« The Fundamentals | Main | The Trouble With Allawi » Minnesota Sex Lawyer28 Aug 2007 07:25 pm GFR brings you everything you wanted to know about cruising in Minnesota men's rooms, reaching the conclusion that it seems to be perfectly legal. UPDATE: Weisberg & Plotz are also making sense here. The idea that the real crime was the peering into the cop's stall doesn't make sense. The cop was in the bathroom specifically to try to arrest cruisers. He arrested Craig not after the alleged peeping, but after this foot-tap-signal business. Comments (47)
"increase your page hits" accusations are the blogosphere's tap tap tap. 
Surreptiously peaking into other people's stalls, however, is not. I do recall that being the crime for which he was arrested and charged.
Patrick: As I recall, he wasn't arrested *right after* peering into the stall.
Sorry to be OT ... but MY hasn't told us that he ran into young Ezra at the Apple store today. What are the odds of that?!?!?
Boo! Thinking MY is trying to increase traffic through searches. Hooray! Fountains of Wayne homage!
Sorry to be OT ... but MY hasn't told us that he ran into young Ezra at the Apple store today. What are the odds of that?!?!? I must admit that the odds of Matt failing to tell us such a thing are small . . .
but MY hasn't told us that he ran into young Ezra at the Apple store today. What are the odds of that?!?!? It was kinda weird. Technically, I ran into him in the Pentagon City Mall hallway sort of in the vicinity of the Apple Store.
Well, you know, it's a darn shame that some stalwart man of rockhard principle doesn't get arrested and then force this issue of quasi-law enforcement into the open so we could have a public discussion and restore some of our basic liberties to wink and leer in washrooms as well as without. You know what I mean, some powerful public figure who would have no problem finding top-flight legal counsel to aggressively fight back when the tentacles of the state grasp his innocent client. Where, oh where, could we find such a person?
I understand how Craig can deny that he's gay, even though he's had sexual encounters with men. A, uh, friend of mine has uh, experimented with what it would be like to do that sexual thing with one's mouth upon a male member, because so many sweet young ladies had shown him their enthusiasm and pleasure in their own indulgence in that activity. It seemed like something more than half of American adults do, sexually; can't he give it a try? That doesn't make him gay, right? Just sayin'.
Christ, talk about missing the forest for the trees. Whether or not you think what dude did is or should be a crime, he was clearly cruising for gay sex in the airport restroom. He acted guilty about it (didn't tell anyone) and pled guilty to some lesser offense. Now he's posturing as the world's biggest pussy hound, claiming it was all a big misunderstanding and that he only plead guilty out of naivete because he thought nobody would ever notice (huh?), and would like nothing more that to go right back to marginalizing gays and criminalizing exactly the type of behavior he engages in with some regularity, it would seem. And I'm supposed to feel bad that this jerkoff got hoisted on his own petard? Fat chance. Who cares if it's "perfectly legal"? Larry Craig should resign in disgrace for being a self-hating lying bigot. I just wish all these Republican macho men would get together once and for all and give each other the blow jobs they so desperately crave. It's not that big a fucking deal, guys. Just do it.
You do realize these are not " Adult's Only" facilities. I would call this a definite public nuisance.
One red flag about all this - he clearly flies a lot, is well off, undoubtedly has membership at one or more airline lounges to rest in between flights. I know I always chose the facilities in the Admiral's Club or equivalent over the more public places - and assuming Craig had time to cruise for sex, he had time to go to a lounge as well. So it seems this likely was not some spur of the moment thing for him, but likely a conscious decision to take his chances where he did.
Are you people kidding me? I don't want someone surreptitiously staring at me when I'm in a bathroom stall. It's creepy and wrong. People shouldn't do it. It's also creepy and wrong to surreptitiously stare at a woman's breasts. I still catch myself doing it from time to time. Even in public, in front of "the children." And while I shouldn't do it, I don't particularly want it to be a criminal offense.
If Craig said to the officer, "Let's have sex in this public bathroom," would that be illegal? Are you arguing that that wouldn't be illegal? If you aren't, then I guess it boils down to this: the officer judged that that is in fact what Craig was proposing to him in a non-verbal manner with known signals often used by men looking for sex in public bathrooms. Is it so confusing? This whole "since when is it illegal to tap your foot?!?" is just idiotic. You can certainly argue that the officer might have misinterpreted Craig's actions, but that sure seems unlikely in this case.
"It's also creepy and wrong to surreptitiously stare at a woman's breasts." Then don't do it surreptitiously.
Somecallmetim, that comparison doesn't work. There is an expectation of privacy in a public restroom which doesn't exist on the street. A better comparison would be if you were at some clothing store that has unisex changing room area (as many stores are), and you were leering in to look at a woman's breasts there. Should that be legally acceptable behavior?
