ACLU Says Sex in Public Restrooms is Private

[Hunter]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>ST. 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.
ADVERTISEMENT

Craig, of Idaho, is asking the Minnesota Court of Appeals to let him withdraw his guilty plea to disorderly conduct stemming from a bathroom sex sting at the Minneapolis airport.

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 Republican senator was arrested June 11 by an undercover officer who said Craig tapped his feet and swiped his hand under a stall divider in a way that signaled he wanted sex. Craig has denied that, saying his actions were misconstrued.

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.

Craig at one point said he would resign but now says he will finish his term, which ends in January 2009.</div>

Yahoo!

 

[AEM]

The ACLU would love to extend the right of privacy to cover virtually everything. Not bad for a concept that only became a 'constitutional' right a little more than a century ago...

 

[Denny Crane]

I think we do have a right to privacy, but only from the government.

That is, I think it's horrible to have the govt. putting up spy cameras in public places, but it's reasonable and fine that a business would put up a security camera to watch its parking lot.

As far as Craig goes, he's not being accused of any kind of lude act, like exposing himself in a public place, where the state has any kind of vested interest. Now that his activity has been made public, my feeling is that it's truly an issue between he and his wife, and between he and the voters.

 

[cpawfan]

So if this is true

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>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."</div>

I fail to see the problem with the ACLU getting involved (outside, of course, of their need to grandstand). If anything, Craig's lawyer should be shot for not finding that.

I'm not a fan of Sen. Craig, but I don't like what the police did in this case.

 

[AEM]

The concept that sex in PUBLIC restroom stalls gives rise to a 'reasonable expectation of privacy' is what I find ridiculous about it.

 

[cpawfan]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (AEM @ Jan 16 2008, 03:30 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>The concept that sex in PUBLIC restroom stalls gives rise to a 'reasonable expectation of privacy' is what I find ridiculous about it.</div>

In your opinion, should you have a reasonable expectation of privacy if you are actually going to the bathroom in a public restroom stall?

 

[AEM]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (cpawfan @ Jan 16 2008, 03:38 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (AEM @ Jan 16 2008, 03:30 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>The concept that sex in PUBLIC restroom stalls gives rise to a 'reasonable expectation of privacy' is what I find ridiculous about it.</div>

In your opinion, should you have a reasonable expectation of privacy if you are actually going to the bathroom in a public restroom stall?
</div>

Absolutely. When using a facility for the purpose it was intended for, there is an expectation that one is to be left alone. However, the purpose of public restrooms was never sex, even if in some places (ahem, bus stations) it has become a favored spot for that type of conduct.

Same goes for fitting rooms in department stores. An expectation of privacy in trying on the clothes is reasonable, being the intended purpose of the area. For all other conduct, such expectation is unreasonable.

 

[GMJ]

I see your point cpaw, but I think you're allowed to draw the line and distinguish between the two based on purpose. A public restroom is meant for 'using the bathroom,' not sex; not more lewd and taboo activities.

edit: ha great minds think alike AEM! (idiots' rarely differ)

 

[cpawfan]

Here is a crude scenario. You are a male that goes into a stall in a public restroom to "drop off the kids at the pool" while sitting there you decided to pleasure yourself. Do you lose the expectation of privacy at the moment you start pleasuring yourself?

 

[AEM]

Yes, right after the third shake.

 

[GMJ]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (cpawfan @ Jan 16 2008, 04:17 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Here is a crude scenario. You are a male that goes into a stall in a public restroom to "drop off the kids at the pool" while sitting there you decided to pleasure yourself. Do you lose the expectation of privacy at the moment you start pleasuring yourself?</div>

That's an intellectually, uh, stimulating scenario! But not quite the same as what's at hand in the Larry-Craig-Wide-Stance trial, because we're talking about two people. Why do I choose to be subjective? Because while loving thy self is inappropriate, and one should expect punishment if caught, chances are that the act will go unnoticed (opposed to two males engaging in sex in a stall). I'm using sort of a "if a tree falls in the woods" way of reasoning.

 

[Denny Crane]

So maybe they should arrest people for using a cell phone in the bathroom, too.

Or maybe we should keep the government out of bathrooms in general

 

[AEM]

Lewd behavior in public places is one thing. Cell phone usage is something else.

On the other hand, I have no problem with people having sex in their own cars...

 

[Denny Crane]

It's only a public place if there's a public to see it.

I've gone into the restroom after a show and there's been a line out the door. Having sex at that time in the bathroom wouldn't be very private. On the other hand, most of the time the public bathrooms are empty, and empty is private. Private enough to make one of those sensitive cell phone calls.

 

[AEM]

It's the purpose of the area that makes the difference, not the relative number of potential viewers.

 

[Denny Crane]

So arrest people for making cell phone calls? Changing diapers where there's not a changing table? "purpose" is going to get you some absurd scenarios.

 

[GMJ]

Trying to compare sex to talking on a cell phone is so disproportionate its down right sensationalist.

