The issue is simply: To what extent does the 4th Amendment "reasonable expectation of privacy" reach a public restroom? It's a pretty good legal question, because the location is "public," yet it has a traditional expectation of privacy near to that of a person in their own home. Maybe the expectation only extends to the area within the stalls, but not to the wash area. I doubt that the U.S. Supreme Court would want to cut such a fine line, because it's so easy to move a video cam to point somewhere that was not originally intended. On the other hand, if someone is sitting in a stall and inviting others to come purchase a bag of heroin, the vocalization of the offer to purchase is no longer a private act -- any more than would be the same act carried out from within one's home by calling to passers by from an open window. Similar to an offer for sex -- the "offer" is not private if it's intended to reach the ears of another person (unless that person is already in an intimate relationship with the offeror). All that said, the 4th Amendment is about the extent to which law enforcement may conduct warranted and warrantless searches and seizures. The reaonable expectation of privacy extends to protect a person from such searches, where no probable cause exists to believe that a crime has been committed. Here, Mr. Craig apparently offerred sex, which is apparently illegal in the public restroom where the offer was made, so if the officer reasonably believed that he was being solicited to engage in a crime, then that would permit the seizure, because Craig would have voluntarily waived his privacy rights by making the offer. Now,if Craig were just jerking off in the stall by himself with the door closed, and the officer barged in to make an arrest -- that would probably violate the Constitution. But, that's not what happened -- as far as I'm aware. Regardless, an interesting legal question, overall.
The thing I don't get, is the whole foot tapping part. The claim is that, the foot tapping is some sort of code. Is that code intended to be secret, only to be shared between like minded people? Wouldn't that little secret imply âintimate â knowledge? You know, knock three times if you want me, twice on the pipe if the answer no. (T.O. reference)
Obviously a man of considerable experience in this type of solicitation, our Chucky. Getting your daily recommended amount of protein at various public latrines are you, Chuck?
Good insight, Mr. Kent. Installing a camera would seem to violate privacy although sex in public washrooms is definitely a crime. The fact that it's a crime in the open area implies that the open area entails no expectation of privacy, even though you would think a camera beamed on you while you piss would violate your privacy. Expectation of privacy in a stall though, has been established by precedent. But as you suggest, and as I have suggested in earlier posts, if your activities in the stall affect those outside the stall it seems reasonable that the privacy of the stall is compromised by your own actions. Craig did in fact do his foot-tapping in the adjacent stall and so he was violating the privacy of the officer in that stall. Originally the poilce charged Craig with violation of privacy but changed the charge for reasons I'm not aware of. ACLU is arguing that even if Craig was soliciting sex there's no indication of Craig's intended venue for that sex and therefore no proof that he was soliciting a criminal act. I think the cops blew it. They had Craig dead to rights then went for a heavier charge that they'll have a lot of trouble supporting.
Apart from violating the officer's privacy, as you noted, the communication occurred between the hanging walls of restroom stalls, where those using the washroom were presumably awaiting (connecting) flights. Where else would the venue be? The sandwich counter? Are we to surmise that people who solicit others for sex in bathroom stalls, where their (unwilling) prey are literally caught with their pants down, have standards or discretion? If we are to believe that, then perhaps the john who is arrested for soliciting the services of an undercover police officer posing as a prostitute, was not actually haggling over the cost of sexual services. Perhaps he was haggling over the amount that she should have to go buy herself an engagement ring to celebrate their budding romance.
let's put all this in perspective.. one foot touched another's foot, nothing more? haven't you ever spread your legs WIDE and lean forward to gain leverage??
This was sent to me in an PM from a one post wonder. I was barely sitting down when I heard a voice From the other stall saying: 'Hi, how are you?' I'm not the type to start a conversation in the Restroom but I don't know what got into me, so I Answered, somewhat embarrassed, 'Doin' just fine!' And the other person says: 'So what are you up to?' What kind of question is that? At that point, I'm Thinking this is too bizarre so I say: 'Uhhh, I'm like you, just traveling!' At this point I am just trying to get out as fast As I can when I hear another question. 'Can I come over?' Ok, this question is just too weird for me but I Figured I could just be polite and end the Conversation. I Tel l them 'No.......I'm a little busy right now!!!' Then I hear the person say nervously... 'Listen, I'll have to call you back. There's an Idiot in the other stall who keeps answering all my Questions