Sen. Larry CraigAfter listening to the police office interrogation of Sen. Larry Craig, R-Idaho, and reading through the official report, I’m worried about the lack of concrete evidence of wrongdoing that’s bringing down one of the nation’s top politicians. The audio is available from the Associated Press at evtribune.com, and the report has been made available by The Smoking Gun.Based on what the detective describes, here’s what Craig did wrong: He looked through a crack in the door into the bathroom stall where the detective was waiting long enough for the detective to see Craig’s "blue eyes." Once the stall on the detective’s left was empty, Craig entered and sat down. He touched his foot against the detective’s. Then Craig placed his left hand, palm up, under the barrier separating them on three occasions and moved his hand toward the door.(The use of Craig’s left hand instead of his right, which was much closer to the detective, apparently is important, based on the police interview. But the detective never explains why).That’s it. No talk about having sex. No skin-to-skin contact. No exposure of intimate parts or skin of any kind. Now, I think there’s little doubt what Craig was intending to do. That’s why he pleaded guilty to the charge of disorderly conduct and hoped no one would find out about it. But it appears the detective revealed his identity before Craig actually got to the point where he broke a law. It’s like an undercover officer on a prostitute sting who arrests the john before he offers any money and before they even talk about a price for sex.In essence, Craig was arrested for what he was thinking about or wished to do, not for anything he actually tried to do. Thoughts aren’t supposed to be crimes in the United States, just actions.One of the original charges against Craig was for "interference with privacy" or peeping, which apparently is why the detective emphasized Craig looking into the bathroom stall. But I’ve been into plenty of busy men’s public restrooms where you are forced to glance into stalls in order to tell if one is available without barging in on someone. You don’t expect to make eye contact or to see anything unpleasant, but still… Besides, the nature of the police interview strongly implies that Minneapolis police routinely use this charge as something they can drop in exchange for the defendant pleading guilty to other counts.I hope one outcome of the case that the Minneapolis police revisit how they manage gay-sex stings in public bathrooms. If Craig had hired a lawyer instead of pleading guilty, I think he could have gotten the entire case dismissed for lack of evidence.
 Larry Craig may resign from Senate, but did he commit a crime?August 31st, 2007, 3:49 pm · 3 Comments · posted by Le Templar3 CommentsLeave a Reply
|
Twitter
You have no idea of what situations and scenarios the police have been forced to deal with in that area, yet you opine that the case may lack for evidence of a crime? You are entitled to your own opinion but it would serve you better to maintain an informed one.
The fact the local police are even present in the restrooms to begin with speaks of repeated problems and/or complaints about the behavior of the patrons. This is not likely the first such case and such events have likely withstood the scrutiny of the courts.
Try reading the statutes and ordinances from the jurisdiction involved before posting such an innane statement. Or try just doing some basic journalistic footwork.
The specific statute that Sen. Larry Craig is listed in the police report provided by the Smoking Gun link in the original post. Disorderly conduct in Minnesota means someone commits offensive, abusive, boisterious or noisy behavior, or uses obscene, offensive or abusive language. None of these things would appear to apply to Craig’s conduct as described by the police officer before he identified himself.