Craig was originally charged with Interference With Privacy, MSS 609.746 subd. 1(c), which provides that:
(c) A person is guilty of a gross misdemeanor who: (1) surreptitiously gazes, stares, or peeps in the window or other aperture of a sleeping room in a hotel, as defined in section 327.70, subdivision 3, a tanning booth, or other place where a reasonable person would have an expectation of privacy and has exposed or is likely to expose their intimate parts, as defined in section 609.341, subdivision 5, or the clothing covering the immediate area of the intimate parts; and (2) does so with intent to intrude upon or interfere with the privacy of the occupant.
Craig was also originally charged with, and pleaded guilty to, Disorderly Conduct, MSS 609.746, subd. 1(3), which provides that:
Subdivision 1. Crime. Whoever does any of the following in a public or private place, including on a school bus, knowing, or having reasonable grounds to know that it will, or will tend to, alarm, anger or disturb others or provoke an assault or breach of the peace, is guilty of disorderly conduct, which is a misdemeanor: ... (3) Engages in offensive, obscene, abusive, boisterous, or noisy conduct or in offensive, obscene, or abusive language tending reasonably to arouse alarm, anger, or resentment in others. A person does not violate this section if the person's disorderly conduct was caused by an epileptic seizure.
In exchange for his guilty plea, the state dropped the more serious offense (in Minnesota a gross misdemeanor is punishable by up to 1 year in the county jail) which Craig easily could have been convicted of if he'd gone to trial and the jury decided to believe the cop. So he got a fair deal by pleading to the misdemeanor.
I am not sure how MN's disorderly conduct statute holds up against challenges that it is unconstitutionally vague, and certainly a state cannot criminalize constitutionally protected activity such as an adult man sexually soliciting another adult man. But in the context in which Craig was arrested, I doubt many courts would be open to the argument that he was engaging in mere sexual solicitation.
Assuming the disorderly conduct statute is constitutional, wouldn't the kind of behavior described in the police report qualify as that which one would have "reasonable grounds to know that it will, or will tend to, alarm, anger or disturb others"?
-WD
__________________________ thevanitywebsite.blogspot.com