ACLU: Sex in Restroom Stalls Is Private

[Oldskool]

http://sg.news.yahoo.com/ap/20080116/twl-craig-appeal-1be00ca.html

AP - Wednesday, January 16

ST. PAUL, Minn. - In an effort to help Sen. Larry Craig, the American Civil Liberties Union is arguing that people who have sex in public bathrooms have an expectation of privacy.

Craig, of Idaho, is asking the Minnesota Court of Appeals to let him withdraw his guilty plea to disorderly conduct stemming from a bathroom sex sting at the Minneapolis airport.

The ACLU filed a brief Tuesday supporting Craig. It cited a Minnesota Supreme Court ruling 38 years ago that found that people who have sex in closed stalls in public restrooms "have a reasonable expectation of privacy."

That means the state cannot prove Craig was inviting an undercover officer to have sex in public, the ACLU wrote.

The Republican senator was arrested June 11 by an undercover officer who said Craig tapped his feet and swiped his hand under a stall divider in a way that signaled he wanted sex. Craig has denied that, saying his actions were misconstrued.

The ACLU argued that even if Craig was inviting the officer to have sex, his actions wouldn't be illegal.

"The government cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Senator Craig was inviting the undercover officer to engage in anything other than sexual intimacy that would not have called attention to itself in a closed stall in the public restroom," the ACLU wrote in its brief.

The ACLU also noted that Craig was originally charged with interference with privacy, which it said was an admission by the state that people in the bathroom stall expect privacy.

Craig at one point said he would resign but now says he will finish his term, which ends in January 2009.

[Dan T.]

I'd love to see Larry Craig's reaction to this support from the ACLU.

[Predicto]

Well, it has happened before but not recently. . . For the first time in a while, I am in complete disagreement with the ACLU.

No one is perfect, I guess.

[Oldskool]

I'd love to see Larry Craig's reaction to this support from the ACLU.

I give two ****s about Craig. I'm just amazed at this argument that the ACLU pulled out of their arse!

[Predicto]

I give two ****s about Craig. I'm just amazed at this argument that the ACLU pulled out of their arse!

Well, according to the article, they based it on a Minnesota privacy case from way back. I'm not saying the argument should win, but it may not be utterly meritless.

[DeanCollins]

so sex in a public restroom is private, but sex in the back seat of the car is not gotcha

[Enter Apotheosis]

Can't say I agree with the ACLU's position here but I almost get the feeling that the brief was filed a bit tongue-in-cheek. I don't disagree at all with the idea of a reasonable expectation of privacy but based on the accounts I've heard of the incident, Craig was in clear and obvious violation of this by soliciting sex from a different stall with its own sphere of expected privacy.

The whole "two consenting people can have sex in a stall" argument is somewhat unnecessary as far as this specific case goes and invokes an entirely different issue, IMO.

[HEavyJumbo85]

so sex in a public restroom is private, but sex in the back seat of the car is not gotcha

hypocrites :doh:

[DjTj]

Well, according to the article, they based it on a Minnesota privacy case from way back. I'm not saying the argument should win, but it may not be utterly meritless.Hey you, Mr. government lawyer that might be able to do this for free, can you cite check this?

The Minnesota Supreme Court has already ruled that two men engaged in sexual activity in a department store restroom with the stall door closed had a reasonable expectation of privacy. They were, the Court held, therefore acting in a private, not a public place. State v. Bryant, 287 Minn. 205, 209-210 (1970) (conviction reversed).

http://www.aclu.org/pdfs/freespeech/craig_v_minnesota_acluamicus.pdf

[Predicto]

so sex in a public restroom is private, but sex in the back seat of the car is not gotcha


Well, one of them has big glass windows that kind of defeat the expectation of privacy.

[Predicto]

hypocrites :doh:

Who?

[Riggo-toni]

I'm just amazed at this argument that the ACLU pulled out of their arse!


Can't say I agree with the ACLU's position here but I almost get the feeling that the brief was filed a bit tongue-in-cheek.

Interesting choice of words....

[Predicto]

Hey you, Mr. government lawyer that might be able to do this for free, can you cite check this?

The Minnesota Supreme Court has already ruled that two men engaged in sexual activity in a department store restroom with the stall door closed had a reasonable expectation of privacy. They were, the Court held, therefore acting in a private, not a public place. State v. Bryant, 287 Minn. 205, 209-210 (1970) (conviction reversed).

http://www.aclu.org/pdfs/freespeech/craig_v_minnesota_acluamicus.pdf


Quick KeyCite - case is still good law in Minnesota. Ohio and Hawai'i distinguished and criticized the precedent.

