Ravi Trial Verdict for Invading the Privacy of Clementi
posted by Daniel Solove
Dharun Ravi was found guilty of invasion of privacy when he used a webcam to watch and broadcast online Clementi’s intimate activities with another man in their shared dorm room. From CNN:
A former Rutgers University student accused of spying on and intimidating his gay roommate by use of a hidden webcam was found guilty on all counts, including invasion of privacy and the more severe charges of bias intimidation, in a case that thrust cyberbullying into the national spotlight.
Dharun Ravi, 20, could now face up to 10 years in jail and deportation to his native India. He was also found guilty of witness tampering, hindering apprehension and tampering of physical evidence.
The jury was confronted with a series of questions on each charge. Though it found Ravi not guilty on several questions within the verdict sheet, because he was found guilty on at least one question on each main count, he could now face the maximum penalty.
From ABC News:
A New Jersey jury today found former Rutgers student Dharun Ravi guilty on all counts for using a webcam to spy on his roommate, Tyler Clementi, having a gay sexual encounter in 2010.
Ravi, 20, was convicted of invasion of privacy, bias intimidation, witness tampering and hindering arrest, stemming from his role in activating the webcam to peek at Clementi’s date with a man in the dorm room on Sept. 19, 2010. Ravi was also convicted of encouraging others to spy during a second date, on Sept. 21, 2010, and intimidating Clementi for being gay.
Ravi was found not guilty of some subparts of the 15 counts of bias intimidation, attempted invasion of privacy, and attempted bias intimidation, but needed only to be found guilty of one part of each count to be convicted.
I blogged about this case here and here and here.
Here is New Jersey’s invasion of privacy statute:
2C:14-9. Invasion of Privacy, Degree of Crime, Defenses, Privileges.
1. a. An actor commits a crime of the fourth degree if, knowing that he is not licensed or privileged to do so, and under circumstances in which a reasonable person would know that another may expose intimate parts or may engage in sexual penetration or sexual contact, he observes another person without that person’s consent and under circumstances in which a reasonable person would not expect to be observed.
b. An actor commits a crime of the third degree if, knowing that he is not licensed or privileged to do so, he photographs, films, videotapes, records, or otherwise reproduces in any manner, the image of another person whose intimate parts are exposed or who is engaged in an act of sexual penetration or sexual contact, without that person’s consent and under circumstances in which a reasonable person would not expect to be observed.
c. An actor commits a crime of the third degree if, knowing that he is not licensed or privileged to do so, he discloses any photograph, film, videotape, recording or any other reproduction of the image of another person whose intimate parts are exposed or who is engaged in an act of sexual penetration or sexual contact, unless that person has consented to such disclosure. For purposes of this subsection, “disclose” means sell, manufacture, give, provide, lend, trade, mail, deliver, transfer, publish, distribute, circulate, disseminate, present, exhibit, advertise or offer. Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection b. of N.J.S.2C:43-3, a fine not to exceed $30,000 may be imposed for a violation of this subsection.
March 16, 2012 at 2:31 pm
Posted in: Privacy, Privacy (Electronic Surveillance), Privacy (Gossip & Shaming)
Print This Post
Responses (3)
Divorcelawyer - March 16, 2012 at 9:57 pm
Doesn’t the concept of a shared room indicate that both persons should consent to activities conducted therein?
Free Legal - March 17, 2012 at 9:28 pm
I am not surprised by the decision from this jury. The concept of a “hate crime” has become very political in our society. Neverthless, I speculate that the defendant may not have had the actual “mens rea” and did not intend the consequences of his acts.
Andrea Saren - March 25, 2012 at 5:48 pm
Hate crime/bias intimidation. Hmmm. Would a gay person EVER be charged? How about a black person? Has a gay or black person ever been charged with a hate/bias crime?
Are they automatically, always and only victims?
Invasion of privacy laws were never intended to carry any prison term at all; all have been pre-trial interventioned with fines/community service here in NJ. But here we’ve got the possibility of 10 years in prison because of the bias intimidation add-on that perhaps would never be charged against gays or blacks no matter what.
Having followed the trial, I have a big problem with “bias intimidation” because it is a tool to allow the prosecutor to do character assassination on the defendant. When else would it ever be allowed that the prosecutor gets to tell the jury about the jokes you laughed at???
Leave a Reply