Webcam

The attorney for a former Lower Merion student who accused the district of spying on her via a laptop camera - the same accusation that won her brother a big settlement from the district - has asked a judge for permission to leave the case. Mary Elizabeth Bogan stated in her U.S. District Court filing Tuesday "that counsel has irreconcilable conflict with the client. " Last week, Bogan filed a complaint on behalf of Paige Robbins, 19, asserting that, according to a 2010 deposition given by Lindy Matsko, Harriton High School's assistant vice principal, the school district "remotely accessed the webcam feature on the laptop issued to the plaintiff while she was in the bathroom, or in the nude, or partially dressed or sleeping or in her bedroom in a compromised state.

The sister of the student who brought the first webcam lawsuit against the Lower Merion School District two years ago has filed her own federal lawsuit, which administrators have slammed as "an attempted money-grab and a complete waste of tax dollars. " Paige Robbins, 19, of Penn Valley, alleges the district invaded her privacy when it remotely snapped pictures via a laptop in her home while she was undressed. She is the sister of Blake Robbins, 17, who as a sophomore at Harriton High School sued the Lower Merion district for invasion of privacy and agreed to a $175,000 settlement.

A Lower Merion student who alleged that Harriton High School officials used a webcam to spy on him, then made the charges stick in court, has been cited for vehicle-code violations in Lower Merion. Blake J. Robbins, 17, of the 400 block of Hidden River Road, Penn Valley, was cited Nov. 26 by Lower Merion police officer Stephen M. Salera for driving an unregistered vehicle and displaying a license plate on the wrong vehicle. Robbins and his parents, Michael and Holly, could not be reached for comment Thursday.

Prosecutors on Wednesday gave up their legal battle to withhold the identity of the mystery man in the Rutgers University webcam spying case and complied with a judge's order to give the name to the suspect and his lawyer. Former Rutgers student Dharun Ravi, lawyer Steven Altman, and an investigator can know the man's name - but they're not allowed to reveal it to anyone, even in the course of their investigation. Ravi, 19, is accused of using a webcam in September 2010 to spy on roommate Tyler Clementi's intimate encounter with the man, who has been identified publicly only as M.B. The case became a touchstone for a national conversation about bullying faced by young gays after Clementi killed himself days after the webcast.

Tyler Clementi's parents want an official accounting of any criminal behavior in their son's suicide, but they say a harsh penalty for his former Rutgers University roommate isn't necessarily in order. Clementi killed himself in September 2010, days after his roommate allegedly used a webcam to spy on Clementi's intimate encounter with another man. His death touched off a national discussion about bullying endured by young gays. For the roommate, Dharun Ravi, it has meant a criminal case.

Dhuran Ravi showed no surprise. At least I couldn't detect any from my seat in Superior Court in New Brunswick on Friday, as Judge Glenn Berman rejected a motion to dismiss all charges against the Rutgers webcam spying defendant. Flanked by his attorneys, Ravi, 19, looked like a kid despite his somber suit and subdued hair. The toothy grin of his now-famous high school yearbook photo was absent, and no wonder: The allegations that have derailed his life require a cautious approach.

NEW BRUNSWICK, N.J. - A Superior Court judge ruled Friday that there was more than enough evidence to support invasion-of-privacy and bias-intimidation charges against former Rutgers University student Dharun Ravi, who used the webcam on his laptop computer to watch his male roommate having sex with a man. The ruling by Judge Glenn Berman came in response to a defense motion to dismiss all charges in the case. In rejecting the defense argument, Berman emphasized that his ruling was not a reflection on Ravi's guilt or innocence, but rather an analysis of the prosecution's grand jury presentation and the subsequent 15-count indictment handed up in April against the 19-year-old.