What? Running up against your deadline and couldn't find something good to write about so you ripped something off from your local college newspaper?
On June 11, an undercover officer who staked out the airport restroom claims, Mr. Craig used a series of signals to indicate interest in engaging in sex. Mr. Craig, the arrest report states, stared so long into the stall the officer occupied that the officer could tell that Mr. Craig had blue eyes; Mr. Craig then entered an adjoining stall and tapped his foot repeatedly, moved his foot to touch the officer's and swiped his hand several times underneath the stall divider.
Happens to me all the time.
Mr. Craig denied at the time -- and continues to deny -- that he solicited sex from the officer through these gestures. It's a real shame, then, that instead of fighting the charges, Mr. Craig mailed in a guilty plea to disorderly conduct -- seven weeks after the arrest. Mr. Craig should have been able to beat the charges because none of the gestures, in and of themselves, constitutes a crime. And Mr. Craig, even by the officer's account, did not expose himself or commit any other act that would have breached the law What do you think about this gesture? (Wait, don't answer that!) How 'bout if I waggle my tongue at your underage daughter then? Or point at you and then draw my finger across my neck?
Mr. Craig faces an exceedingly difficult challenge in getting his plea thrown out, in large part because of his own actions. Most courts frown on revoking guilty pleas. In the Hennepin County, Minn., court, a defendant must prove that that plea was not "accurate, voluntary" or "knowingly and understandably made" in order to withdraw that plea. Mr. Craig insists he pleaded guilty because he was in a state of "intense anxiety" and "panic" after being arrested, especially because the arrest came so soon after he learned that the Idaho Statesman newspaper was investigating his sexuality. Because he was not represented by a lawyer, Mr. Craig argues he was "induced" to plead guilty by the officer's promise that the arrest would not be made public. He also says that if he'd presented his plea in person, a judge would have been compelled to reject the plea because it would be obvious that Mr. Craig did not believe in his own guilt.
Uh huh. Obviously.
These arguments probably don't meet the legal standard, and Mr. Craig is at fault for not consulting a lawyer and for waiving his right to appear before a judge. Yet it seems clear that he pleaded guilty because his priority was not exoneration but avoiding exposure. What's troubling is that the sting operation may have been counting on just that sort of motivation in order to extract guilty pleas from men who, in fact, had done nothing explicitly lewd or illegal.
Exposure that you have a wide "stance" in the restroom stall? Exposure that you tap your foot nervously while taking a dump? Exposure that you happen to be fascinated by the cop's blue eyes? Exposure that you were reaching under the divider into the occupied adjacent stall to pick up toilet paper off the floor, conscientious citizen that you are? I see it all the time.
Many or even all of those charged, including Mr. Craig, probably were in the bathroom in search of sex. No one
Any other crime? Like murder? Underage solicitation? Dealing drugs? Drunk driving? Sure, I want my police out there having to commit lewd acts before they can arrest someone. Helps to cut down on police corruption, too. By the way, do you happen to know how I can join the vice squad?