Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Larry Craig's violations--Interference with PRIVACY is on the books in MN

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-28-07 07:51 PM
Original message
Larry Craig's violations--Interference with PRIVACY is on the books in MN
http://ros.leg.mn/bin/getpub.php?type=s&num=609.746&year=2006

http://ros.leg.mn/bin/getpub.php?type=s&num=609.72&year=2006

    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.
    (d) A person is guilty of a gross misdemeanor who:
    (1) surreptitiously installs or uses any device for observing, photographing, recording,
    amplifying, or broadcasting sounds or events through 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.
    (e) A person is guilty of a felony and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than
    two years or to payment of a fine of not more than $5,000, or both, if the person:
    (1) violates this subdivision after a previous conviction under this subdivision or section
    609.749; or
    (2) violates this subdivision against a minor under the age of 18, knowing or having reason
    to know that the minor is present.
    (f) Paragraphs (b) and (d) do not apply to law enforcement officers or corrections
    investigators, or to those acting under their direction, while engaged in the performance of their
    lawful duties. Paragraphs (c) and (d) do not apply to conduct in: (1) a medical facility; or (2) a
    commercial establishment if the owner of the establishment has posted conspicuous signs warning
    that the premises are under surveillance by the owner or the owner's employees.
    Subd. 2.
    Subd. 3.
    History: 1979 c 258 s 19; 1987 c 307 s 4; 1989 c 261 s 6; 1992 c 571 art 6 s 14; 1994 c 636
    art 2 s 47; 1995 c 226 art 2 s 22; 1997 c 239 art 5 s 11; 2005 c 136 art 17 s 43

    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.
    Subd. 3. Caregiver; penalty for disorderly conduct. A caregiver, as defined in section
    609.232, who violates the provisions of subdivision 1 against a vulnerable adult, as defined in
    section 609.232, may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than one year or to payment of a
    fine of not more than $3,000, or both.
    History: 1963 c 753 art 1 s 609.72; 1967 c 242 s 1; 1971 c 23 s 71; 1988 c 689 art 2 s 236;
    1991 c 279 s 34; 1994 c 636 art 2 s 46; 1995 c 229 art 2 s 7



Thanks to Slate for the links: http://www.slate.com/id/2172982/entry/0/
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
liberalmuse Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-28-07 07:57 PM
Response to Original message
1. Now that totally makes sense. n/p
n/p
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
polichick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-28-07 08:00 PM
Response to Original message
2. A guest on CNN explained that...
The Senator supposedly peered into the adjoining stall because making eye contact is part of signaling.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
msongs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-28-07 08:01 PM
Response to Original message
3. so I carry an impeach bush sign, angering a bushnut = disorderly conduct? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-28-07 08:04 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. No, because the bushnut doesn't meet the definition of "reasonable." NT
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LiberalFighter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-28-07 09:56 PM
Response to Original message
5. Gross misdemeanors? They should have Gross felony too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Apr 18th 2024, 07:52 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC