A public place is a public place. A place for the public to use, and nothing more. The public uses it as it sees fit. Intended use is irrelevant. What is relevant is they put doors on the room and on the stalls and dividers between urinals and that kind of thing for one reason: privacy. Whether it be to relieve one's self or to change your shirt or some other thing that isn't relieving yourself. The purpose argument is a slippery slope, as there are all kinds of public places, such as public lands. People do all kinds of unrelated things there like taking pictures or climbing rocks or camping (and having sex, no doubt).
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jan 16 2008, 05:01 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>It's only a public place if there's a public to see it. I've gone into the restroom after a show and there's been a line out the door. Having sex at that time in the bathroom wouldn't be very private. On the other hand, most of the time the public bathrooms are empty, and empty is private. Private enough to make one of those sensitive cell phone calls.</div> So it's okay so long as there's nobody in the next stall?
A sliding scale isn't a slippery slope. There needs to be an illegal component as well as mere conduct not included in the site's purpose. Nor are all public places the same - either in terms of lawful conduct or intended use. Nor would changing in a restroom be construed as so far from the purpose of said area as having sex would be. In fact, the argument could be made that the clothes-hanging hooks provided in many stalls are evidence of the secondary purpose of changing one's clothes in the stall. By contrast, denuding oneself by the urinals will get one charged. The purpose, both primary and ancillary, is not thereby fulfilled.
No way is that a slippery slope. A bathroom is supposed to be used for onesies, twosies, washing hands, perhaps checking oneself in the mirror...not sex. Not with yourself, not with someone else; that is very clearly against the law and should be punished as such. edit: wow I re-read that and didn't mean to have that serious of a tone! oh, internet.
Oh, I think if you have sex in a public place and GET CAUGHT, you're in some sort of trouble, no doubt. This doesn't make it a crime when you're not caught. There's no victim, for starters. The question at hand, really, is whether there's some sort of expectation of privacy in a bathroom, and I think I've made the case, slam dunk. I could have mentioned that they often make the floorplan of bathrooms to create private areas. The silliness is when you start talking about intended use being the only use.
Except that you're neglecting to mention the fact that access and usage of restrooms isn't a given, but is predicated on the purpose for which the area was intended. To push things the other way, do you think that someone intending to conduct a drug sale in a stall has an expectation of privacy to do so?
Yes, a person conducting a drug deal must feel there's sufficient privacy or they probably wouldn't attempt it. Doing drug deals in public with witnesses isn't a particularly good idea. Dealing drugs is a crime. Having sex isn't.
Besides which, the term reasonable expectation of privacy is a legal term, and is inapplicable by definition when it pertains to the commission of criminal acts.
One's a felony, and one's a misdemeanor. http://www.vanwagnerwood.com/CM/Custom/Glossary.asp#Public Public For the purposes of public fornication, "public" is defined as any place where a person knows his or her actions are observable by persons other than the person with whom he or she is having sexual intercourse. Public beaches are always public places. Private beaches may be public places depending upon the circumstances; in most situations, private beaches are public for the purposes of determining if fornication has occurred in public, but it is a rebuttable presumption (an arguable point) as to whether a person had a right to expect privacy. If the water ways can be traversed by public, then it is safe to assume that the beach is public for the purposes of this statute
The length of the sentence doesn't change the legal status (or rather, illegal status) of the act. The public/private distinction of a beach isn't the same as a restroom regardless. As well, the definition you provide is a subjective one - a standard not necessarily applicable.
Besides which, Black's (7th Ed.) defines indecent exposure as <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>An offensive display of one's body in public, esp. of the genitals.</div> Public, in turn is <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>A place open or visible to the public.</div> The example you cite straddles the two definitions of public, as the beach is not OPEN to the public, but becomes public if visible. Restroom stalls are precisely the opposite, being open to the public but not visible.
"it is a rebuttable presumption (an arguable point) as to whether a person had a right to expect privacy." The ACLU isn't on some shaky ground here, or even breaking new ground. BTW, did Craig have this illegal sex in a public place? (No )
Wouldn't it depend on who owned it? Most owners would not consent to people having sex in their bathroom, as well most people wouldn't want their kids walking into a bathroom beside a stall where people are having sex. If the person who owned the bathroom gave permission, and allowed them to lock the bathroom for themselves, that would be a different story.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (AEM @ Jan 16 2008, 05:35 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Nor is the ACLU on solid ground. And I'm still not sold on that definition of public.</div> The ACLU may or may not win the case, though I am having a hard time seeing where Craig did anything particularly wrong or illegal. The ACLU IS making a case that any 2-bit ambulance chasing lawyer would in defending a client charged with what you say is an actual crime (a misdemeanor). A bar is a place whose purpose is drinking. Let's go arrest all the people who solicit for sex in those places, too. See how absurd it is on the face of it?
Or $100 and time served. The vast majority are not cases where people serve time. And no, soliciting not in the legal sense of the word. It just shows how a public place has a purpose (food/drink) but is used by the public for other purposes (to meet people, to score).
http://www.cnn.com/SHOWBIZ/HughGrant/ HOLLYWOOD, California (CNN)--British actor Hugh Grant pleaded no contest today to lewd conduct. He was fined $1,180 and was placed on 2 years probation. Grant was arrested last month when police found him in his car, engaging in oral sex with a Hollywood prostitute. In addition to the fine, Grant will attend an AIDS education program. He was not present in court today.
