Sen. Craig's Arrest: Was there Enough Evidence? (Updated)

Posted by The Crux | Yesterday, I  focused on the hypocrisy of those compassionately conservative politicians who've turned on Sen. Larry Craig over his bathroom blunder, despite their having rallied round family-values-poser Sen. David Vitter when his apparent affinity for prostitutes made headlines in July.

Last night,  I began wondering whether sufficient evidence existed for Craig's arrest. The seeds of doubt sprouted when I listened to audio of Craig's discussion with the arresting officer (MSNBC and Washington Post ).  [Incidentally, I disagree with many of Sen. Craig's political positions.]

The officer never said that Craig verbally asked for sex, which would've been a slam-dunk. Given the imprecise art of interpreting body language, might the officer have genuinely misperceived Craig's foot movements?

If the police had installed video cameras to record bathroom-users' feet, we'd have a better idea of whether Craig had tried to signal a sex invite. Instead, we're stuck with a he-said-he-said situation.

The arresting officer called Craig a liar (Washington Post). Again, maybe nobody's lying. People do tend to see what they're looking for, and this officer was assigned to bathroom duty specifically to look for  foot movements and such.

For how many hours was the officer in that bathroom before Craig arrived?  For how many more hours would the officer have had to remain there, waiting for a sex-seeker, had Craig used a different bathroom?

Another thing troubled me. The officer seemed eager to persuade Craig to resolve the matter without a court appearance by pleading to misdemeanor "disorderly conduct."

The officer even said that he wouldn't call the media. Craig didn't need persuading, evident in his panic-fueled assertions that he wanted to avoid court (i.e., publicity). 

Even if Craig were innocent, which is possible, it would have been politically stupid for him to choose a court battle.  Even if a judge ultimately dismissed the charges, Craig's career (and reputation) would be toilet-bound simply because the media's court-coverage would include stories with Craig's name near words like "sex"  and "men's room."

Voters don't forget such imagery and tend to accept it without doing research -- even when accusations are peppered with words like "allegedly" and "reportedly."

And look at what's happening to Craig's career.  He did not admit to soliciting public sex, the Senate's Code of Conduct mentions nothing about misdemeanor guilty pleas, the Senate hasn't finished its investigation -- and yet, Republican leaders have already "stripped" Craig of his committee assignments (Washington Post). 

The arresting officer could have acknowledged the possibility of mis-perception and let Craig walk after giving him a stern warning (just in case).  Instead, the officer offered choices that put Craig between a jagged waist-high rock and a hard place.

Maybe Craig should have called a lawyer. I would have, but that's because I am a lawyer. Even lawyers who don't practice criminal law know not to blindly follow advice from policemen or prosecutors, because our adversarial legal-system pits law enforcement's interests against those of the accused.

Craig doesn't seem to have legal training (at least, his bio doesn't mention law school).  I'm also guessing that he's not an experienced arrestee; otherwise, he wouldn't have been re-elected.
.
On the other hand, Craig might have had the impression that if he called a lawyer, the disorderly-conduct offer would be off the table, and Craig would be headed for the career-killing court battle that he wisely sought to avoid.

I'm not saying that Craig doesn't have homosexual leanings. With my mind-reading skills stubbornly staying up North until hurricane season officially ends, I don't know whether Craig had harbored desires for restroom-sex.

What I'm saying is that there's room for doubt here.  Even if Craig has homosexual leanings -- even if he is a big hypocrite -- his career is over, despite the existence of serious doubts.  Somehow, that doesn't seem fair.

I'm pleased to see that others are questioning the evidence.  M. Rebman (citing Paul Craig Roberts) asks:

"How do we know that Senator Larry Craig is guilty? The only evidence is the accusation of a police officer. One thing we definitely know about police officers is that they are the only people who lie as much as members of the Bush administration."

I don't think it's fair to say that all police officers lie, but I have seen a few do it.  Thought Alarm seems to think Craig is guilty but still questioned the evidence:

"To be fair it's not much of a stretch to see how some of his actions could be construed as soliciting if one were looking for someone soliciting. For example, he put his rollerbag against the inside of the stall door, because as Officer Karsnia suggested, 'individuals engaging in lewd conduct use their bags to block the view from the front of their stall.' But really, where's the bag supposed to go? Behind the toilet? Off to the side?"

The Bad Idea Blog puts it this way:

"With so many people focusing on the political aspects of Senator’s Craig’s arrest … something really important has been left in the dust.

"Officer Karsnia should also be facing scrutiny, because the facts of the case could also support the idea that he essentially blackmailed Craig into pleading without any evidence of a crime that would have held up in court.

I do not sympathize with Craig’s politics….  Irrelevant. None of that changes the fact that the police report fails to document any real, prosecutable crime."

Mac's Mind said:

"I listened to the tape of Senator Craig being interviewed by Officer Karsnia and I’ve got to tell you that in over a decade in Law Enforcement I’ve never been so ashamed…. Of an officer. 

"This kid should be suspended for making a false arrest. There is absolutely no probable cause, not a lick of evidence outside this kid’s feelings, or enthusiasm for arrest stats."

Related BN-Politics' Posts:

* Bathroom Blunder Causes Compassionate Conservatives to Eat Their Own

* It's the Hypocrisy, Stupid (Part 3)...

* Hypocrisy Bites: A Few Simple Rules for Imperfect Politicians

* It's the Hypocrisy, Stupid (Part 2)...

* Sen. Vitter "Ensnared" in Prostitution Scandal

* Jon Swift Quotes: Are Conservatives Less Gay than Alleged?
 

Comments

[J. Lynne]

I wondered the same thing when I was listening to the snippets that NPR played yesterday. Sen. Craig jumps right to claiming the officer is using entrapment. What I thought was odd was that in none of the snippets that they played did they ever play what the actual charge was, etc.

Though I did read/hear somewhere that the document Craig signed does say something to the affect that Craig is accepting he is guilty and not accepting the plea for a fine to avoid the courts. The idea being that he supposedly can't come back later and insist he's innocent.

I don't know. I feel kind of bad for the guy. One commentator I heard last night pointed out that when someone ten years ago was outed, he committed suicide and that we should keep that in mind while we are all discussing this and making big jokes. The truth is all of this is affecting a man and his life and his wife and his family. He may be a hypocrite and he may deserve ridicule but the commentator is right that we won't be laughing if this turns out really badly.

[Bad]

Thanks for the nod: as I blogged, I think there are very real grounds here to ask some harsh questions about the conduct of the officer in this case.

I don't have any love for Craig, and I don't yet know whether to feel sympathetic to him, but a police officer who basically threatens to out someone in order to secure another notch in his belt is not something I can stomach either.