Whoever makes the decisions on just what cases the ACLU takes on really needs a head-check. From today’s MSNBC:
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 the undercover officer to have sex in public, the ACLU wrote. . .Even if Craig was inviting the officer to have sex, the ACLU argued, his actions would not be illegal.
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 a bathroom stall expect privacy.
Privacy in a bathroom would indicate ONE person in my book. It all seems laughably obvious to me–it’s a PUBLIC restroom, and you have the right to not have to hear couples grunting in the next stall.