Tapping Your Foot in a Public Restroom: Disorderly Conduct.... Part Two

We blogged about this last August.

Reading the arrest report, I wonder what did Craig do that was so illegal or lewd: tapping his foot? Running his fingers along the edge of the stall divider?
These may be signals that one is trolling for sex, but did any sex occur? Did any members flash? Not according to the police report.

It seems we were not alone in our thinking. The Washington Post has an editorial on Mr. Craig's Plea: more than gestures should be required to charge someone with a crime. (It is interesting to note that in the article Craig is referred to as "Mr. Craig", not "Senator Craig.)
Speaking about Craig's attempt to overturn his guilty plea, the editorial presents the premise that

Mr. Craig is at fault for not consulting a lawyer and for waiving his right to appear before a judge. Yet it seems clear that he pleaded guilty because his priority was not exoneration but avoiding exposure. What's troubling is that the sting operation may have been counting on just that sort of motivation in order to extract guilty pleas from men who, in fact, had done nothing explicitly lewd or illegal.
Many or even all of those charged, including Mr. Craig, probably were in the bathroom in search of sex. No one is in favor of sex in airport restrooms or any other place where it may cause public offense. But as with any other crime, those targeted and arrested for lewd or disorderly conduct ought first to be caught in a lewd or disorderly act. That wasn't the case with Mr. Craig.