Quote from Turok:
I do not conclude the above from the opening post of this thread and I believe that you are misinterpreting the position of the ACLU.
The ACLU's legal position would be the same whether it was sex, drugs, currency counterfitting, or murder. -- the expectation of privacy is there *no matter what the activity*. Of course they mention "sex" in this case, 'cause that's the instance at hand -- however I don't believe the ACLE considers the specific activity central (or even tangential) to the core legal question.
JB
I've researched this situation a little and reread the opening post in the context of the info I garnered from various sites and have concluded that perhaps I was a little hasty in assessing the ACLU argument.
ACLU argues that anyone in a washroom stall has expectation of privacy and that this implies that sexual activity conducted in a stall is not sex in public. Further, ACLU argues, even if Craig admits to soliciting sex there's no evidence he was soliciting sexual activity to be conducted in public, whether in that washroom or elsewhere. Craig, then, according to ACLU, can't be charged with soliciting an unlawful act.
Craig's body language communication, ACLU argues, is protected by the 1st Amendment as free speech. The State of Minnesota also recognizes Craig's signals as 'speech' because his signals were characterized as unlawful by way of a state law forbidding offensive language that is likely to arouse alarm, anger, or resentment in others.
The police originally charged Craig with violating the officer's privacy and the ACLU interprets this as an acceptance on the part of the police that a stall is a private place.
Since Craig admitted to tapping the officer's foot with his own and to peeking under the divider between the stalls it seems to me that the police had a simpler situation with their original charge.
One thing in ACLU's brief I have a problem with is their argument that had there been sex in the stall "...it would not have called attention to itself in a closed stall in the public washroom.".
That's quite an assumption. In including this point I think the ACLU weakens its position since it admits to the possibility that a washroom stall's status as a private space may be compromised if the activity taking place in it comes to the attention of the washroom-using public.
If two guys are in the stall making a lot of noise is the stall really private or are the lovers sharing their activity with anyone within earshot? There's more to privacy than that which can be seen. Is it always so that in a public washroom public ends at the stall door and privacy begins?
and even if another did make an overture, so what? say no thanks, and get over it 
