ACLU: Decries bathroom Sting

[tsg]

Quite aside from the legality/illegality of the "operation", I wonder what Craig makes of all this?
Seems to me the last thing this vocally anti-homosexual "family values" senator would want is the ACLU jumping onto his right to solicit homosexual encounters in a men's room......
I wonder if some of the ACLU attorneys are having a bit of a chuckle...

Public opinion of him will likely be that he is the closet homosexual that got off of public sex solicitation charges on a technicality. I'm having a bit of a chuckle myself.

 

[tsg]

My thoughts exactly. I also wonder what Craig would have said a year ago about policing public areas that are supposed to be gay quickie hot-spots...

My guess is he would have been for it, and made a note of which areas were being policed.

 

[Bob Klase]

Keep in mind that very often someone who is actually guilty of committing the crime he is accused of is let go if the police violated his rights in the arrest or obtaining of evidence. "Fruit of the poisoned tree" I think it's called in legal parlance.

No. 'Fruit of the poisoned tree' is when they get information through unconstitutional means and as a result of that information they find other evidence. For example, you killed someone and they get an illegal confession. During the confession you tell them where the body is. The confession is a violation of your rights but it's not 'Fruit of the poisoned tree'. The body is 'Fruit of the poisoned tree'.

http://dictionary.law.com/definition2.asp?selected=795

 

[TX50]

[...]
The general problem...and forgive my raving but I've gotten riled up...but the general problem is people acting like asses (we'll see if that gets asterisked out). Just don't be an ass, with respect to this or a hundred other issues, and the world will be a better place. Use your common sense before acting.

I often wish that "Culpable Stupidity" was in the statute book.

 

[tsg]

No. 'Fruit of the poisoned tree' is when they get information through unconstitutional means and as a result of that information they find other evidence. For example, you killed someone and they get an illegal confession. During the confession you tell them where the body is. The confession is a violation of your rights but it's not 'Fruit of the poisoned tree'. The body is 'Fruit of the poisoned tree'.

http://dictionary.law.com/definition2.asp?selected=795

I stand corrected.

 

[Hardenbergh]

I think they should monitor how many people wash their hands before they leave the restroom. I was listening to a radio talk show the other day and someone said that they couldn't believe the number of men in three-piece suits that exited the restroom without washing their hands. He added, "I wonder how many hands they shake during the day?"

Remember this thread?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=45212

 

[Vic Vega]

Seems to me the last thing this vocally anti-homosexual "family values" senator would want is the ACLU jumping onto his right to solicit homosexual encounters in a men's room......

People hate the ACLU until it's their constitutional rights that are being violated. Then, strangely enough, their attitude changes.

I don't always like what the ACLU does, but I'm sure glad they are around to do it because I or someone I know might need them one day.

 

[Number Six]

You might actually want to read the article before you go off, forgive the pun, half-cocked.

I skimmed the article before posting and after reading your post I've read it completely and I don't have anything I want to retract. The ACLU is out of line on this one IMO. I don't know if it's "unconstitutional" or not (although I know that just because the ACLU says it is doesn't necessarily mean it is), but if it is unconstituional then IMO the constitution should be interpreted differently. The point of a stall is to have privacy. People shouldn't be able to intrude on that for offers of sex or whatever.

And Craig got arrested for a lot more than just tapping his foot. There is no way you can have such a wide stance as to hit into the foot of the guy next to you unless you try. And he didn't even get arrested for that either. He went further and gave a hand signal underneath the stall. When is the last time you were in a public restroom stall and put anything far enough under the divider to the right of you for the person next to you see it? This guy went to the trouble of putting his left hand all the way over under the stall divider to the right of him because that is the unmistakeable signal that is used, but unmistakeable also means you don't do it by accident. BTW, all this is assuming the cop isn't lying of course.

 

[Number Six]

People hate the ACLU until it's their constitutional rights that are being violated. Then, strangely enough, their attitude changes.

I don't always like what the ACLU does, but I'm sure glad they are around to do it because I or someone I know might need them one day.

Generally I agree with you but that doesn't mean anything and everything they do is okay. When they defend a Nazi's right to free speech then even though Nazis are annyong it's easy to see the analogy of "You have free speech so they should have free speech too."

But I don't see the analogy to the restroom thing. You go into a public restroom stall to do something in private and you shouldn't be harrassed there and I just don't think anyone that tries to pick up someone for sex in such a venue is having their rights denied if the person they try to pick up is an undercover cop. What is the analogy to other behavior there?

If you want to get into technichalities then you can have right "violations" in all kinds of things. You have to be practical because we're living in the real world.