However, I agree with Enter Apothesis. This point may not really be that applicable to Craig.

[Ellis]

Dear ALCU,
Please take note.
http://www.xiola.org/phpBB2/images/smiles/suicide.gif
Let's make it happen, fellas.
Sincerely,
all logic people who can do without your worthless lawsuits.

[Predicto]

Dear ALCU,
Please take note.
http://www.xiola.org/phpBB2/images/smiles/suicide.gif
Let's make it happen, fellas.
Sincerely,
all logic people who can do without your worthless lawsuits.

Here we go again. Where's portisizzle?

[Enter Apotheosis]

Here we go again. Where's portisizzle?

I don't think he'll check in until someone praises the ACLU. So far in this thread there's only been some questioning of the case at hand and a post or two bashing the ACLU.

He's not needed... yet :silly:

[Thiebear]

quote

sex in public bathrooms have an expectation of privacy.

Sometimes the sentence speaks for itself. You have to be damn good to legally say that sex in public is private.

the door is there so people cant see you "going to the bathroom"...
the public responsibility for those that can't wait to get home......
not that difficult to understand.

Common sense loses again.

[HOF44]

so sex in a public restroom is private, but sex in the back seat of the car is not gotcha

Oh just get over it and pay your fine! ;)

[Ellis]

dude...
it's a TOILET.... not a friggin' bed.
WTF is wrong with these people?
The ACLU has once again done something stupid.
Not surprised.

And who the hell likes to have sex in a public restroom?
That's just disturbing and disgusting.

[Enter Apotheosis]

Sometimes the sentence speaks for itself. You have to be damn good to legally say that sex in public is private.

You're oversimplifying matters if you think that its impossible to have a designated sphere of privacy within a public area.

If there's no expectation of privacy in a public restroom, certain establishments can and likely would make efforts to monitor ALL restroom activities. Particularly considering that a lot of vandalization and other activities of questionable legality are prone to occur in public restrooms.

Same thing could be applied to department store changing rooms.

[HOF44]

You're oversimplifying matters if you think that its impossible to have a designated sphere of privacy within a public area.



Yep I think there would be a certain logic to expecting some kind of privacy inside a stall in a public restroom.

[Oldskool]

You're oversimplifying matters if you think that its impossible to have a designated sphere of privacy within a public area.

If there's no expectation of privacy in a public restroom, certain establishments can and likely would make efforts to monitor ALL restroom activities. Particularly considering that a lot of vandalization and other activities of questionable legality are prone to occur in public restrooms.

Same thing could be applied to department store changing rooms.

However, changing rooms are specifically designed for the express purpose of being private for the sole purpose of changing ones clothing. If two adults were to have sex in a changing room, the reasonable expectation of privacy is thrown out the window due to the act. Same thing goes here with the toilet.

[DeanCollins]

Well, one of them has big glass windows that kind of defeat the expectation of privacy.

not if the windows are fogged up :silly:

[Enter Apotheosis]

However, changing rooms are specifically designed for the express purpose of being private for the sole purpose of changing ones clothing. If two adults were to have sex in a changing room, the reasonable expectation of privacy is thrown out the window due to the act. Same thing goes here with the toilet.

While you could argue that case in a court of law, precedent has already been established to contradict it.

[China]

well according to the renactment i saw his feetsies were tapping feetsies with another dude outside the stall... so therefore his feetsies weren't in private?

Reenactment? Where, at your local mall? :)

[Predicto]

quote

sex in public bathrooms have an expectation of privacy.

Sometimes the sentence speaks for itself. You have to be damn good to legally say that sex in public is private.

the door is there so people cant see you "going to the bathroom"...
the public responsibility for those that can't wait to get home......
not that difficult to understand.

Common sense loses again.

Actually, I think common sense is going to win and the ACLU is going to lose.

People seem offended that anyone would even dare to argue another viewpoint, even one that seems to have some colorable potential.

[The_cavalierman]

Craig can run for president now...

[Oldskool]

While you could argue that case in a court of law, precedent has already been established to contradict it.

And we all know that prescient can't be disregarded and deemed incorrect. ;)

[Larry]

I'd love to see Larry Craig's reaction to this support from the ACLU.

Recalling an old joke:

A liberal is a conservative who got laid off.
A conservative is a liberal who got mugged.
A Libertarian is a conservative under indictment.

