• Gay BlogAds


  • Gay News Watch


  • Chris Tweets



  • « What Larry Craig has wrought | Main | Gay Hillary backer caught in DNC mess »

    January 17, 2008

    Strike that, says the ACLU

    Posted by: Chris

    A sharp-eyed reader of The Citizen from Minneapolis noticed that the ACLU has issued a statement on its website disclaiming the AP story on which I based my earlier post. In particular, the ACLU says:

    The Minnesota Supreme Court and other courts have found that a closed bathroom stall is a private location. The police have no business spying on people in places where there is an expectation of privacy. The ACLU is in no way advocating sex in public bathrooms. If law enforcement is genuinely interested in stopping sex in public bathrooms rather than ensnaring people in sting operations, posting a sign prohibiting it and announcing police patrols would be much more effective and would meet constitutional requirements.

    The point here is that the Minnesota Supreme Court, not the ACLU, has ruled that a closed bathroom stall is a private location. Frankly, I'm not buying it, depending on the context of that earlier ruling -- I'm betting it was a case involving eavesdropping or surreptitious videotaping, not public sex. If so, then the ACLU is in fact arguing for an extension of that ruling to cover sex as well.

    I've asked the ACLU for a copy of the brief, which will hopefully clear the matter up.

    CLU

    |

    TrackBack

    TrackBack URL for this entry:
    http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834527dd469e200e54fe36bc68833

    Comments

    1. Geena the Transgirl on Jan 17, 2008 1:21:21 PM:

      >posting a sign prohibiting it ... would be much more
      >effective and would meet constitutional requirements.

      You ever been in a gay bar where the bathrooms have signs
      that read, "Only one person allowed at a time".
      That sign only works if you have a big scary bouncer to go with it.

    1. Randy on Jan 17, 2008 8:18:13 PM:

      I heard on some cable news something that the court case they are referencing is 40 years old. The case was about the police hiding in the air vents above public stalls watching people do their thing while waiting on illegal activity. The case ruling was saying that the people who were simply using the restroom had their reasonable expectation of privacy violated by the cops in the vents.

      In general this is a no brainer. You can't have private sex in a public restroom. The ACLU, once again, looks ridiculous.

    1. Monster Beats Sale on Nov 30, 2011 1:51:46 AM:

      In general this is a no brainer. You can't have private sex in a public restroom. The ACLU, once again, looks ridiculous.

    1. Attila Mate on Jan 22, 2012 9:06:24 PM:

      What about Article I, Section 6 Clause 1 of the US Constitution: members of congress "shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same"? Would this not make Larry Craig's arrest unconstitutional?

    The comments to this entry are closed.

    © Citizen Crain - All Rights Reserved | Design by E.Webscapes Design Studio | Powered by: TypePad