 

[tsg]

I skimmed the article before posting and after reading your post I've read it completely and I don't have anything I want to retract. The ACLU is out of line on this one IMO. I don't know if it's "unconstitutional" or not (although I know that just because the ACLU says it is doesn't necessarily mean it is),

Then you don't know if they are out of line since their claim is entirely about the constitutionality of the sting operation. And since the very beginning I have not claimed the ACLU is absolutely right. I am only clarifying what their argument is. Whether they are right or not is a matter for the courts.

but if it is unconstituional then IMO the constitution should be interpreted differently. The point of a stall is to have privacy. People shouldn't be able to intrude on that for offers of sex or whatever.

The argument is not about whether or not you should be able to expect any privacy in a public restroom, it is about whether or not the police sting operation violated people's rights. Craig's behavior could have been completely inappropriate and against the law and it still wouldn't make the methods used by the police right.

And Craig got arrested for a lot more than just tapping his foot. There is no way you can have such a wide stance as to hit into the foot of the guy next to you unless you try. And he didn't even get arrested for that either. He went further and gave a hand signal underneath the stall. When is the last time you were in a public restroom stall and put anything far enough under the divider to the right of you for the person next to you see it? This guy went to the trouble of putting his left hand all the way over under the stall divider to the right of him because that is the unmistakeable signal that is used, but unmistakeable also means you don't do it by accident. BTW, all this is assuming the cop isn't lying of course.

As I stated before, the ACLU is not defending Craig's right to behave as he did, they are claiming the methods used to catch him were unconstitutional, specifically, that the sting operation did not discriminate protected speech from unprotected speech.

 

[Darth Rotor]

. Craig wasn't arrested for having sex in public, he was arrested for soliciting sex in public. According the ACLU, "the government can arrest people for soliciting public sex only if it can show beyond doubt that the sex was to occur in public." That is to say, if Craig's intent was to go someplace private, then he wasn't breaking the law. Otherwise, half the people in a bar are violating the law.

For the sake of clarity, isn't the crime of solicitation the undertaking of a negotiation meant to result in sex for pay? (The distinction seems to be of importance.)

To differentiate:

Event A:

Two men stand washing their hands after using urinals in a public bathroom. For whatever reason, the look at each other, eye contact, instant chemistry, like what they see in one another, and inspired by a bit of spontinaeity, one says to the other "Hey, good looking, lets head over to that little spot, around that corner past the partition near gate 7, and make out?" The other, feeling a similar urge, agrees. No money involved.

No solicitation involved.

Event B

Similar to above, but one says to the other "I've got fifty bucks, would you like to earn it by fellating me around that corner past the partition near gate 7?"

As I understand that, a solicitation has occurred.

Did I miss anything?

If not, how is the ACLU proposing that the solicitation be curtailed without their being a means to detect and apprehend solicitors (OK, lawyers aren't the only people doing it, ba dump, tsh ) who solicit in public restrooms?

Their complaint seems to run along the lines of "You need to stop it, just not that way."

DR

 

[Vic Vega]

Generally I agree with you but that doesn't mean anything and everything they do is okay. When they defend a Nazi's right to free speech then even though Nazis are annyong it's easy to see the analogy of "You have free speech so they should have free speech too."

But I don't see the analogy to the restroom thing. You go into a public restroom stall to do something in private and you shouldn't be harrassed there and I just don't think anyone that tries to pick up someone for sex in such a venue is having their rights denied if the person they try to pick up is an undercover cop. What is the analogy to other behavior there?

If you want to get into technichalities then you can have right "violations" in all kinds of things. You have to be practical because we're living in the real world.

I'm not sure what you mean by "that doesn't mean anything and everything they do is okay". Okay in what sense? They are trying to stand up for the civil rights of people in this country. That's ALWAYS okay whether I personally think what they are fighting for is good or not.

It isn't an analogy to anything. The ACLU is saying that what Craig was accused of was not a violation of the law. I'm not a lawyer, so I can't really say whether it was or wasn't, but if they are right, then he should not have a conviction on his record. That's not a technicality. Preventing the police from arresting people for something that is not illegal is about as practical as law gets, I would think.

 

[tsg]

For the sake of clarity, isn't the crime of solicitation the undertaking of a negotiation meant to result in sex for pay? (The distinction seems to be of importance.)

In this case, solicitation for sex in public (that is, soliciting to engage in public sex as opposed to publicly soliciting for sex) is also a crime, which is the main point of the ACLU's argument. If the sex act is to occur in private, then the solicitation is protected speech. If the sex act is to occur in public then it is not. The sting failed to differentiate between the two. As a means of making their point, public solicitation for sex in private happens all the time in bars between members of the opposite sex.

As far as I know, with few exceptions, solicitation of sex for pay is illegal regardless of where the act is to take place.