 

[Denny Crane]

What's the point in making a big deal about sex in the first place? It's such a horrible thing that nobody likes it?

 

[cpawfan]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (GMJigga @ Jan 16 2008, 05:07 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Trying to compare sex to talking on a cell phone is so disproportionate its down right sensationalist.</div>

You're correct. Cell Phone usage in a public bathroom is a far bigger nuisance than people having sex in the stall next to you could ever be.

Fundamentally, this all goes back to those damn puritans that made sex a dirty and bad concept.

 

[AEM]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jan 16 2008, 05:06 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>So arrest people for making cell phone calls? Changing diapers where there's not a changing table? "purpose" is going to get you some absurd scenarios.</div>

Only if detached from the rest of the factors. Think of it as a sliding scale.

First, there are the classes of places: government owned/controlled; private company/public place; private place.

Second, there are the categories of unlawfulness: things forbidden in private; things forbidden in public; things giving rise to protection of the law (i.e. privileges); other matters.

Purpose is the fulcrum on which the sliding scale is balanced.

Changing diapers, being a common use for restrooms to begin with, and not otherwise illegal, satisfies both on the purpose test and falls on the lower end of the sliding scale.

Obviously the most actionable area would be something forbidden even in private (such as child pornography) being conducted in a public place intended for other purposes. (not that there are many public areas intended for such of course.)

 

[Denny Crane]

A public place is a public place. A place for the public to use, and nothing more. The public uses it as it sees fit. Intended use is irrelevant. What is relevant is they put doors on the room and on the stalls and dividers between urinals and that kind of thing for one reason: privacy. Whether it be to relieve one's self or to change your shirt or some other thing that isn't relieving yourself.

The purpose argument is a slippery slope, as there are all kinds of public places, such as public lands. People do all kinds of unrelated things there like taking pictures or climbing rocks or camping (and having sex, no doubt).

 

[Real]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jan 16 2008, 05:01 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>It's only a public place if there's a public to see it.

I've gone into the restroom after a show and there's been a line out the door. Having sex at that time in the bathroom wouldn't be very private. On the other hand, most of the time the public bathrooms are empty, and empty is private. Private enough to make one of those sensitive cell phone calls.</div>

So it's okay so long as there's nobody in the next stall?

 

[AEM]

A sliding scale isn't a slippery slope.

There needs to be an illegal component as well as mere conduct not included in the site's purpose. Nor are all public places the same - either in terms of lawful conduct or intended use. Nor would changing in a restroom be construed as so far from the purpose of said area as having sex would be. In fact, the argument could be made that the clothes-hanging hooks provided in many stalls are evidence of the secondary purpose of changing one's clothes in the stall. By contrast, denuding oneself by the urinals will get one charged. The purpose, both primary and ancillary, is not thereby fulfilled.

 

[GMJ]

No way is that a slippery slope. A bathroom is supposed to be used for onesies, twosies, washing hands, perhaps checking oneself in the mirror...not sex. Not with yourself, not with someone else; that is very clearly against the law and should be punished as such.

edit: wow I re-read that and didn't mean to have that serious of a tone! oh, internet.

 

[Denny Crane]

Oh, I think if you have sex in a public place and GET CAUGHT, you're in some sort of trouble, no doubt.

This doesn't make it a crime when you're not caught. There's no victim, for starters.

The question at hand, really, is whether there's some sort of expectation of privacy in a bathroom, and I think I've made the case, slam dunk. I could have mentioned that they often make the floorplan of bathrooms to create private areas.

The silliness is when you start talking about intended use being the only use.

 

[AEM]

Except that you're neglecting to mention the fact that access and usage of restrooms isn't a given, but is predicated on the purpose for which the area was intended.

To push things the other way, do you think that someone intending to conduct a drug sale in a stall has an expectation of privacy to do so?

 

[Denny Crane]

Yes, a person conducting a drug deal must feel there's sufficient privacy or they probably wouldn't attempt it. Doing drug deals in public with witnesses isn't a particularly good idea.

Dealing drugs is a crime. Having sex isn't.

 

[AEM]

Having sex in a public place is a crime.

 

[AEM]

Besides which, the term reasonable expectation of privacy is a legal term, and is inapplicable by definition when it pertains to the commission of criminal acts.

 

[Denny Crane]

One's a felony, and one's a misdemeanor.

http://www.vanwagnerwood.com/CM/Custom/Glossary.asp#Public

Public

For the purposes of public fornication, "public" is defined as any place where a person knows his or her actions are observable by persons other than the person with whom he or she is having sexual intercourse. Public beaches are always public places. Private beaches may be public places depending upon the circumstances; in most situations, private beaches are public for the purposes of determining if fornication has occurred in public, but it is a rebuttable presumption (an arguable point) as to whether a person had a right to expect privacy. If the water ways can be traversed by public, then it is safe to assume that the beach is public for the purposes of this statute