Planet Princeton
Find the perfect costume at an unbelievable price. Findcostume.com

Princeton Police Department Closes Tiger Inn Investigation

The Tiger Inn is the third oldest eating club on the Princeton University campus.
The Tiger Inn is the third oldest eating club on the Princeton University campus.

The Princeton Police Department issued a press release today announcing that the department has closed its investigation into the photographing and dissemination of a sexual act at the Tiger Inn, a private eating club at Princeton University.

The police department had been investigating whether there was an invasion of privacy.

“All the involved parties were identified, including the alleged victim, and interviewed,” a police department spokesman said. “Based on the totality of the investigation, no crimes were committed in this case.”

“The police department found no evidence to support criminal wrongdoing and we have closed the investigation with no criminal charges,” the police department spokesman said. “The Mercer County Prosecutor’s Office was consulted in this matter.”

In October, an intoxicated first-year female student at Princeton University began performing oral sex on a senior on the dance floor at the private eating club, and a lacrosse player snapped a photo of the act.

Police said the photograph did not depict any intimate body parts engaged in the sex act.

Club treasurer Adam Krop sent an email to all the undergraduate club members via the club listserv that included the photo and the text “Ivy blows… and so does this Asian chick.”

The couple depicted in the photo are dating each other.

Under New Jersey law, the distribution of a photo of a sex act without the person’s consent is a criminal offense. A person commits a crime in the third degree if the person 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.

It is also a third degree crime to disclose 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, regardless of whether the image was made legally. A victim would have to press charges.

The club’s rules prohibit sex acts in public places at the club.

Princeton University has not concluded its own investigation into the incident. The private eating club is under the jurisdiction of the Princeton Police, but the email was sent using a university email address.

According to the 2014 edition of the University’s  Rights, Rules, Responsibilities Handbook for students, “”All actions by a member of the Princeton University community that involve the use of the University’s computing and network resources from a remote location, including but not limited to accessing e-mail accounts, will be deemed to have occurred on campus.”

In the handbook, sexual exploitation is defined as “any act whereby one person violates the sexual privacy of another or takes unjust or abusive sexual advantage of another who has not provided consent, and that does not constitute non-consensual sexual penetration or non-consensual sexual contact. Examples may include: recording, photographing, transmitting, viewing or distributing intimate or sexual images or sexual information without the knowledge and consent of all parties involved; voyeurism (i.e., spying on others who are in intimate or sexual situations).”

More than 100 Tiger alumni signed a letter that was published in the Princeton University student newspaper, The Daily Princetonian, today condemning recent behavior by club members, including the email. The letter was also posted on Medium.

“While the Graduate Board appears to be taking these matters very seriously, and we appreciate the strong language that was used in the recent email to members, as reported by The Daily Princetonian, we are concerned that the actions taken so far  —  namely, the dismissal of club officers from their posts  —  are insufficient to alter the club’s culture and seem like half-measures at best,” reads the letter.

“Should TI be permitted to remain open for the time being? If it should, under what conditions?,” The alumni ask. “In light of the incidents this year —  and in light of the fact that one set of officers was forced out, only to be replaced by another set of officers who exhibited even worse judgment —  we believe that the prevailing culture of the club does not appear to live up to the standards of either the club or the University. Rather than hoping to address this through the least amount of punishment, the Graduate Board would do better to start from the other direction and consider whether the club should continue operating at the present time and, if so, what conditions the club and its members should be required to meet.”

The alumni who signed the letter say they are reluctant to associate themselves with the club at this time, and they hope the Graduate Board makes a strong statement to the club’s past, current and future members about Tiger Inn’s values.

“Tiger Inn has an opportunity to demonstrate meaningful and potentially far-reaching leadership by addressing these recent issues in a manner that is direct, uncompromising and transparent to its alumni, the Princeton University community and the community beyond,” the letter reads. “The privilege and advantages that are bestowed upon students attending Princeton University cannot be overstated, and this fact needs to be acknowledged. If members of the Tiger Inn and its Graduate Board take swift and strong action to demonstrate that any kind of bias, harassment, exploitation or assault will not be tolerated, perhaps the current club culture can be reshaped into something worthy of the unique privilege that Princeton University students enjoy. Such actions will not erase the shameful events that have occurred recently at Tiger Inn, but anything less is not worthy of the Tiger Inn or of Princeton University.”

Krystal Knapp

Krystal Knapp is the founding editor of Planet Princeton. She can be reached via email at editor AT planetprinceton.com. Send all letters to the editor and press releases to that email address.

  • SFB

    If you have seen the photo, then that is good enough for me! DP readers say the photo is not clear, which is why, presumably, the police concluded that ‘no crimes were committed in this case’. Thanks for the extra info!

  • krystalknapp

    We have seen the photo, we have seen the emails. We have talked to people at the club. Also, no one who has commented on DP site says it didn’t happen. They say it was a consensual act. The couple in the photo are now an item. Neither wants to press charges.

  • SFB

    The absence of a denial is in no way evidence that something happened. Has anyone actually said that they saw it happen? A lot of people below the line on the DP are saying that the photo is indistinct and it is not at all clear that it shows what is ‘alleged’. Have you definitely seen the photo?

