Sen. Craig: Hand Signals Protected Speech

Seeking To Nix Guilty Plea, Lawyers Say Act Wasn't Criminal Since It Didn't Involve Multiple Victims

(AP)  Seeking to have his guilty plea in a bathroom sex sting erased, the attorneys for Sen. Larry Craig of Idaho argue in a new court filing that the underlying act wasn't criminal because it didn't involve multiple victims.

An appeals brief filed Tuesday contends that Minnesota's disorderly conduct law "requires that the conduct at issue have a tendency to alarm or anger 'others"' - underscoring the plural nature of the term.

Craig's brief goes on to cite other convictions that were overturned because the multiple-victim test wasn't met. His lawyers apply the same logic to his case.

The Republican senator pleaded guilty in August after his arrest two months earlier at the Minneapolis airport. It was part of a broader undercover push targeting men soliciting sex in public restrooms.

Craig was arrested June 11 by an undercover officer, Sgt. Dave Karsnia, 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.

"Appellant's alleged conduct in this case affected only a single individual - Sergeant Karsnia," the Craig brief says. "It did not - and could not affect 'others' as the disorderly conduct statute requires, and therefore, does not satisfy that element of the statute."

The brief also argues that Karsnia himself could not have been offended by the alleged conduct because "he invited it." The alleged conduct, Craig's lawyers added, doesn't rise to the level of being "offensive, obscene, abusive, boisterous or noisy."

Craig's earlier attempt to withdraw his plea was turned down by a district court judge, and the case is now before the Minnesota Court of Appeals.

Besides attacking the law he was prosecuted under, Craig's legal team argues that the hand signal allegedly used to communicate a desire to engage in sexual conduct would be constitutionally protected speech. They also say the plea is technically flawed because it lacked a judicial signature.

Patrick Hogan, a spokesman for the Metropolitan Airports Commission, which oversees the Minneapolis airport and which brought the charges, said he was confident the guilty plea will stand.

"Facts are resilient, and Sen. Craig's continued, transparent efforts to escape them don't change the truth of his behavior in an airport restroom or the fact that he admitted guilt last August," Hogan said.

Prosecutors have 45 days to respond, and then the case will be scheduled for oral arguments. Once heard, a ruling is required within 90 days.

Craig has said he will finish his term, which ends in January 2009.

[lorinkundert]

Senator Craig is simply a POS, based on his argument any conspiracy to commit a crime cannot be a crime without violating free speech, Idaho wake up.

[keithle1]

Look at the photo & tell me he doesn''t look fruity. Probably wearing pink panties from Victoria''s Secret.

[usakousagi]

If this were the case, wouldn''''t he have made sure that the parts that speak out against homosexuality were omitted?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by deemsnyd

He didn''t care. They let him do whatever he wanted all he had to do was endorse it. It was a political scam from the church itself. He did make sure it said man with man though so as not to ruin all those lesbian fantasies which would have ruined the multiple wives thing in the Bible anyways I guess.

[deemsnyd]

Yes, I think it''s weird.

[usakousagi]

Does no one else think it''s wierd that these guys are getting turned on going to the bathroom and trying to elicit *** from guys that are GOING TO THE BATHROOM. Not on my list of turnons but whatever

[deemsnyd]

King James wasn''''''''''''''''t "the famous bible editor" go crawl back under your rock.

Posted by jowand at 06:03 AM : Jan 09, 2008

No, he was just the one that ordered his assistants to edit it so the Catholic church wouldn''''t create a movement against him due to the gay orgies he was fond of throwing. As long as he promoted the Bible and put his name on it he could have as many "parties" as he wanted.

Posted by usakousagi at 04:03 PM : Jan 09, 2008


If this were the case, wouldn''t he have made sure that the parts that speak out against homosexuality were omitted?

[deemsnyd]

Where are the Republicans??? What no comment on Craig??? what a bunch of double standard wimps - if this was any Democrat this board would be lit up with family values.
Posted by jncc1701 at 01:14 PM : Jan 09, 2008


Here I am!!! What sort of comment would you like? I as well as thousands of other republicans think this guy''s actions are repulsive. What is your point? Do you think that I would somehow think it was MORE discusting if a right wing liberal celebrity/politician was caught instead? It''s just as perverse either way. Would you or any other democrat think it was less desturbing if Craig was a democrat? I guess your point is that he is against gay marriage/rights so he is a hypocrit. If he were a democrat and for gay rights/marriage, then it would be okay? Or is the point that he was engaged in illegal activity regardless of his political affiliation? No, I''m just kidding. I get the point(I think). He is for family values/against gay marriage, but is involved in this behavior. So, you''re right, he is indeed a hypocrit, but what does that have to do with me? I''m a republican and I can tell he is a hypocrit, it doesn''t make me one.

[usakousagi]

King James wasn''''''''t "the famous bible editor" go crawl back under your rock.

Posted by jowand at 06:03 AM : Jan 09, 2008

No, he was just the one that ordered his assistants to edit it so the Catholic church wouldn''t create a movement against him due to the gay orgies he was fond of throwing. As long as he promoted the Bible and put his name on it he could have as many "parties" as he wanted.

[docofthebay]

An appeals brief filed Tuesday contends that Minnesota''s disorderly conduct law "requires that the conduct at issue have a tendency to alarm or anger ''others"'' - underscoring the plural nature of the term.

It''s clear how desperate they are. So, if someone is conducting themselves in a manner that is alarming or angering JUST ME, that perpetrator cannot be held accountable under "disorderly conduct"???

[glossypan]

Apologies To Rudy - I should have gone back and read the original post first. As far as I know, all of Rotten Rudy''s bunkmates have been post-teen.