozen possible successors and had picked a possible replacement in the event Craig resigned.
Even if Craig left, it would have no impact on control of the Senate, now held by Democrats 51-49.
Republican leadership aides said there were no plans to try again to push Craig out, and there was no way to force him to leave, although he will face a Senate ethics probe.
The case has been a major political embarrassment for Republicans, since they have long billed themselves as the party of conservative family values.
Democrats won control of Congress in last year's elections amid a series of Republican scandals, including one involving a Florida congressman sending sexually suggestive electronic messages to teenage male interns.
Sen. John Ensign of Nevada, who heads the Senate Republican campaign committee, said Craig should step down as he earlier said he would.
"He had his day in court," Ensign said. "I am calling on Senator Craig to keep his word. ... It's the right thing to do for the Senate. It is the right thing to do for his party."
Sen. Mike Crapo, Craig's fellow Republican from Idaho, was one of Craig's few supporters, saying, "I think it is perfectly acceptable for him to change his decision" to step down as he explores possible court appeals.
WORKING 'EFFECTIVELY
Craig said in his statement, "As I continued to work for Idaho over the past three weeks here in the Senate, I have seen that it is possible for me to work here effectively."
Craig was arrested at Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport on June 11 after an undercover police officer said Craig sat down in a stall next to him and used hand and foot signals to indicate he was soliciting sex. Craig said his actions were misread and that he was not gay.
Craig said he did nothing wrong but panicked and pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge of disorderly misconduct. After the case became public in August, triggering a political firestorm, he sought to have his guilty plea withdrawn.
The senator announced his decision to stay in the Senate shortly after Judge Charles Porter of the Hennepin County District Court in Minnesota dismissed arguments made a week ago that Craig was rushed into pleading guilty and only did so after being promised secrecy by the undercover officer who arrested him.

Porter ruled Craig's guilty plea to a disorderly conduct charge was "accurate, voluntary and intelligent, and ... supported by the evidence."
"I am extremely disappointed with the ruling issued today," Craig said in his statement. "I am innocent of the charges against me. I continue to work with my legal team to explore my additional legal options."
In his 27-page ruling, Porter revealed more details of Craig's encounter with Sgt. Dave Karsnia in adjoining bathroom stalls at Minneapolis' airport.
Craig peeked at the officer, sat down in a stall next to him and used hand and foot signals to indicate he was soliciting sex. When Karsnia held his police identification underneath the stall divider, Craig said, "No," and argued "You solicited me."
A week later, Craig confronted Karsnia at the airport and was told to call the local prosecutor, which he did several times before mailing in his guilty plea. A $1,000 fine was cut in half, and he was ordered to pay $575 in fines and court costs and given a 10-day suspended sentence. (Additional reporting by Richard Cowan and Donna Smith in Washington, and Michael Conlon and Andrew Stern in Chicago)

[SirFozzie]

Brilliant. The GOP must be smacking their foreheads in disbelief. talk about an issue that will drag them down for the next months. be sure that this will be brought up time and time again.

[Swaggs]

Just plain selfish, in my opinion.

Now, instead of dealing with any type of actual issues (although they probably wouldn't have, anyway), I'm sure we will get to hear comments about this and probably some type of ethics hearing.