Mind readers in Minneapolis

Stock photo

Sen. Larry Craig is a most unsympathetic figure.

He got caught in an unsavory sex sting operation in the Minneapolis Airport this summer, pleaded guilty, covered it up, resigned and then lied about that, too. That kind of deception in a public official is unforgivable, and Craig needs to quit.

But in defending the unsympathetic against the heavy hand of the state, we safeguard our own civil liberties. There is a much about what occurred in this airport June 11 that should shock and concern us all.

According to Sgt. Dave Karsnia's report, Craig peeked outside Karsnia's bathroom stall for a couple of minutes, then entered the adjacent stall, tapped his shoe and slid his hand under the stall divider. Based on his training, Karsnia said he recognized these as signals used by men looking for gay sex in bathrooms. Craig was accused of violation of privacy -- a charge that was later dropped -- as well as disorderly conduct.

Craig showed poor judgment in pleading guilty to the second count Aug. 8, paid a fine and accepted probation and a suspended sentence.

Sure, the state has a right to protect children and adults from encountering nuisances in public restrooms. Still, exactly what crime occurred here? Craig didn't engage in sex. He wasn't charged with soliciting sex. Even if you buy Karsnia's account, all the senator did was engage in a conversation about procuring sex -- in such a discreet way that children and most straight adult males would never know about it.

Sex -- and that includes gay sex -- is not a crime. Talking about it -- even in a men's room -- isn't either. Where's the proof that Craig -- or other people caught up in this Minneapolis sting -- intended to have sex in the restroom? Were any planning to meet later at, say, an airport motel?

Karsnia isn't just claiming to read intent. He's reading minds. This is like the cops in the futuristic "Minority Report" arresting people for crimes they're about to commit. It's like the government telling you to shut up or closing down a newspaper -- a concept known as prior restraint -- to prevent what it perceives as dangerous or harmful speech.

Craig

Giving cops that kind of discretion is dangerous. How many hand signals did Karsnia conclude to be harmless? How many did he find to be criminal? How did he know the difference? That's incredibly subjective and selective.

"That should bother everyone," George Washington University legal scholar Jonathan Turley says. "What it does is allow the police officer to take two people acting in similar ways (and conclude) that one is soliciting sex and the other is simply clumsy."

And what about the charge brought against Craig? Minnesota defines disorderly conduct as behavior that is "offensive, obscene, abusive, boisterous, or noisy conduct or in offensive, obscene, or abusive language tending reasonably to arouse alarm, anger or resentment in others." That so vague, it could mean anything. In other words, don't tell dirty jokes in Minneapolis bathrooms -- or if you do, try whispering.

Sure Craig should have gotten a lawyer and gone to trial. His case would not have met the guilty beyond a reasonable doubt threshold. But this isn't a speeding ticket or even a drunken driving charge. It involves sexual impropriety -- and the mere bringing of that accusation leaves a taint, regardless of what happens later in court.

That's too much power to give any cop.

Marty Trillhaase