Strange Point in Cops Story in Craig Bathroom Saga

Senator Craig from Idaho was accused and pled guilty to a misdemeanor in a sting trying to catch gay men having anonymous sex in an airport restroom. There seems to be quite a lot of this activity going on at airports, so the cops were staking out the joint. The cop claims Craig was peeking through the crack, giving sex proposition signals such as toe taps and running his hand under the stall. He finds that he was playing "footsie" with a cop. This was months ago and is just now coming out. Now Craig claims he did not do what he pleaded guilty to.

I tend to think that the Senator from Idaho did what he is accused of. I'm not going to get into the gay aspect of the actions, though I am beginning to think the GOP has more gays represented in office than the Dems. Any anonymous sex especially in a public place is risky and disgusting. Apparently Craig has taken a strong moral stance in his office, so he will deserve the public derision coming to him.

There is one element to the cops story that has leaped out at me each time I have read the story or heard it on the air. According to the Star Tribune the co claims:

According to police reports, Craig kept watching the undercover police officer through a crack in the bathroom stall, Roll Call reported. Craig then entered the next-door stall and placed his luggage against the opening under the stall door.

"My experience has shown that individuals engaging in lewd conduct use their bags to block the view from the front of their stall," said the officer, Sgt. Dave Karsnia.

So what is leaping out at me? The cop says he goes in the stall, puts his bag in front of the gap under the door to block any view of lewd behavior, then begins to proposition a man in the next stall. If it was not a cop and the man responded to the signals, I assume he would need to open the stall door to let the guy in. It doesn't jibe making the point that he put the bag there to block a view when he would need to move it to engage in actions that required a blocked view. The rest of the story seems quite credible. This part leaves me scratching my head.