[Predicto]

And we all know that prescient can't be disregarded and deemed incorrect. ;)

No one is saying precedent can't be overturned. We are just saying that there is nothing outrageous about making a legal argument that is based on a prior precedent (even if that argument offends Ellis).

The ACLU is always trying to push back the government in favor of individual liberties. Sometimes the ACLU is wrong in individual cases, but it is a good thing that SOMEONE is always pushing back, unless you really like and trust Big Brother.

[Runs with Scissors]

So people shouldn't have sex in a public hotel neither then?

[Enter Apotheosis]

And we all know that prescient can't be disregarded and deemed incorrect. ;)

Actually, most people disregard the viability of prescience... but I don't see how that relates to precedent.

[Ellis]

LOL!
The only thing that offends me is the idea that a persons right to get butt-raped on a public toilet should be protected.

That makes NO sense.
Am I retarded or something?

A public tiolet is designed for piss and ****. And on rare occassions, puking.
It is not designed for Neil and Bob to go kneel and bob.
It is not designed for prostitutes to go service their johns.
It is not designed for Dick and and jane to go mess around.
There's not even a discussion.
LOL!
It's just common sense.

man : "hey, look nancy... a public restroom."
woman: "hmmm... there's one for men. And another for women."
man: "you thinkin' what I'm thinking?"
woman: "ya mean... ya wanna have sex in a stall surrounded by strangers peeing and poohing while we breathe in the enticing aroma of urinal pucks and really cheap hand soap?"
man: "yeah. what do ya say? Ya wanna!?!!?"
woman: HELL'S YEAH!!! LET'S DO THIS!!!!"
man: "COOL! As they say... 'When in Minnesota..."

LOL!
Give me a friggin break.
LOL!

[HOF44]

man : "hey, look nancy... a public restroom."
woman: "hmmm... there's one for men. And another for women."
man: "you thinkin' what I'm thinking?"
woman: "ya mean... ya wanna have sex in a stall surrounded by strangers peeing and poohing while we breathe in the enticing aroma of urinal pucks and really cheap hand soap?"
man: "yeah. what do ya say? Ya wanna!?!!?"
woman: HELL'S YEAH!!! LET'S DO THIS!!!!"


Come on Barbie lets go party!!!

[PleaseBlitz]

In my experience, sex in public is never private. There's always gotta be my drunk ass friends banging on the door and wooting and hollering and ****........*******s. :)

[Enter Apotheosis]

The only thing that offends me is the idea that a persons right to get butt-raped on a public toilet should be protected.

Rape is indefensible regardless of location, so I would hesitate to term it as such when we're speaking in a legal context.

Regardless... people are generally allowed to hold their own opinions, you're allowed to disagree with them, and both of you are allowed to express your opinions as you deem it necessary (whether its in a court of law or not). So whats the big deal? Why are you so offended by the concept that someone, somewhere out there may disagree with you on this issue?


That makes NO sense.
Am I retarded or something?

Retarded? Nah... there's still hope for you, when you grow up you may even be lucky enough to engage in sexual activity through a hole in the sheet.

[Raub]

Only if it's 2 chicks.

[Ellis]

LOL!
man... wtf?

[HOF44]

Only if it's 2 chicks.

:laugh::laugh::laugh: The Fed Ex Field bathroom pics. Awesome!!

[Ellis]

Rape is indefensible regardless of location, so I would hesitate to term it as such when we're speaking in a legal context.

Regardless... people are generally allowed to hold their own opinions, you're allowed to disagree with them, and both of you are allowed to express your opinions as you deem it necessary (whether its in a court of law or not). So whats the big deal? Why are you so offended by the concept that someone, somewhere out there may disagree with you on this issue?



Retarded? Nah... there's still hope for you, when you grow up you may even be lucky enough to engage in sexual activity through a hole in the sheet.

well, you go ahead and keep having sex in bathrooms.
:laugh:
maybe one day when you grow up and get a house or apartment, you'll be able to get some poon in a bed.

[Enter Apotheosis]

well, you go ahead and keep having sex in bathrooms.
:laugh:
maybe one day when you grow up and get a house or apartment, you'll be able to get some poon in a bed.

I didn't say I defended the practice, chief, and I don't particularly have a strong leaning either way in this case. Your remarks were just incredibly childish for a man your age and I felt obligated to address them as such.

[Sarge]

Is there no behavior these morally impaired commies won't defend?

[Predicto]

LOL!
The only thing that offends me is the idea that a persons right to get butt-raped on a public toilet should be protected.

That makes NO sense.
Am I retarded or something?




I dunno. Are you? All I have is your posts to go on. :)

[Predicto]

Is there no behavior these morally impaired commies won't defend?

Are you in the Mile High Club, Sarge?

[Ellis]

If someone wants to get layed in a public restroom, and the ACLU wants to protect their right to do so, I guess I'll just hold it in and go home. No sense in fighting the issue. I thought toilets had only one function. I'm wrong apparently.

I'm not offended by a person wanting the right to have sex. If that's what they want, there are ways to go about taking care of business in much more sanitary environments than a public restroom. In public though? I just don't see why someone would want to have sex in public where people could see or hear them. Trying to debate over Hotels vs bathroom stalls is just silly. Those are two totally different scenarios.

Sex at a hotel? Have at it. You paid for that privacy.
Sex on a public toilet? Makes no sense to me.

And although one can say my posts on this issue are "childish for my age"... I've been posting on this issue with a sense of humor. Whatever.

[Larry]

Sex at a hotel? Have at it. You paid for that privacy.
Sex on a public toilet? Makes no sense to me.

But what if it's a pay toilet?

I see a slippery slope, here. (Not that there's anything wrong with that.)

[Ellis]

But what if it's a pay toilet?

I see a slippery slope, here. (Not that there's anything wrong with that.)

LOL! I knew someone would mention that. I have no comment other than one must define what a public toilet can be used for. I highly doubt "sexual intercourse" would be on the list.

Furthermore, public restrooms are used by ALL AGES. That is a big issue to deal with if your 8 yr old child is using a stall and listening to 2 people having sex in one of the other stalls. Ya wanna be a parent and explain that to your child? Not me. Furthermore, what the hell is a man and woman doing in the same type of restroom to begin with? Oh, it's a Family restroom. Well, nothing says family quite like changing a diaper on a changing board in the Family Restroom while two people are having sex a few stalls down.:doh:

We can go all night coming up with reasons why the right to have sex in a public restroom is just rediculous.

[Predicto]

We can go all night coming up with reasons why the right to have sex in a public restroom is just rediculous.

Technically speaking, it's not the right to have sex in a public toilet that is at issue here. It's the theoretical right to not be spied on when you are on a public toilet that is at issue. There is a big difference. One is a supposed affirmative right that you hold. The other is a limitation on what the government can do. How you frame the question changes the way you look at the issue.

We all agree that the government shouldn't be spying on us when we are on the potty, right? Then there is some privacy right present here. The question is how far it reaches.

I think this legal argument is going to lose, but it is not going to lose because it is based on any mythical "right to have sex in a public restroom."

[Sarge]

What ever happened to the good old days, when perverts like this got the crap kicked out of them?

[DeanCollins]

Technically speaking, it's not the right to have sex in a public toilet that is at issue here. It's the theoretical right to not be spied on when you are on a public toilet that is at issue. There is a big difference. One is a supposed affirmative right that you hold. The other is a limitation on what the government can do. How you frame the question changes the way you look at the issue.

We all agree that the government shouldn't be spying on us when we are on the potty, right? Then there is some privacy right present here. The question is how far it reaches.

I think this legal argument is going to lose, but it is not going to lose because it is based on any mythical "right to have sex in a public restroom."

what if the activity in the stall is of an illegal nature such as using drugs? I'll bet that there's been many arrests of for activity of that sort. If the govt can
"spy" on you for illegal activity, why not for obviously having sex in public?

[Tulane Skins Fan]

I think it depends on whether or not you lock the door.

:paranoid:

[Tulane Skins Fan]

what if the activity in the stall is of an illegal nature such as using drugs? I'll bet that there's been many arrests of for activity of that sort. If the govt can
"spy" on you for illegal activity, why not for obviously having sex in public?

That was actually his point. The question you're asking makes sense if you know the illegal activity is occurring BEFORE you go into the stall (if there actually is a right to privacy).

I'm not saying you have a right to privacy in a bathroom stall, but its true that the question is not whether or not you can have sex in the stall, but whether or not the government should be able to burst in and see if you are without probable cause BEFORE they do so.

[Predicto]

spied on? u mean seeing/hearing two dudes go to town through a filmsy partition?

No, I mean the government can't just open the door and take a photo of you sitting on the can, at least not unless they have a reasonable suspicion of illegal activity.

All I am saying is that there is some right of privacy at issue here, and how far that privacy right extends is the proper focus of the debate. It is a privacy debate, not a "right to have sex" debate.

[Predicto]

What ever happened to the good old days, when perverts like this got the crap kicked out of them?

Well, we developed stone tools, and then bronze, and then iron...

[DeanCollins]

That was actually his point. The question you're asking makes sense if you know the illegal activity is occurring BEFORE you go into the stall (if there actually is a right to privacy).

I'm not saying you have a right to privacy in a bathroom stall, but its true that the question is not whether or not you can have sex in the stall, but whether or not the government should be able to burst in and see if you are without probable cause BEFORE they do so.

I think that your argument ignores a few things, like the amount of (distinctive)noise that people having sex would make and the 16" space between the bottom of the door and the floor wher you could easily see 2 sets of legs ect... Is that spying or probable cause?

[Sarge]

Well, we developed stone tools, and then bronze, and then iron...

That's right. They should all be used on perverts

[Larry]

No, I mean the government can't just open the door and take a photo of you sitting on the can, at least not unless they have a reasonable suspicion of illegal activity.

All I am saying is that there is some right of privacy at issue here, and how far that privacy right extends is the proper focus of the debate. It is a privacy debate, not a "right to have sex" debate.

You do realize you're trying to make a logical, reasoned, point in a potty joke thread, right?

How's this for a "solution": "The suspect lost his expectation of privacy when he performed an act who's purpose was to be visible from outside the stall."

(If he's an activist judge, he can co further and say "or an act which could reasonably be expected to be detectable from outside the stall".)

[Predicto]

I think that your argument ignores a few things, like the amount of (distinctive)noise that people having sex would make and the 16" space between the bottom of the door and the floor wher you could easily see 2 sets of legs ect... Is that spying or probable cause?

We are not ignoring that. I think that you are absolutely correct. I think that this argument is doomed to fail for that very reason (and because it doesn't really fit the facts of this case).

I'm just trying to keep the discussion on track as a matter of privacy rather than a matter of "gay secks bad raar! all rules go out the window!!!."

[Predicto]

You do realize you're trying to make a logical, reasoned, point in a potty joke thread, right?




Heah. I must be tired today.

[Tastes Like Chicken]

So does this mean that if you'd like to join the mile high club, that you don't need to be sly about sneaking your girl into the restroom?

(not that this would be easy for me, as I'm too big)

[DeanCollins]

I'm just trying to keep the discussion on track as a matter of privacy rather than a matter of "gay secks bad raar! all rules go out the window!!!."

I could imagine that a judge could say that when usuing a public bathroom, by deffinition, you are forfiting your privacy.

[#98QBKiller]

Can't say I agree with the ACLU's position here but I almost get the feeling that the brief was filed a bit tongue-in-cheek. I don't disagree at all with the idea of a reasonable expectation of privacy but based on the accounts I've heard of the incident, Craig was in clear and obvious violation of this by soliciting sex from a different stall with its own sphere of expected privacy.

The whole "two consenting people can have sex in a stall" argument is somewhat unnecessary as far as this specific case goes and invokes an entirely different issue, IMO.



Damn dude, your sig is pretty sad. :(

[Ellis]

We are not ignoring that. I think that you are absolutely correct. I think that this argument is doomed to fail for that very reason (and because it doesn't really fit the facts of this case).

I'm just trying to keep the discussion on track as a matter of privacy rather than a matter of "gay secks bad raar! all rules go out the window!!!."
come on, man. its not about anti-gay sex in a public restroom. It's intercourse at all in a public restroom. I cant speak for everyone that posted in this thread, but I called out homosexuals, heterosexuals and prostitutes.

Discussing a right to privacy is a completely different subject but in THIS case with Craig, he attempted to engage in something sexual in a public restroom. Does a person have a right to privacy? yes. If a "public" restroom has had a problem with sexual intercourse and the local law enforcement needed to start sting operations BECAUSE of public outcry over having to witness the intercourse, then they have the right to do what they must do. The public restroom is NOT the property of the people using it and therefore, I fail to see how this issue is an issue of privacy. Craig, through his body language and "signaling" invited another person into his so-called "privacy".

[Predicto]

I could imagine that a judge could say that when usuing a public bathroom, by deffinition, you are forfiting your privacy.

Except, as noted before, the rule in Minnesota for the past three decades has been that you do have a right to privacy there.

[Predicto]

come on, man. its not about anti-gay sex in a public restroom. It's intercourse at all in a public restroom. I cant speak for everyone that posted in this thread, but I called out homosexuals, heterosexuals and prostitutes.



I agree. The argument does not fit this case very well, and that is why it is going to lose.

Under different facts, it might have merit (Sarge would disagree, of course).

[Enter Apotheosis]

Damn dude, your sig is pretty sad. :(

Indeed. Unfortunately, its quickly approaching the point where I have to dust off and roll out the offseason sig...

width="550" height="150"

[SparkleMotion]

Except, as noted before, the rule in Minnesota for the past three decades has been that you do have a right to privacy there.

Maybe I missed it, but where exactly has this right been upheld/proven?

Could someone be charged for invasion of privacy for accidentally walking in on somebody while they're on the public crapper?

[Tarhog]

In my case it certainly is. Usually, there aren't even any other people in the bathroom, much less the stall.

[Larry]

Maybe I missed it, but where exactly has this right been upheld/proven?

Original post, 3rd paragraph:


The ACLU filed a brief Tuesday supporting Craig. It cited a Minnesota Supreme Court ruling 38 years ago that found that people who have sex in closed stalls in public restrooms "have a reasonable expectation of privacy."

[SparkleMotion]

The ACLU filed a brief Tuesday supporting Craig. It cited a Minnesota Supreme Court ruling 38 years ago that found that people who have sex in closed stalls in public restrooms "have a reasonable expectation of privacy."

A "reasonable expectation of privacy"? That's some pretty vague wording right there. I wonder it was meant to protect people from other bathroom patrons or law enforcement looking to bust them.

In my opinion, the right to take a leak or a dump without people bonin' within touching distance from you trumps the strange privacy in a public place argument.

[Predicto]

A "reasonable expectation of privacy"? That's some pretty vague wording right there. I wonder it was meant to protect people from other bathroom patrons or law enforcement looking to bust them.



It was meant to protect against law enforcement looking to bust them. I read the case.

[Gracelander]

This thread reminds me of the pictures of those girls going at it in the stall at fedex last season. :D

[Tulane Skins Fan]

A "reasonable expectation of privacy"? That's some pretty vague wording right there. I wonder it was meant to protect people from other bathroom patrons or law enforcement looking to bust them.

In my opinion, the right to take a leak or a dump without people bonin' within touching distance from you trumps the strange privacy in a public place argument.

A "reasonable expectation of privacy" is actually the correct legal terminology for whether or not a person has a right to be free from unlawful searches and seizures.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

I think that your argument ignores a few things, like the amount of (distinctive)noise that people having sex would make and the 16" space between the bottom of the door and the floor wher you could easily see 2 sets of legs ect... Is that spying or probable cause?

If you re-read my post, I think you'll see that I'm not saying anyone has a "reasonable expectation of privacy" in a stall. What I'm saying is that the issue to be decided is not whether you should be able to have sex in the bathroom, but whether or not the government should be able to check for that, if they don't have probable cause to do so before hand. If you don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy, then probable cause is not necessary to conduct a search and/or seizure of a person.

That's totally different than me saying that people have a reasonable expectation of privacy in a bathroom.


We are not ignoring that. I think that you are absolutely correct. I think that this argument is doomed to fail for that very reason (and because it doesn't really fit the facts of this case).

I'm just trying to keep the discussion on track as a matter of privacy rather than a matter of "gay secks bad raar! all rules go out the window!!!."

Exactly.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Maybe I missed it, but where exactly has this right been upheld/proven?

Could someone be charged for invasion of privacy for accidentally walking in on somebody while they're on the public crapper?

No. The law protects against the GOVERNMENT unreasonably searching and seizing your person and/or property. It's actually the Fourth Amendment.

Now, if a private person does that, you might have some civil and/or criminal claims/charges against them, but it would not be under the Fourth Amendment.

[Larry]

A "reasonable expectation of privacy"? That's some pretty vague wording right there. I wonder it was meant to protect people from other bathroom patrons or law enforcement looking to bust them.

IANAL, but I believe it's very specific language, used for a specific legal purpose.

In order for police to need a warrant, the situation has to be one in which the target has "a reasonable expectation of privacy". If they want to bug your house, they need a warrant.

But if you chose to buy drugs while standing on a sidewalk, they don't need a warrant to videotape you, because hey, you chose to commit a crime in full public view.

Similarly, if you commit a crime in your home, but your windows don't have curtains, then don't cry about people "invading your privacy", because you chose to have your curtains open.

Like a lot of Lawyer things, it may look like Plain English, but it isn't.

[PleaseBlitz]

"gay secks bad raar! all rules go out the window!!!."

:laugh:

Im surprised i couldnt find a way to get that into the OOCT. :(