ACLU Says Sex in Public Restrooms is Private

[AEM]

The length of the sentence doesn't change the legal status (or rather, illegal status) of the act.

The public/private distinction of a beach isn't the same as a restroom regardless.

As well, the definition you provide is a subjective one - a standard not necessarily applicable.

 

[AEM]

Besides which, Black's (7th Ed.) defines indecent exposure as <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>An offensive display of one's body in public, esp. of the genitals.</div> Public, in turn is <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>A place open or visible to the public.</div>

The example you cite straddles the two definitions of public, as the beach is not OPEN to the public, but becomes public if visible. Restroom stalls are precisely the opposite, being open to the public but not visible.

 

[Denny Crane]

"it is a rebuttable presumption (an arguable point) as to whether a person had a right to expect privacy."

The ACLU isn't on some shaky ground here, or even breaking new ground.

BTW, did Craig have this illegal sex in a public place? (No

)

 

[AEM]

Nor is the ACLU on solid ground. And I'm still not sold on that definition of public.

 

[Lavalamp]

Wouldn't it depend on who owned it? Most owners would not consent to people having sex in their bathroom, as well most people wouldn't want their kids walking into a bathroom beside a stall where people are having sex.

If the person who owned the bathroom gave permission, and allowed them to lock the bathroom for themselves, that would be a different story.

 

[Denny Crane]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (AEM @ Jan 16 2008, 05:35 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Nor is the ACLU on solid ground. And I'm still not sold on that definition of public.</div>

The ACLU may or may not win the case, though I am having a hard time seeing where Craig did anything particularly wrong or illegal. The ACLU IS making a case that any 2-bit ambulance chasing lawyer would in defending a client charged with what you say is an actual crime (a misdemeanor).

A bar is a place whose purpose is drinking. Let's go arrest all the people who solicit for sex in those places, too.

See how absurd it is on the face of it?

 

[AEM]

If they solicit in the legal sense of the word, they would be arrested.

 

[AEM]

And a misdemeanor is an actual crime. Up to a year in jail is nothing to sneer at.

 

[Denny Crane]

Or $100 and time served. The vast majority are not cases where people serve time.

And no, soliciting not in the legal sense of the word. It just shows how a public place has a purpose (food/drink) but is used by the public for other purposes (to meet people, to score).

 

[Denny Crane]

http://www.cnn.com/SHOWBIZ/HughGrant/

HOLLYWOOD, California (CNN)--British actor Hugh Grant pleaded no contest today to lewd conduct.

He was fined $1,180 and was placed on 2 years probation. Grant was arrested last month when police found him in his car, engaging in oral sex with a Hollywood prostitute. In addition to the fine, Grant will attend an AIDS education program. He was not present in court today.

 

[AEM]

By the way, the definition in NY State of public lewdness (a Class B misdemeanor) is as follows:

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>NY Pen L sec. 245.00

A person is guilty of public lewdness when he intentionally exposes the private or intimate parts of his body in a lewd manner or commits any other lewd act (a) in a public place, or (

in private premises under circumstances in which he may readily be observed from either a public place or from other private premises, and with intent that he so be observed.</div>

Public place, defined in sec. 240.00 means <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>1.... a place to which the public or a substantial group of persons has access, and includes, but is not limited to, highways, transportation facilities, schools, places of amusement, parks, playgrounds, and hallways, lobbies and other portions of apartment houses and hotels not constituting rooms or apartments designed for actual residence.</div>

Transportation facility includes the entire premises of such.

While NY law is obviously not governing on Craig's case, it's basic setup is similar.

 

[Denny Crane]

Same definition as I posted.

 

[AEM]

They're not the same. Yours says that <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>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.</div>

That's MUCH more limited than the NY definition, which defines a public place as <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>1.... a place to which the public or a substantial group of persons has access, and includes, but is not limited to, highways, transportation facilities, schools, places of amusement, parks, playgrounds, and hallways, lobbies and other portions of apartment houses and hotels not constituting rooms or apartments designed for actual residence.</div>

Your definition is subjective, a defense attorney's argument. Mine is objective, and the law of New York state - which, again, isn't at all determinative on the case at hand.

 

[AEM]

Subjective intent as opposed to objective standard, that is.

 

[AEM]

The statute is interested in objective definitions of the place, while the lawyer is concerned with the intent - and will try to get it read into the statutory definitions. Have I mentioned that I dislike defense attorneys?

 

[Denny Crane]

Mine is state of Wisconsin and quite similar.

Speaking of Hugh Grant, he got busted in England for a public sex act when his neighbors could see into his house. The NY statute allows peeping toms to make a complaint.

You still don't see the absurdity?

 

[AEM]

NY law doesn't provide for that. For peeping Toms to make the complaint, then they have to prove intent as well. For public places, there is no such need.

There are gradations, not absurdities, except that English law is a bit strange to begin with; I'll agree on that count.

Now I need to look up the Wisconsin statutes...

 

[Denny Crane]

"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."

In your bedroom with the shades not drawn.

 

[AEM]

The Wisconsin statute is as follows:

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>944.15. Public fornication

(1) In this section, "in public" means in a place where or in a manner such that the person knows or has reason to know that his or her conduct is observable by or in the presence of persons other than the person with whom he or she is having sexual intercourse.</div>

There are two different standards in there. The act is either observable by or in the presence of others.

The standard is a reasonableness standard, as has been made clear throughout.

On the statute, he had NO such expectation of privacy, as the nature of public restrooms is such that he had reason to know that his actions would be (at least potentially - and at any time) in the presence of other persons.

 

[AEM]

Your definition conveniently leaves out the operative half as is applicable to this case - as I'd expect from a defense attorney's website.

 

[AEM]

I'll add that the NY statute is better worded and reasoned.

No bias there.

 

[Denny Crane]

LOL

Craig didn't have sex with anyone in a public place.

And the definition I posted doesn't leave out anything.

 

[AEM]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jan 16 2008, 09:39 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>LOL

Craig didn't have sex with anyone in a public place.

And the definition I posted doesn't leave out anything.</div>

You just hit on the argument I would use if I were defending Craig.

The definition you posted leaves out the most applicable part of the statute<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>... or in the presence of persons other than the person with whom he or she is having sexual intercourse.</div> Emphasis added.

It's the part about presence that would give rise to a claim, not potential observance of the act.

 

[Denny Crane]

Read it again. I'll bold the part about in the presence of persons...

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

 

[AEM]

Observable does not equalv in the presence of. The statute makes that clear by including the latter language deliberately, so as to include instances where it's not limited to line of sight.

Presence is a much broader term. No matter which way you cut it, the lawyer site leaves out half of the language, deliberately. There is a reason for that, as seen above.

 

[Denny Crane]

If you're on a public beach, you're in the presence of other beachgoers.

The last sentence makes it pretty clear, too, that you don't have to be observed.

 

[AEM]

Not at all the same. Public beaches are public places regardless of whether anyone else is there at a given time.

And again, you're citing the opinion of a lawyer, not a Court or legislature, which excludes a crucial part of the statute, and otherwise is less than precise. In fact, I'd argue that the statue (on its face at least) would protect more than the other definition.

 

[AEM]

The Wisconsin statute doesn't deal with public places, by the way. It deals with the concept of being "in public" instead. It seems to require actual people being involved.