MINNEAPOLIS, Sept. 6 — The airport men’s room where Senator Larry E. Craig was arrested here in a police sting operation is in one of the busiest areas of the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport, at the intersection of five concourses and near a bustling mall and food court.
Mr. Craig passed through the terminal regularly as he traveled between his home district in Boise, Idaho, and his Congressional offices in Washington.
The details of his arrest shocked his colleagues and constituents, but he was not the only person ensnarled in the airport police enforcement action against what the authorities said was lewd conduct in the restroom. Thirty-nine other men were arrested here in a three-month period this summer.
A review of their cases and interviews with four lawyers representing many of the accused show how Mr. Craig — who pleaded guilty to disorderly conduct but now says he is innocent — fits into the larger picture of the sting operation, and sheds light on his prospects in court should he be allowed to withdraw his guilty plea.
Police and court files indicate that Mr. Craig’s case may have been handled more harshly than some of the others. For instance, he alone among the 40 men arrested was charged with both disorderly conduct and interference with privacy. The other men were charged with one or the other, or with indecent exposure or loitering.
Patrick Hogan, a spokesman for the airport and the law firm it hired to prosecute the cases, said Mr. Craig was the only man charged with two offenses because he had peered into the police officer’s stall and had used unspoken signals — foot tapping and hand motions — known as ways to solicit restroom sex.
Mr. Craig, who says he is not gay, said his actions were misinterpreted by the arresting officer.
Lawyers for many of the other 39 men said that they were contesting the charges against their clients, and that Mr. Craig, too, could have mounted a vigorous defense if he had hired a lawyer instead of plea-bargaining.
The lawyers said their defense strategies were based on the conduct of the police, the lack of sexual contact in the cases and the airport police’s novel use of a privacy law as the basis of the most serious charge made against their clients.
Mr. Craig was one of 20 of the men who were charged with interference with privacy, a gross misdemeanor; the penalty is up to a year in jail. But the defense lawyers said the law, adopted two years ago in response to cases involving hidden cameras in women’s rooms, had not been used before in a sex sting operation.
Jeffrey Dean, a lawyer defending four of the men, said: “There can be no invasion of privacy of a person who is inviting the conduct. The undercover officer, by his own account, sits there in an adjacent stall and signals the person that he wants this contact.”
The disorderly conduct charge to which Mr. Craig pleaded guilty is a lesser offense with a suspended sentence, $500 fine and probation. Ten of the 40 men arrested in the restroom have pleaded guilty to various charges. No trials have been scheduled, and none of the men have had charges dismissed, although two were given “suspended prosecution” in which their records may be expunged after a year.
Robert J. Shane, a lawyer for a man who received a suspended prosecution, said, “If Craig would have had an attorney, I think he could have got that type of agreement.”
Jerome A. Burg, a lawyer for another defendant, said after reviewing Mr. Craig’s publicly available police reports: “I don’t think he had violated the law yet. I think the officer jumped the gun.” Mr. Craig’s conduct, as described in the police report, was far from the most lewd, a comparison of the 40 arrest reports showed; some men were accused of passing sexually explicit notes or exposing themselves.
His was one of only five of the cases in which a plainclothes officer was touched; Mr. Craig was accused of moving his right foot under the stall divider to touch the officer’s left foot. Mr. Craig has said he may have accidentally touched shoes because he sat with his legs spread wide.
The police reports showed that many of the other men also looked into the adjoining stall, two by peering over the partition, which is less than six feet tall, and at least 14 by crouching on the floor and looking under the partition, which is one foot off the floor.
Mr. Hogan said the airport planned to replace the partitions with ones that go lower.
Discuss Add this link to... Bury
Mr. Craig passed through the terminal regularly as he traveled between his home district in Boise, Idaho, and his Congressional offices in Washington.
The details of his arrest shocked his colleagues and constituents, but he was not the only person ensnarled in the airport police enforcement action against what the authorities said was lewd conduct in the restroom. Thirty-nine other men were arrested here in a three-month period this summer.
A review of their cases and interviews with four lawyers representing many of the accused show how Mr. Craig — who pleaded guilty to disorderly conduct but now says he is innocent — fits into the larger picture of the sting operation, and sheds light on his prospects in court should he be allowed to withdraw his guilty plea.
Police and court files indicate that Mr. Craig’s case may have been handled more harshly than some of the others. For instance, he alone among the 40 men arrested was charged with both disorderly conduct and interference with privacy. The other men were charged with one or the other, or with indecent exposure or loitering.
Patrick Hogan, a spokesman for the airport and the law firm it hired to prosecute the cases, said Mr. Craig was the only man charged with two offenses because he had peered into the police officer’s stall and had used unspoken signals — foot tapping and hand motions — known as ways to solicit restroom sex.
Mr. Craig, who says he is not gay, said his actions were misinterpreted by the arresting officer.
Lawyers for many of the other 39 men said that they were contesting the charges against their clients, and that Mr. Craig, too, could have mounted a vigorous defense if he had hired a lawyer instead of plea-bargaining.
The lawyers said their defense strategies were based on the conduct of the police, the lack of sexual contact in the cases and the airport police’s novel use of a privacy law as the basis of the most serious charge made against their clients.
Mr. Craig was one of 20 of the men who were charged with interference with privacy, a gross misdemeanor; the penalty is up to a year in jail. But the defense lawyers said the law, adopted two years ago in response to cases involving hidden cameras in women’s rooms, had not been used before in a sex sting operation.
Jeffrey Dean, a lawyer defending four of the men, said: “There can be no invasion of privacy of a person who is inviting the conduct. The undercover officer, by his own account, sits there in an adjacent stall and signals the person that he wants this contact.”
The disorderly conduct charge to which Mr. Craig pleaded guilty is a lesser offense with a suspended sentence, $500 fine and probation. Ten of the 40 men arrested in the restroom have pleaded guilty to various charges. No trials have been scheduled, and none of the men have had charges dismissed, although two were given “suspended prosecution” in which their records may be expunged after a year.
Robert J. Shane, a lawyer for a man who received a suspended prosecution, said, “If Craig would have had an attorney, I think he could have got that type of agreement.”
Jerome A. Burg, a lawyer for another defendant, said after reviewing Mr. Craig’s publicly available police reports: “I don’t think he had violated the law yet. I think the officer jumped the gun.” Mr. Craig’s conduct, as described in the police report, was far from the most lewd, a comparison of the 40 arrest reports showed; some men were accused of passing sexually explicit notes or exposing themselves.
His was one of only five of the cases in which a plainclothes officer was touched; Mr. Craig was accused of moving his right foot under the stall divider to touch the officer’s left foot. Mr. Craig has said he may have accidentally touched shoes because he sat with his legs spread wide.
The police reports showed that many of the other men also looked into the adjoining stall, two by peering over the partition, which is less than six feet tall, and at least 14 by crouching on the floor and looking under the partition, which is one foot off the floor.
Mr. Hogan said the airport planned to replace the partitions with ones that go lower.
Discuss Add this link to... Bury
LinksMarker is a Web 2.0 content management system
Warning: Error writing file '/tmp/MYkmDumP' (Errcode: 28) in /home/linksmar/public_html/libs/db.php on line 233
Comments