Quote from kjkent1:
The issue is simply: To what extent does the 4th Amendment "reasonable expectation of privacy" reach a public restroom?
It's a pretty good legal question, because the location is "public," yet it has a traditional expectation of privacy near to that of a person in their own home.
Maybe the expectation only extends to the area within the stalls, but not to the wash area. I doubt that the U.S. Supreme Court would want to cut such a fine line, because it's so easy to move a video cam to point somewhere that was not originally intended.
On the other hand, if someone is sitting in a stall and inviting others to come purchase a bag of heroin, the vocalization of the offer to purchase is no longer a private act -- any more than would be the same act carried out from within one's home by calling to passers by from an open window.
Similar to an offer for sex -- the "offer" is not private if it's intended to reach the ears of another person (unless that person is already in an intimate relationship with the offeror).
All that said, the 4th Amendment is about the extent to which law enforcement may conduct warranted and warrantless searches and seizures. The reaonable expectation of privacy extends to protect a person from such searches, where no probable cause exists to believe that a crime has been committed.
Here, Mr. Craig apparently offerred sex, which is apparently illegal in the public restroom where the offer was made, so if the officer reasonably believed that he was being solicited to engage in a crime, then that would permit the seizure, because Craig would have voluntarily waived his privacy rights by making the offer.
Now,if Craig were just jerking off in the stall by himself with the door closed, and the officer barged in to make an arrest -- that would probably violate the Constitution. But, that's not what happened -- as far as I'm aware.
Regardless, an interesting legal question, overall.