He wasn't railroaded and I think it's a stretch that people are now automatically assuming the cop is lying. As for the reduced charge, it calls to mind a time I had a speeding ticket reduced to a nonmoving violation, specifically having a faulty speedometer. The bigger question: Did the good senator learn about this particular facility on the interweb? http://www.minnesotamonitor.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=2309
The details of Craig's arrest are not unique. According to a post in June at cruisingforsex.com, another public sex site, "Twenty people were arrested within the past week. Plainclothes officers wait in the stalls and tap their feet and even put their foot on yours and then arrest you when you look under the stall wall."
There is an expectation of privacy in a public restroom which doesn't exist on the street. If you ask around, you'll find that many have--well, I guess "expectation" is the wrong word here--a strong hope that they won't have their tits stared at, even in public. I mean, honest to gawd, do you really think there's any comparison as to which is the greater nuisance? I'm fine with Craig being arrested for incitement to have sex in a public bathroom, or whatever it is. It's the apparent desire to criminalize "he leered at me" that seems odd.
Police should require more activity such as actually touching the cop in some way or exposing him self. The facts as stated pretty clearly show what Craig was after, but those limited types of gestures could be misinterpreted, or made-up by bad cops looking to fill arrest quotas. Craig pleaded guilty. End of story. His press conference denying being gay and implicitly condemning homosexuality makes it impossible for any sympathy. If he thought he could get away with it, he would have claimed that the cop slipped him a roffie and try to rape him.
So two guys are in adjacent stalls. After a series of suggestive toe taps it is determined that each want the same thing. Then what? How do people in adjacent stalls consummate their ardor?
I think that sex in a public place such as a bathroom is at least as bad as prostitution. As such there should be a law that prohibits the solicitation of public sex. I don't think that such a law exists in that state and I think that the police are taking advantage of the desire of homosexuals to remain in the closet. At the same time I hate Larry Craig. Asside for destroying my good name he is a terrible senator. I think that his collegue Mike Simpson while also too conservative is considerably better. In Idaho the best we can hope for is a Republican who is moderate on some issues, or at least isn't Bill Sali.
The cop was in the bathroom specifically to try to arrest cruisers. He arrested Craig not after the alleged peeping, but after this foot-tap-signal business. I don't think I buy this premise. Firstly it seems to me that peeping doesn't become not-peeping based on the hidden identity of the target. Secondly, waiting to see what happens next and moving after a subsequent action seems to give confirmation doesn't say to me that the initial act can't therefore be a crime. I don't know if the alleged peeping is a crime, and if it is, I don't know if I think it should be. I just don't think the quoted argument carries the force of logic.
I just read the full report posted at Slate. It seems that after a few taps, and movements, Craig moved his foot under the divider and touched the Officer's foot. I think this gesture is pretty hard to explain away, absent some real bad muscle spasms. Cramped seating on a long flight?? This case does raise the whole issue of the propriety of entrapment. Putting surveillance cameras in these areas may be better from a civil rights perspective then decoy cops essentially soliciting sex. Without any corroborating evidence, the officer will always win based on his testimony — he said /he, with the defendant needing to prove a negative. Costly attorney’s fees, etc., the deck is stacked. Visible cameras would prevent the activity in the first place.
Matthew- I just want you to know that despite my general (let's not mince words: generally low) opinion of your taste in popular music, I appreciated the FoW reference in the title. Nice touch. Love, JG
>>Putting surveillance cameras in these areas may be better from a civil rights perspective We should all be videotaped when taking a crap on the odd chance that a person might tap his foot in the stall next door indicating that he wants gay sex? You have a strange "civil rights perspective." Seems a little like using a cruise missile to kill an ant to me. If you don't want to be "entrapped" by the police like this, don't go to the most popular gay sex bathroom in the state and start peeping, foot tapping, foot rubbing, and sticking your hands under other stalls. Just a thought.
Like everyone else, I'm curious about how this whole thing goes down. Once you've established that the dude in the stall next door is into you... then what? How the hell do you consummate any kind of sexual act in a bathroom stall? Seems like you'd have to be either a) a contortionist or b) really not care at all if people knew there were two of you in there. Also, much has been made of the fact that he (allegedly) put his suitcase in front of the door "to block the view". Well, where the hell ELSE are you supposed to put your suitcase when you're in a stall? It's not like you have just lots of choice about where you're going to put it. When I'm traveling and need to attend to nature's call, I always put it in front of the door - not because I'm interested in cruising the dude next door, but because there's no room for it anywhere else. Finally, although I can't find it in me to be particularly sorry for someone like Larry Craig, I do have to say that it's pretty bogus that the cops are spending time arresting people for playing footsie in the bathroom. Don't they have some murderers to catch or something?
#1. He did not fight the charges. He pled guilty. #2. The allegations from D.C.'s Union Station are strikingly similar. Check out the Idaho Statesman newspaper article. #3. The undercover cop is the expert on this behavior. He knows the signals.
SomeCallMeTim: I know this is off-topic, but I would submit that if a woman dresses in a revealing way that makes her breasts leer-able, then perhaps she consciously would like to be looked at. (perhaps not clumsily for 2 minutes straight like Larry Craig, but the desire is there) When I'm sitting in a bathroom stall, I have no such desire to be gazed upon. [Note, to ward off any accusations: I am not arguing that a woman wearing revealing clothing is "asking for" any actual sexual interaction.] (Another off-topic point: In my office, the bathrooms are right next to the cubicles, and are not very sound-proof. Thus, people in the cubicles can hear all the graphic audio going in inside the loo. When I'm sitting at my desk, I find it pretty gross. It doesn't seem to bother others much, but whenever I need to use the toilet, I go to a different floor of the building where the bathrooms are more insulated [and where nobody knows me] because I don't want anyone listening to my bodily symphony...)
You just won't stop Matt, geez. There's no crime picking up a stranger for sex. The crime part is having sex in a public place (and I know you don't give a fuck about kids, but most people have a problem with a public restroom that children could walk in with men having sex 2 feet away). The thing about sting operations is the cops are supposed to pull out their badge before the crime they're trying to prevent occurs. A murder for hire sting that ends with the victim getting shot is a piss poor sting. Ditto an internet sex sting where the cops wait until after 14 year old gets raped before they move in. The idea is to stop the guy before the act and arrest him for a lesser charge. At that point, the prosecutor will offer a plea bargain to an even lesser charge to get the matter settled without the expense and trouble of a jury trial. Let's say peering though a restroom wasn't a crime and let's say that Craig tapping his foot and reaching under the stall wasn't enough alone to show an intent to have public sex (though at trial, a jury could be presented evidence that those actions are common nonverbal communications for the public sex crowd). Touching another man's foot with your foot is clearly battery, that is, an offensive touching (Minnesota's statutes make battery a civil offense, the criminal code merges battery into the crime of assault). Battery plus leering plus the nonverbal communication. Its a fact question, but a jury could infer he was soliciting the cop for public sex. Whether they would have found him guilty on those facts we'll never know. He took a plea bargain.
I should add, the cop didn't have to arrest him for leering. However the leering goes to proving intent. If you stare at a woman's breasts for two minutes and then you brush against them, the leering (even if itself not a crime) is evidence that it wasn't an accidental contact. Likewise, leering at the undercover cop and then later touching the cop's foot is evidence that Craig's foot tapping was a nonverbal communication and not an innocent gesture.
"Matt, geez. There's no crime picking up a stranger for sex. The crime part is having sex in a public place and I know you don't give a fuck about kids....Ditto an internet sex sting where the cops wait until after 14 year old gets raped before they move in" What a BS comparison, and what BS accusation. I had a free night to post on various sites, and we had a good discussion here...what an a-hole. beowulf, you should be ashamed.
as I read the interference with privacy issue, craig could be charged with it. He was staring at someone where someone in a location where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy. However, he didn't plead out to that charge he plead to the disorderly conduct, which i don't think he committed. If a man hits on an undercover cop man while washing hands in an airport restroom, I don't think he would get arrested. They let craig plea to the less embarrassing charge even though it was the weaker of though two charges filed.
He arrested Craig not after the alleged peeping, but after this foot-tap-signal busness. That is pretty much irrelevant. If the cop had probable cause to arrest the perp after he peeped into the stall, the cop was not required to arrest him immediately. He could wait and see how far the perp would take it - which is what the cop did. The timing of the arrest doesn't matter as long as the perp has violated the law. But I suspect the charge involved Craig's conduct as a whole: it was the peeping combined with putting his hand and feet under the toilet stall. Considering all of the conduct together, I don't think it is much of a stretch to think Craig was guilty of disorderly conduct and/or lewd conduct.
Hi again MY, I knew I could find a rational left-leaning view on this particular issue even though I haven't visited in a while. Forgive me for still being a righty, but I was wondering about the views from the left of this seemingly innocuous action warranting such a buzz on the internets. I happen to agree with your first link from thegarance.com. Again, and still, a nice blog and a great point of reference for a righty from Texas. Take care.
Firstly it seems to me that peeping doesn't become not-peeping based on the hidden identity of the target. Secondly, waiting to see what happens next and moving after a subsequent action seems to give confirmation doesn't say to me that the initial act can't therefore be a crime. This is the most accurate comment so far and it's nice to see that someone is capable of applying some common sense here, even if Matt isn't. Peeping into the stall is indeed a crime. However, intent is an element of the crime; you wouldn't be guilty of a crime if you briefly glanced to see if a stall was occupied, or to make it even more blatant, if you accidentally opened a stall thinking it was unoccupied. So Craig is checking out the cop in the stall, looking to see if the guy seems interested. But if the cop arrests him at that point, it's hard to prove the element of intent. The cop can say "I could tell by the way he was looking at me," but it's hard to prove that it wasn't all a big misunderstanding. However, if he lets Craig go further and demonstrate that he is, in fact, there to cruise, now it becomes crystal-clear what his intent was when he was peeping into the stall. I liked this from the Slate piece: The problem—my libertarian friend—is that the government has put on its books a law that serves very little public purpose, and has given the police free rein to enforce it with heavy hands (and tapping feet). Okay, so yesterday, I did some research regarding prior convictions under the "peeping" law at issue here, which apparently Craig plea-bargained his way out of. One case involved a creep who followed a 7-year old into a public restroom and proceeded to check him out by peering over a urinal partition. Considering that without this law, I'm not sure they could have arrested that guy for anything at all, I'm hesitant to say the law serves very little public purpose. And while I'm all into letting consenting adults do what they will, I'm kind of glad there's a law to discourage people from peeping into my bathroom stall to see if I might happen to be a consenting adult. Basically, Matt keeps being 100% wrong on this issue, and at some point you really hope he'd say "gee, I'm not a lawyer, there's at least a chance I'm not analyzing this correctly." But he seems to have completely convinced himself.
Everyone is missing the really important question which is: who on this earth is so desperate that they would want to do Larry Craig (or be done by him-something tells me he's a top)?! I mean, have you seen him?! He's hideous. Not even the power thing could overcome the fact that he's a disgusting sight.
Matt has taken on the Sideshow Bob defense: "Attempted murder, now honestly, what is that? Do they give a Nobel Prize for attempted chemistry?"
"He was staring at someone where someone in a location where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy" Everyone keeps saying that, but isn't it pretty safe to assume that the cop was staring back? Making eye contact? That changes things a bit, doesn't it?
Maybe I'm the only person who didn't know about this, but what's the deal with Republicans and public bathrooms? The NYT reports on Florida Republican state legislator Bob Allen's arrest in July, "Allen was arrested outside the men's restroom at a Titusville park after offering to perform a sex act on a plainclothes police officer, authorities said. He was later released after posting $500 bail." The cherry on top? "He also sponsored legislation that toughened penalties for lewd or lascivious conduct....Before his 2006 re-election, Allen had received a 92 percent rating from the Christian Coalition of Florida."
How does one defend themselves against false accusations by a bad cop, where there is no requirement for a second eye witness? Unfortunately, planting fake evidence, profiling, rigged line ups, etc. are not uncommon in law enforcement. The Duke Lacrosse players’ situation goes on every day. Most people in that situation, however, do not have the resources or the public sympathy to get justice. How many (mostly blacks) have been put to death based on false evidence? Don’t be so fucking smug and caviler. Just a thought.
How does one defend themselves against false accusations by a bad cop, where there is no requirement for a second eye witness? You tell the jury that you didn't do those things and you hope they find reasonable doubt based upon the lack of corroborating evidence. You certainly don't plead guilty. By the way, since Craig regrets his guilty plea so much, maybe he should file a motion to withdraw it.
Larry, Larry, quite the fairy, With ass-crack smells and foot-tap tells,
>>How does one defend themselves against false accusations by a bad cop, where there is no requirement for a second eye witness? So if a cop witnesses a man breaking into a house and there is "no requirement for a second witness," how does "one defend oneself against a bad cop?" What a fake conundrum you've dreamed up. What is your point? The cop should not arrest people for breaking the law when there is no second, impartial witness around to verify that he is not a "bad cop?" >> Don’t be so fucking smug and caviler. Just a thought. Don't be so fucking stupid. Just a thought.
Jim, does it make you feel like a man to belittle other people? Are you suffering from a little gay panic?? get help.
This is classic. >> does it make you feel like a man to belittle other people? He writes this after he says to me "Don’t be so fucking smug and caviler." I didn't belittle anyone in my original comment. I only pointed out that claims of "entrapment" in this case are absurd.
Instead of addressing my objections to his point (whatever that was), he retreats into smears. Apparently it is "homophobic" and a sign of "gay panic" to point out that Craig was arrested for breaking the law.
cops are always right heh...
Comments closed September 11, 2007. |
Search
Subscribe to this blog by Email Books by Matthew Yglesias
Recent Comments
Recent Posts
Weekly Archives
Categories
|
Copyright © 2008 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Okay, now you're not even trying to mask the attempts to increase your page hits through searches.
Posted by Nicholas Beaudrot | August 28, 2007 7:29 PM