To differentiate:

Event A:

Two men stand washing their hands after using urinals in a public bathroom. For whatever reason, the look at each other, eye contact, instant chemistry, like what they see in one another, and inspired by a bit of spontinaeity, one says to the other "Hey, good looking, lets head over to that little spot, around that corner past the partition near gate 7, and make out?" The other, feeling a similar urge, agrees. No money involved.

No solicitation involved.

In this case, it is illegal in that the act is to occur in a public place. Had the first person said, "back to my hotel" rather than "over to that little spot, around the corner past the partition near gate 7", it would not be.

Event B

Similar to above, but one says to the other "I've got fifty bucks, would you like to earn it by fellating me around that corner past the partition near gate 7?"

As I understand that, a solicitation has occurred.

As far as I know, this is illegal regardless of whether it is to be done in public or private. But it is a different law than what Craig was arrested for.

If not, how is the ACLU proposing that the solicitation be curtailed without their being a means to detect and apprehend solicitors (OK, lawyers aren't the only people doing it, ba dump, tsh ) who solicit in public restrooms?

Being that the aim of the law is to prevent sex in public places, they recommend putting a sign in the restroom indicating that it is being monitored and send a uniformed officer in every so often.

Their complaint seems to run along the lines of "You need to stop it, just not that way."

That would be a fair way of summarizing it.

 

[ponderingturtle]

In this case, solicitation for sex in public (that is, soliciting to engage in public sex as opposed to publicly soliciting for sex) is also a crime, which is the main point of the ACLU's argument. If the sex act is to occur in private, then the solicitation is protected speech. If the sex act is to occur in public then it is not. The sting failed to differentiate between the two. As a means of making their point, public solicitation for sex in private happens all the time in bars between members of the opposite sex.

Sure but the claim that it must be communicated beyond any doubt as well, and I am not sure of any forms of communication that can be said to convey intent beyond any doubt.

But it does not seem like it is a reasonable claim that the sex would have been engaged in somewhere else. But with additional evidence I could reconsider this, but the evidence I have seen does not seem to conclude that it is reasonable to think that.

 

[tsg]

The ACLU is saying that what Craig was accused of was not a violation of the law.

Actually, they aren't. What they are saying is that the operation which ensnared him was unconstitutional.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Actually, they aren't. What they are saying is that the operation which ensnared him was unconstitutional.

Nope, they are saying both. They are claiming it was unconstitutional, and that if he had propositioned someone like that no crime would have been committed as propositioning people for sex is generally legal, and you can't be absolutely certain that they would have had their sex in the bathroom.

 

[tsg]

Sure but the claim that it must be communicated beyond any doubt as well, and I am not sure of any forms of communication that can be said to convey intent beyond any doubt.

I think the phrase you're looking for is "beyond any reasonable doubt".

But it does not seem like it is a reasonable claim that the sex would have been engaged in somewhere else.

It doesn't have to be. The burden of proof is on the accuser and they have to show, beyond a reasonable doubt, that it wouldn't have.

 

[tsg]

Nope, they are saying both.

No they aren't.

They are claiming it was unconstitutional,

That is true.

and that if he had propositioned someone like that no crime would have been committed as propositioning people for sex is generally legal, and you can't be absolutely certain that they would have had their sex in the bathroom.

First, you only have to be reasonably certain, not absolutely certain. Second, that's not the same as saying that's what he did.

 

[TragicMonkey]

How ironic, that the Police should be involved in a bathroom Sting. The appropriate song would be "Don't Stand So Close To Me", I guess.

 

[Number Six]

Let me clarify my position. I don't know whether what the cops did is unconstituional nor if it was illegal. I'm saying that what the cops did should be allowed. If it's technichally illegal what the cops did then okay, it's illegal, and maybe that gets whoever was caught by those means up until now off the hook on a technichality, but then we should change the law or the interpretation of the law so that it's not illegal for the cops to do that in the future.

Or if what the cops did is considered a violation of civil rights then we should change how civil rights are defined in that context because by common sense standards IMO the cops are doing nothing wrong by sitting in a public bathroom stall and waiting for someone to propostion them for sex and then arresting them.

I do find it absurd that the ACLU would spend time on this and say that instead of the cops doing this they should put up signs and have cops just patrol more often. And how many signs are you going to put up in public restrooms? Are you going to put one up warning against any of the thousand potential crimes that could theoretically occur in a public restroom? Are you going to put them in braille too for the blind people? How about putting them in 100 different languages because after all, not everybody speaks English? So let's put up 1000 signs each in 100 different languages (plus braille) in every public restroom in the USA, otherwise we're limiting civil rights.

The whole thing is ridiculous and is a prime reason why some just reflexively go against the ACLU, which ironically ends up inhibiting civil rights.