Even for the ACLU, this is a stretch:
ACLU: Sex in restroom stalls is privateWell yeah, I expect not to be bothered when I take a dump, but I think the part about "would not have called attention to itself in a closed stall" doesn't quite hold up when one partner starts screaming "OH GOD!"
Tue Jan 15, 11:15 PM ETST. PAUL, Minn. - In an effort to help Sen. Larry Craig, the American Civil Liberties Union is arguing that people who have sex in public bathrooms have an expectation of privacy.
[...]
The ACLU filed a brief Tuesday supporting Craig. It cited a Minnesota Supreme Court ruling 38 years ago that found that people who have sex in closed stalls in public restrooms "have a reasonable expectation of privacy."
That means the state cannot prove Craig was inviting an undercover officer to have sex in public, the ACLU wrote.
[...]
The ACLU argued that even if Craig was inviting the officer to have sex, his actions wouldn't be illegal.
"The government cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Senator Craig was inviting the undercover officer to engage in anything other than sexual intimacy that would not have called attention to itself in a closed stall in the public restroom," the ACLU wrote in its brief.
The ACLU also noted that Craig was originally charged with interference with privacy, which it said was an admission by the state that people in the bathroom stall expect privacy.
Via Jim Addison at Wizbang, who also notes:
The ACLU is not solely at fault here, as they rely on a Minnesota Supreme Court precedent. One wonders what on earth possessed that Court to rule in such a way.Bad dope, maybe? Posted by Ken S at January 17, 2008 06:34 AM | TrackBack (0) |
I think Minnesota's SC meant that, just because the stall is in a public establishment, you can expect not to have the door kicked in at random; nor have people peeking in at you whilst you dispose of your by-products.
Note that, according to this logic, it is Senator Craig who violated the officer's expectation of privacy, and not the reverse - Craig was the one pawing around under the walls.
Let's hear it for the ACLU!
Posted by: nightfly at January 17, 2008 08:01 AMI think you have that correct, nightfly. The issue was more that innocent people were being surveilled in the attempt to catch the guys in that case. The court said that is too intrusive unless some kind of actual or implied consent was given, such as a warning sign that the stalls were under surveillance. That doesn't seem unreasonable to me. I don't know what the solution is to the problem, but I'm a little reluctant to give cops and security guards a blanket right to watch people use the bathroom.
And I also don't see how it applies in the Craig case.
Posted by: Dave E. at January 17, 2008 12:34 PMBad dope, maybe?
Maybe the justices at that time their best sex in public restroom stalls?
Posted by: The_Real_JeffS at January 17, 2008 02:59 PM