  • krystalknapp

    I have spoken to people at the club. It is not an act of simulation and no one has denied it happened.

  • SFB

    Have you spoken to anybody who actually saw it happen? Are you sure that the photo doesn’t show an act of simulation?

  • Fsclcnsrvtv

    Missed that. My apologies. Made the correction.

  • krystalknapp

    No one has denied that sexual contact took place. That is not disputed at all. But the photo does not show the body part.

  • SFB

    @JustSaying- I’m going to suggest that no ‘act of sexual contact’ ever took place, and a lot of people have been suckered here. Really, it’s a very silly conversation, all this ruminating about what the law says, because the police have deemed that no crime took place.

  • krystalknapp

    Our story does say the photo did not show any intimate body parts that were engaged in the act.

  • JustSaying

    The law talks about “acts with sexual contact”, whereas the Sgt. says “photograph did not depict any intimate body parts engaged in a sex act.” Those statements are not the same.

  • Fsclcnsrvtv

    Uhhhh, yeah…the police said exactly that. Read it again:

    “but Sgt. Steven Riccitello said the photograph did not depict any intimate body parts engaged in a sex act that would make the complaint rise to a criminal level.”

  • JustSaying

    Again, the Sgt.’s statement doesn’t show that the second part of the law doesn’t apply. If there was no act with sexual contact, that would show that the law doesn’t apply. But the police didn’t say that. The fact that the Tiger Inn VP initially indicated that it was a sexual act in his email is why this whole thing started.

  • JustSaying

    I’m not sure your point. The Sargeant’s statement doesn’t contradict that the law quoted above. It’s police discretion as to whether press charges, but the law does cover the incident as reported.

  • Fsclcnsrvtv

    I think you are missing some context, as Planet Pribceton did not post the entirety of the story. The second part of the law does not apply due to the following:

    Police obtained the photo and a victim had come forward, but Sgt. Steven Riccitello said the photograph did not depict any intimate body parts engaged in a sex act that would make the complaint rise to a criminal level. The Mercer County Prosecutor’s Office had been consulted during the investigation.

  • Fsclcnsrvtv

    Police obtained the photo and a victim had come forward, but Sgt. Steven Riccitello said the photograph did not depict any intimate body parts engaged in a sex act that would make the complaint rise to a criminal level. The Mercer County Prosecutor’s Office had been consulted during the investigation.

  • Fsclcnsrvtv

    “Police obtained the photo and a victim had come forward, but Sgt. Steven Riccitello said the photograph did not depict any intimate body parts engaged in a sex act that would make the complaint rise to a criminal level. The Mercer County Prosecutor’s Office had been consulted during the investigation.”

  • JustSaying

    There are two parts of the law. One didn’t apply. The other did. As you wrote, see above.

  • JustSaying

    This is why there are lawyers. Planet Princeton reported the following, which clearly applies:

    “It is also a third degree crime to disclose 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, regardless of whether the image was made legally.”

    So unless the victim consented to the disclosure, which no one has claimed, there was a third degree crime.

  • Fsclcnsrvtv

    That’s false. See my response above. Thanks.

  • Fsclcnsrvtv

    I’m sorry, but you are mistaken. The law (as reported by Planet Princeton) explicitly states that the photo would have to have been taken under “circumstances in which a reasonable person would not expect to be observed.” The student had no expectation of privacy on the dance floor, at the Inn, and therefore; no law was broken.

  • Just Saying

    Again, the law is pretty clear and given that the VP of Tiger Inn emailed the photo, and his language indicated that the photo was of a sexual act, the letter of the law was met. That doesn’t mean that there had to be charges filed. But it’s a lot more than hearsay. I’m glad that PlanetPrinceton’s story caused both police departments to investigate.

  • JustSaying

    The law doesn’t say there needed to be an expectation of privacy. It’s pretty clear that that the letter of the law was met here by the emailing of the photo (so it was expected that the police should investigate). Police do have discretion however, and they used it here.

  • Fsclcnsrvtv

    She was doing it on the Dan e floor, in front of dozens of people. There was no expectation of privacy.

  • SFB

    None of us have seen the photograph, so we’re all speculating about what it shows. If we don’t know what’s in the photo, how can we judge whether a crime was committed? There was never any real evidence of a crime with this story, just hearsay.

  • Pat Palmer

    I don’t understand why the sending of the photo was not a crime.

Events Calendar

« October 2017 » loading...
M T W T F S S
25
26
27
28
29
30
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
1
2
3
4
5
Mon 23

Roxey Ballet Presents Dracula

October 20 - October 29
Mon 23
Tue 24
Tue 24
Wed 25

Take Control of Your Health Workshop

October 25 @ 10:00 am - 12:30 pm
Wed 25

Cancer: Thriving and Surviving

October 25 @ 1:00 pm - 3:30 pm
Wed 25

Kids Collage Making Session at Morven

October 25 @ 3:30 pm - 5:00 pm

Instagram

  • Small World Coffee accepting donations for hurricane victims until Sat. noon.

Follow Us

           Buying a domain is easy

Events Calendar

« October 2017 » loading...
M T W T F S S
25
26
27
28
29
30
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
1
2
3
4
5
%d bloggers like this: