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.
I'm usually in agreement with the ACLU, but this time, they're off. Unlike a private bedroom, that public stall is to be used (and rightly so) by others after the sex takes place. I think my "right" to use a public facility not doused in love juice outweighs anyone else's right to have sex there.
I do think using a bathroom is private, but that doesn't mean anything that happens in one is legal.
First of all, I'd like to state that the acronym IANAL means "I am not a lawyer", just because putting I ANAL in bold in a Larry Craig post seems to be inviting problems
OK - so - my take is this. This wouldn't be the same as having sex in a bathroom stall because Craig didn't contain his activities to one closed stall. If he was being prosecuted for masturbating in the stall, or if he had brought a guy in from outside and was going at it in the stall - I could see how this is covered.
Once he "left" the stall by scooting his stance and moving this hand out to "pick up the tissue" he started acting upon someone else's stall, and that person had the right to observe his own stall at that point. Any actions that took place in the other person's stall would not be protected by an expectation of privacy granted by Craig's stall, especially from the person who was in the other stall.
This is a lame argument and they probably should have tried something else.
I think I have a *hope* of privacy in a public bathroom stall (or a store changing room for that matter) but I certainly don't expect it based on past experience. Small children have a bad habit of scooting under dividers or peeking through cracks as they "investigat their surroundings". Everyone has probably either accidentally opened a non-locking stall door on someone or had it done to them.
Originally posted by LiseI think I have a *hope* of privacy in a public bathroom stall (or a store changing room for that matter) but I certainly don't expect it based on past experience. Small children have a bad habit of scooting under dividers or peeking through cracks as they "investigat their surroundings". Everyone has probably either accidentally opened a non-locking stall door on someone or had it done to them.
That's merely semantics. As far as the law is concerned, the "hope" of privacy you just described is equivalent to a legally protectable EXPECTATION of privacy.