U.S. Sen. Larry Craig “judicially admitted” his guilt in an airport police sex-sting case and there’s no legal basis to let him withdraw his guilty plea to a disorderly conduct charge, the Minnesota Court of Appeals ruled today.
The court also said that the state’s disorderly conduct statute was constitutional, and that if Craig’s solicitation of an undercover cop in a restroom at Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport was considered “free speech” — as Craig later claimed — it was “intrusive speech directed at a captive audience” and the government can prohibit it.
“Appellant has not shown that the district court abused its discretion in denying his petition to withdraw his guilty plea,” the court found.
Craig, R-Idaho, did not run for re-election last month. He released a statement through his Washington office saying he was “extremely disappointed” with the court’s ruling.
“I disagree with their conclusion and remain steadfast in my belief that nothing criminal or improper occurred at the Minneapolis airport,” he said in the statement. “I maintain my innocence, and currently my attorneys and I are reviewing the decision and looking into the possibility of appealing” to the Minnesota Supreme Court.
He went on to thank “all of those who have continued to support me and my family throughout this difficult time.”
Airport spokesman Patrick Hogan issued a two-sentence statement saying the court’s decision showed Craig’s guilty plea was “just and binding.”
“We are pleased with the decision and hope we can finally put this matter behind us,” he said in the statement. He did not immediately return calls for elaboration or further comment.
Billy Martin, the Washington, D.C., lawyer who represented Craig, also did not immediately return a call for comment. In oral arguments before a three-judge panel of the court of appeals in September, Martin argued that there wasn’t enough evidence in the case to support a guilty plea.
Martin argued that, without adequate evidence of guilt, a guilty plea — even if entered voluntarily, as Craig did — is manifestly unjust and the courts should allow it to be withdrawn.
In a 10-page ruling, Chief JudgeEdward Toussaint Jr. wrote that Craig had not shown that his plea lacked any of the three things the law requires a guilty plea to be — accurate, voluntary and intelligent.
“By pleading guilty, appellant ‘judicially admitted’ the allegations in the complaint,” Toussaint wrote.
The court’s ruling is “unpublished,” meaning it can’t be cited as precedent in other cases. Among other things, the court ruled there are limits to “free speech” and conduct in public restrooms.
“The conduct charged here occurred in a place in which the ordinary citizen might feel most eager to ‘avoid unwanted communication.’ Thus, there is a strong governmental interest in proscribing this type of unsolicited, communicative conduct,” the court said.
Craig’s restroom escapade, which became the butt of jokes of late-night comedians, occurred June 11, 2007, while he was waiting for a connecting flight at Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport. He said he entered the men’s room in the Northstar Crossing at the airport to use the restroom.
Also in the restroom: Airport police Sgt. Dave Karsnia, who was working there undercover as part of an effort to curb alleged homosexual trysts in the restroom’s stalls.
Craig and Karsnia wound up in adjoining stalls after, Karsnia alleged, Craig had “peered” into the restroom stall occupied by the officer for as long as two minutes. In adjacent stalls, their feet touched. Karsnia claimed Craig moved his left hand back and forth under the stall divider three times, with his palm facing upward — a motion the officer said was a clandestine signal used by men soliciting gay sex.
Karsnia responded to the hand motions with one of his own: He displayed his badge. Craig cried out, “No!” but the senator exited the stall and was escorted to the airport police office, Karsnia later wrote.
Craig was charged with a single count of “interference with privacy,” a gross misdemeanor, as well as a misdemeanor charge of disorderly conduct. In proceedings conducted through phone calls and the mail, the state dropped the privacy charge and Craig pleaded guilty to disorderly conduct and paid $575 in fines and surcharges.
When details of the plea became public, Craig responded by saying he wasn’t gay. He claimed that he had pleaded guilty because he was under stress from an Idaho newspaper that had interviewed him and others for a possible article about his sex life.
Because of the stress, he said, he had “overreacted and made a poor decision” by pleading guilty to the charge.
The Idaho Statesman later published statements from five men — four of them named — who claimed to have had homosexual encounters with Craig. The senator denied the men’s claims.
Craig sought to withdraw his guilty plea. He claimed that he didn’t “intelligently” enter the plea because he wasn’t sure what he was signing, and he’s also contended that what he did wasn’t the crime of disorderly conduct as defined by Minnesota law.
Hennepin County District Judge Charles A. Porter Jr. found no legal basis to allow Craig to withdraw his guilty plea. Craig’s attorneys appealed Porter’s ruling to the Minnesota Court of Appeals, and the appeals court affirmed the lower court’s decision.
Craig, a former rancher, has been in politics since 1974 and was first elected to the U.S. Senate in 1990. He won re-election in 1996 and 2002.
Shortly after news about his guilty plea was published, Craig said he would resign. But he later changed his mind, vowing to fight the conviction in Minnesota’s courts.
Craig’s attorneys have 30 days to file a “petition for further review” with the Minnesota Supreme Court. If the state’s highest court agrees to hear the case, the whole process would essentially start over — lawyers would file briefs, the court would schedule oral arguments and then consider the case and issue a ruling.
Craig lost several GOP leadership positions in the wake of the scandal, and the Senate Ethics Committee said in February that Craig had brought discredit on the Senate. The committee members said they believed he was guilty, and that his attempt to withdraw his plea was just an effort to evade the legal consequences of his own actions.
He did not seek re-election in last month’s election for the seat he had held for 18 years. He will be replaced in January by Idaho Lt. Gov. Jim Risch, a Republican.
This report includes information from the Associated Press. David Hanners can be reached at 612-338-6516.
