There are a ton of diaries looking at Larry Craig's actions and wondering why he was charged for soliciting consensual sex in a public bathroom. I'd like to try to clear up a couple things. I should note that I am not a lawyer, so my analysis is not necessarily informed even if it sounds good.
I decided to write this diary based on the comments I provided in karateexplosions's diary and the desire to put them in an organized, coherent fashion.
First, I am using the comment by LegacyLDad as the source of the two charges against Senator Craig.
The two charges were Interference with Privacy and Disorderly Conduct.
Here is the Minnesota Statute for Interference with Privacy (emphasis mine):
609.746 INTERFERENCE WITH PRIVACY.
Subdivision 1. Surreptitious intrusion; observation device. (a) A person is guilty of
a gross misdemeanor who:
(1) enters upon another's property;
(2) surreptitiously gazes, stares, or peeps in the window or any other aperture of a house or
place of dwelling of another; and
(3) does so with intent to intrude upon or interfere with the privacy of a member of the
household.
(b) A person is guilty of a gross misdemeanor who:
(1) enters upon another's property;
(2) surreptitiously installs or uses any device for observing, photographing, recording,
amplifying, or broadcasting sounds or events through the window or any other aperture of a house
or place of dwelling of another; and
(3) does so with intent to intrude upon or interfere with the privacy of a member of the
household.
(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.
This is the more embarrassing sounding charge, and would probably have been violated by his peeping through the stall crack.
Here is the statute for Disorderly Conduct (again, emphasis mine):
609.72 DISORDERLY CONDUCT.
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:
(1) Engages in brawling or fighting; or
(2) Disturbs an assembly or meeting, not unlawful in its character; or
(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.
Subd. 2.[Repealed, 1969 c 226 s 1]
In the news, the appearance is that he was arrested because he solicited for sex. This is partially true, but not entirely true. Had he asked for money or offered to pay the officer, then the charge would have been Solicitation of Prostitution.
As it is, he was arrested, charged, and plead guilty to essentially violating the privacy of the guy in the stall next to him.
It's not the crime folks, it's the cover-up or, in this case, the after-the-fact denial and declaration of innocence. Hopefully you've found this diary helpful/informative. Remember I'm not a lawyer so my analysis and opinion are pretty much unfounded, but to me this seems the most likely case.
I also promised myself to not make any jokes, but I should note I found no exceptions for a "wide stance" in any of the statutes I explored.