Thread: Craig & ACLU - foot tapping was protected speech

Craig to claim sex sting arrest unconstitutional
ACLU agrees, says senator’s foot-tapping in stall was protected speech


Arrest was ‘entrapment,’ says Sen. Craig
Oct. 15: His arrest in a Minneapolis bathroom was part of a sting operation, according to Sen. Larry Craig in an exclusive interview with NBC’s Matt Lauer.

Updated: 9:52 p.m. ET Oct 26, 2007
ST. PAUL, Minn. - Idaho Sen. Larry Craig will argue before an appeals court that Minnesota's disorderly conduct law is unconstitutional as it applies to his conviction in a bathroom sex sting, according to a new court filing.

This is the first time Craig's attorneys have raised that issue. However, an earlier friend-of-the-court filing by the American Civil Liberties Union argued that Craig's foot-tapping and hand gesture under a stall divider at the Minneapolis airport are protected by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees freedom of speech.

Craig has been trying to withdraw his August guilty plea to disorderly conduct. A judge turned him down earlier this month, and now Craig is taking his request to the state Court of Appeals. The conservative Republican at one point said he would resign from the U.S. Senate but now says he will finish his term, which ends in January 2009.

Craig's legal arguments are previewed in a "statement of the case" filed late Thursday. In addition to the constitutional argument, it says the judge erred by not allowing Craig to withdraw his plea and that the judge who sentenced Craig to a fine and probation never signed anything saying he accepted the guilty plea.

Craig was arrested in June by an undercover police officer who said the senator moved his foot next to the officer's foot and tapped it in a way that indicated he wanted sex. He was also accused of sending a signal by swiping his hand under the divider between the stalls. Craig said the officer misconstrued those motions.

Craig's attorneys are due to file formal briefs on the matter by mid-December, and they asked to make an oral argument before the appeals court judges in St. Paul. No hearing has been scheduled.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21496482/

Craig's foot-tapping and hand gesture under a stall divider at the Minneapolis airport are protected by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees freedom of speech.

So his free speech was saying to the officer exactly what he wanted to happen. That could be used against him in a court of law. The officer can testify that he "said" this to me.

Besides, I don't think anyone was telling him to shut-up because they were letting him incrimate himself with his free speech.

I guess the ACLU jumped into this case for attention. They are not needed. There is no civil dispute about the communication. The officers let him express himself.

Dixie

Hmmm.

Perhaps the ACLU stepped in to help keep Craig around to promote his AgJobs bill. And remember Craig's pro-DREAM Act vote.

Then wouldn't , "Your under arrest" and reading a person his rights also be protected?


If he wants to continue with his behavior I can't imagine him having a foot to reach, or a hand to swipe under stall much longer. That has to just freak some people out when that happens!

Especially now that people know what they are up to.

Where's fedupdeb and her "peeping under the stall" action pic?

If solicitation for sex in a public bathroom is against the law, it's against the law. What does it have to do with protected speech?

Dang dude, can you dig that hole any deeper?

first it's "that's NOT what I was doing in that stall!"

now it's that his "foot-tapping and hand gesture under a stall divider at the Minneapolis airport are protected by the First Amendment of the U.S"

Which is it? Are you a closet freak defending your right to get freaky in a public restroom WHERE KIDS COULD WALK IN, or not? You seem to be waffling a bit.

Craig's foot-tapping and hand gesture under a stall divider at the Minneapolis airport

Here's a question that I haven't seen asked yet: How many times before, Senator Craig, have you used these signals and how long was it before you perfected the technique? Obviously this wasn't your first time. Just how many times have you employed this "public greeting"?

Larry Craig says judge was at fault

Sen. Larry Craig (R-Idaho) filed an outline Friday of how he will argue that his guilty plea to a disorderly conduct charge should be withdrawn.

Here's the money graf of the two-page document:

The issues to be raised include: whether the trial erred in not allowing the Petitioner-Appellant to withdraw his motion to plead guilty. It is the Petitioner-Appellant's position that the plea was not supported by the evidence. Additionally, Petitioner-Appellant will argue that the plea was defective because it was not accepted by the sentencing judge. Finally, as applied to the facts of this case, the disorderly conduct statute becomes unconstitutional. Accordingly, it is manifest injustice not to allow the plea to be withdrawn.

In English, according to the AP, Craig is arguing that the judge erred by not allowing Craig to withdraw his plea, that the judge who sentenced Craig to a fine and probation never signed anything saying he accepted the guilty plea, and that Minnesota's disorderly conduct law is unconstitutional as it applies to his conviction in a men's restroom sex sting.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/thecrypt/ ... lined.html

Originally Posted by zeezil

Where's fedupdeb and her "peeping under the stall" action pic?