Also, if the cop had an expectation of privacy, why wouldn’t the stall fuckers have that same expectation?
Another thing. According to the report, the undercover cop stayed in his stall as people came and went. It would seem that the prolonged presence of said cop would have been interpreted as “waiting for more”. Which it was, but in the “wrong” way, the cop was waiting for him to further incriminate himself, rather than waiting for further encouragement.
Seems a bit close to entrapment.
Sex and the law make wonky companions.
In Virginia, it was a misdemeanor to solicit for sodomy for money.
It was a felony to solicit sodomy.
We have then the odd circumstance of an additional element to a crime creating a lesser offense. This is also a very anti-gay set of circumstances; hetero clients (or would-be clients) of prostitutes are charged with misdemeanor solicitation; gay guys cruising for anonymous (but free!) sex can be charged with felonies. I once ruefully told a client of mine that if he had offered money, or asked to be paid, he’d have REDUCED the charge he was facing.
It’s not entrapment.
However, it might have been fatal to the state’s case at trial anyway. The law in play in this jurisdiction seems to criminalize conduct that would “reasonably … arouse alarm, anger, or resentment in others.”
And the whole point of their case is that the total behavior constituted a well-known set of signals, or signs. But since the officer was returning those signs, a reasonable person would have believed he was receptive to the advances, and that therefore the advances did not tend to “arouse alarm, anger, or resentment” in him.
Couldn’t “the others” in question be the other members of the public who went into the bathroom to actually use it for its intended purpose? We’ve already had a few people in this thread say, “I don’t care what people do in the privacy of their own homes, but I’d be bothered (or resentful) if they did it in public.” I don’t think the harm the law is trying to prohibit is only the harm experienced by the hapless guy with restless leg syndrome that gets hit on in the restroom - its the harm experienced by the entire public at large when confronted with guys getting blow jobs or fucking in a public bathroom stall.
Not relevant.
The question is: did the accused engage in conduct that tended reasonably to arouse alarm, anger, or resentment in others. He didn’t get a blowjob or fuck, which might well have tended reasonably to arouse alarm, anger, or resentment in others. He solicited someone else, yes. But his initial actions were not violative of the law. Only when his “signals” were returned did he proceed into even more intrusive signals, but those were directed towards someone who had already indicated receptiveness.
Bruce Reed posted a column about the controversy (he’s from Idaho and worked for one of Craig’s opponents). I liked this quote from him:
According to the officer’s report, Craig stood outside the stall and looked at the plain clothed officer through the cracks in the partition for two minutes before he (Craig) entered into the adjacent stall. He (the officer) didn’t signal anything to illicit the interest of Craig at first. I’m a pretty reasonable guy, but I’d call being watched through a crack in the stall door for as long as two minutes as something that is likely to arouse alarm, anger, or resentment. I’m not buying your defense counsellor, and I still believe the “others” in the statute is addressed at the larger population who may enter the public space as well as the individual sitting on the john.
God, these nutjobs slay me. Not saying the senator is not a closet cock gobbler(not that there is anything wrong with that unless you built a career disparaging homosexuals), just that these nutjobs are nutjobs…I mean not only is this idea stupid but where is it spelled out that it is the judeo-christian standard for identifying truth? Somebody somewhere may have said it, but I can’t find it in the bible. So how is it the standard? This is what bothers me about religion, people pull shit out of their ass.
I’ll bet he didn’t stare for that long without some indication that the occupant was mulling over his options.
The police report is silent as to what the officer was doing during the two minutes (other than that Craig was evidently close enough for the officer to tell his eye color). If you were Craig’s defense attorney, what would you be hoping to get the officer to admit to doing?
Well, what he’d actually admit to and what it appears to be are probably two different things. It appears that the officer did nothing to shut down the advance, and maintained eye contact long enough to appear to be interested. Two minutes is a LOOOONG time! That would be my defense if I were Craig. I just don’t think there’s enough evidence to convict him (not that I don’t believe he was trolling for sex, mind you).
What about the people coming into the restroom containing said stall fuckers.
I have no problem with gay sex.
I have no problem with anonymous sex.
I do have a problem with public sex. It infringes on others’ privacy.
By your use of the past tense, are you telling us that the law in Virginia has changed, either through legislation or court action, so that soliciting sodomy is no longer criminal? Because the arrests noted in my link took place after SCOTUS struck down state sodomy laws but the state continued to enforce the law against solicitation to perform a non-criminal act and showed no sign at the time of being interested in stopping.
The officer was there specifically because there had been complaints of just this type of behavior - why would he want to try and shut down the advance? If I’m a police officer in an area known for drug sales, and someone approaches me in what I think may be an effort to sell me drugs I don’t say, “Sorry man, I’m not interested. I’m just waiting for a bus.” `Additionally, it doesn’t say they they remained locked eye to eye for two minutes - it says that Craig lingered outside the stall looking in for two minutes.
He’s in a place that has had specific complaints made about activities occuring there. If the police officer testifies that Craig engaged in the activities as described in the police report it seems perfectly reasonable to me that he’s guilty. I don’t see what his defense could possible be. How do you misconstrue putting your foot under the divider and rubbing someone’s foot, then reaching under the stall with your hand repeatedly, and then resisting the officer’s attempts to take you to a more private location to discuss the matter?
Too bad Perry Mason’s not practicing anymore. “Perry Mason and the Case of the Cock Swallowing Senator” would be a great title (plus, Raymond Burr was gay so he’d bring some first hand experience to the episode).
I don’t think “privacy” is the right word there. “Sensibilities,” perhaps?
I understand what you’re saying but this does not compute. Sex in public violates a variety of things, but not an individual’s privacy.
Unless the two engagees hooked up and then forced their way into another’s stall to get their mutual swerves on.
ETA: BrainGlutton barely beat me by 8 minutes.
The difference is selling drugs is illegal; looking for anonymous sex is not. A crime had not been committed. The officer had no way of knowing if Craig wanted to arrange an off-site rendezvous. At this point there is no crime; same as getting ready to buy drugs is not equal to actually buying them. You can’t bust someone for thinking about buying drugs. You have to actually have a transaction.
I still don’t see what he’s guilty of. Until it gets a helluva lot more intimate than tapping and rubbing feet, I don’t see that a crime has been committed.
He was?? Color me blown away! (pun intended)
Good heavens, no!
Just the fact that he is a Republican, makes him indefensible in my opinion.
That he’s a hypocrite who works against gay people, and a bully who tries to intimidate the police with his position as a US Senator just make him more indefensible.
I hope they vote him out of office (and a Democrat in). But that’s probably too much to hope for in Idaho.
I think it’s another topic to talk about the whole issue of ‘solicitation’ for sex, and the claim that communication between 2 people locked in private booths is somehow ‘public’. Let’s make that another topic if people want to discuss that.