Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Cruising for a Suing [more outfall from SCOTUS sodomy ruling]
Creative Loafing Charlotte ^ | July 9, 2003 | TARA SERVATIUS

Posted on 07/12/2003 6:15:07 AM PDT by gitmo

Charlotte Attorney Ray Warren hopes the Mecklenburg County court system doesn't turn his client into a local crimes against nature poster boy. But he's willing to go there if that's what it takes. Warren spent the weekend putting together a brief he plans to send to District Attorney Peter Gilchrist and State Attorney General Roy Cooper this week. The brief argues that soliciting a crime against nature charges against his client, a gay male, should be dropped because they're unconstitutional. Warren plans to argue that a ruling by the US Supreme Court two weeks ago that struck down a Texas sodomy law aimed at gays makes North Carolina's crimes against nature law invalid. He hopes the brief will encourage prosecutors to drop the charges against his client, whose case is scheduled to be heard on Friday.

"I really don't want to put my client's name on this brief," said Warren, a former state legislator and gay activist.

Warren says his client was jogging in a park when he was approached twice by undercover male police officers who made sexual overtures to him. When the man verbally accepted the second officer's offer, he was arrested and charged with soliciting a crime against nature, Warren claims.

In Mecklenburg County, police have often responded to complaints of cruising -- a practice in which men frequent certain public areas looking for gay sex -- with undercover crackdowns in which they pose as gay men. Because money doesn't usually change hands in cruising situations, prostitution charges don't apply, so police have often made use of the state's crimes against nature law to arrest cruisers or those who accept their overtures.

After the Texas Supreme Court ruling, which addressed a case in which two men were charged with committing sodomy in a private residence, Gilchrist said he would continue prosecuting crimes against nature charges for the time being.

The Texas situation was somewhat different from the ones his office prosecutes in Mecklenburg County, said Gilchrist.

"We don't bust down doors in apartments," said Gilchrist. "We've used that for folks soliciting for prostitution, be it heterosexual or homosexual. We've used it where acts were going on that were visible in public parks. I think we've been selective in how we've applied the law so I would anticipate that we would continue to do what we've been doing."

Gilchrist said he intends to consult with North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper's office on the matter since the attorney general often deals with these cases once they're appealed.

A spokesperson for Cooper's office wouldn't provide a direct answer when asked if continued use of North Carolina's crimes against nature law is unconstitutional.

"Our office consults with district attorneys, but ultimately it is up to them to decide whether to continue to bring charges under the law," said Attorney General's office spokesperson John Bason. "Similarly, it is the responsibility of judges to interpret the Supreme Court's ruling and decide whether the charges can go forward. The attorney general's office handles criminal cases on appeal, after a judge has ruled that the case can go forward and a defendant has been convicted."

Keith Bridges, a spokesperson for the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department, said that for the time being, officers would continue making crimes against nature arrests in public places.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events; US: North Carolina
KEYWORDS: charlotte; cruising; gay; homosexual; homosexualagenda; lawrencevtexas; mecklenburg; righttoprivacy; scotus; sodomy; supremecourt; texassodomycase
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-38 next last
Pandora's box was left open. This is but one fallout of the Texas sodomy decision by SCOTUS.


1 posted on 07/12/2003 6:15:07 AM PDT by gitmo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: All
We Replaced Patrick Leahy's Brains With Folger's Crystals. Let's See If Anyone Notices!

Donate Here By Secure Server

Or mail checks to
FreeRepublic , LLC
PO BOX 9771
FRESNO, CA 93794

or you can use

PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com

STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD-
It is in the breaking news sidebar!

2 posted on 07/12/2003 6:18:18 AM PDT by Support Free Republic (Your support keeps Free Republic going strong!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gitmo
Sounds like entrapment to me.

I don't like it when the State solicits for crime.

3 posted on 07/12/2003 6:22:27 AM PDT by happygrl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #4 Removed by Moderator

To: happygrl
I know they have undercover cops at the local parks. I wonder if they actually initiate the proposals, or if that is lawyer spin.



5 posted on 07/12/2003 6:30:24 AM PDT by gitmo (Some days you're the dog; some days you're the hydrant.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

Comment #6 Removed by Moderator

To: trebor
I can't find this quote in the article. What are you saying by this???
7 posted on 07/12/2003 6:34:46 AM PDT by gitmo (Some days you're the dog; some days you're the hydrant.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: trebor; gitmo
Update on previously posted thread: Texas sodomy ruling applied to soliciting (charges dropped for gay prostitution)
8 posted on 07/12/2003 6:38:10 AM PDT by TaxRelief (Welcome to the #1 discussion board dedicated to the sustenance of a free republic.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

Comment #9 Removed by Moderator

Comment #10 Removed by Moderator

To: happygrl; gitmo
It's very clearly entrapment if the facts are as they're described in this article.

Arresting and prosecuting people cruising in a park for "crimes against nature" will not stand under the Lawrence decision, but there's nothing to stop the legislature from passing a law against 'lewd public solicitation'.

This is what should have been on the books in the first place if this is the kind of behavior they're trying to curb.

11 posted on 07/12/2003 6:46:21 AM PDT by tdadams
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: trebor
Not only is NC crimializing sodomy but the "wanting of sodomy." NC doesnt care if it is in a private home or anything. The police mearly have to "suspect" you want "it."

Can you document that?
12 posted on 07/12/2003 6:56:29 AM PDT by gitmo (Some days you're the dog; some days you're the hydrant.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: trebor
NC has created a "thought crime."

This is utter nonsense, my friend.

(post the statutes that are relevant, if you can find them, LOL)

13 posted on 07/12/2003 7:11:09 AM PDT by TaxRelief (Welcome to the #1 discussion board dedicated to the sustenance of a free republic.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

Comment #14 Removed by Moderator

Comment #15 Removed by Moderator

Comment #16 Removed by Moderator

To: happygrl
Sounds like entrapment to me.

Based on the account of the defense lawyer.


17 posted on 07/12/2003 7:31:14 AM PDT by Sabertooth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: trebor
The new guidelines say police no longer can arrest those they suspect are meeting in public and agreeing to have anal or oral sex in a home or other private place. They say they still will cite those wanting to perform sodomy in a public or unspecified place.

I suspect this is a poorly worded statement. Have you ever heard of NC police arresting somebody for "wanting" something? It is more likely they meant the would cite those soliciting sodomy to be performed in a public place.
18 posted on 07/12/2003 7:33:32 AM PDT by gitmo (Some days you're the dog; some days you're the hydrant.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: gitmo
Actually, this is quite common in Boise. Thre was a "round up" a year ago where about ten men were arrested for "conspiracy" to commit crimes against nature.

Idaho is a no-sodomy-for-anyone-homo-or-hetero state.

At trial, it came out that the undercover cop merely asked them, after some other chat, if they liked b*** j****. If the guy said yes, he got arrested.

Needless to say, all the cases were thrown out but the damage was done - all those arrested had their names and pictures posted in the paper.

19 posted on 07/12/2003 11:54:42 AM PDT by Camber-G
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Camber-G
Idaho is a no-sodomy-for-anyone-homo-or-hetero state.

Is oral sex actionable in your own home?
20 posted on 07/12/2003 12:40:43 PM PDT by gcruse (There is no such thing as society: there are individual men and women[.] --Margaret Thatcher)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-38 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson