Mug shot publishing industry

The mugshot publishing industry is a niche market of tabloid journalism in the United States. The industry consists of companies that publish mugshots and booking details of individuals arrested by law enforcement agencies. These companies publish the arrest information in tabloids, through local and multi-jurisdictional search websites. The related reputation management industry profits when individuals pay a fee to have their mugshot removed from one or more websites;[1] often the same entity owns both the publishing site and the removal service,[2] which has led to allegations of and lawsuits for extortionate practices [3] and arrests of mugshot business owners on charges identity theft, money laundering, and extortion.[4] In 2018 the journal of the American Bar Association called the industry an "online extortion scheme."[5]

Publishing

The owners of mugshot websites have stated their belief that publishing the information can spur tips to Crime Stoppers and deter others from committing crimes for fear of their information being published.[6]

Arrest data and photos are public record, and can be accessed through the websites of law enforcement agencies. However, many agencies in small cities, towns and counties do not provide online data. To reduce the probability of their mugshot going online, at least one Florida attorney suggests that his clients pick a rural sheriff's department when they surrender to authorities.[7]

Removal

Some sites remove information free of charge if a complainant provides proof they were found not guilty or that the charges were dropped. Other sites charge a fee regardless of the disposition of the case.[8] This controversy has led some state legislatures to propose bills to regulate the industry.

Mugshots and the associated information are published regardless of whether or not the person is guilty or has been convicted of the crime they were arrested for. The industry has become controversial because of the lack of case disposition.

It has been argued that it is pointless to pay to have mugshots removed from the Web because "the Internet never forgets." Multiple archival services store the content of most websites on a periodic basis, and that content can be retrieved at any time in the future.[9]{{Self-published inline|certain=yes|date=December 2017}

Discrimination

Mugshot publication sites are often pulled up during routine searches online for things as innocent as employment or housing. Even if you have had your record sealed, expunged or reduced, and even if the mugshot publishing site has removed the offending photos, they can still be located. One company in Utah was recently outed in a leaked internal document for hiring "White Hat Hackers" to dig through internet archives and other sites that would not be readily visible to the typical internet user in order to eliminate otherwise qualified candidates.[10]

Criticism

In 2018 the journal of the American Bar Association called the industry an "online extortion scheme."[5]

Some mugshot publishers refuse to remove records regardless of if the charges were dropped, expunged, or for those who were found not guilty.[11]

In 2013 Forbes reported that "many of these sites have either been set up by the company themselves, or have created financial relationships with the owners of the sites to remove content when paid. Most of the biggest ORM firms are involved in this kind of mafia extortion."[2]

In 2013 David Kravets, writing for Wired referred to it as a racket.[12]

In 2013 the Better Business Bureau launched an investigation and concluded there is a First Amendment right to operate such businesses, but investigators felt they were "using high pressure and unethical business practice to intimidate individuals."[13]

In 2013 the owner of a mugshot removal website directed blame at Police and Sheriff departments where mugshots are posted online after an arrest, and are the source of mugshot website photos. He stated, "Here's the thing, the police can stop this overnight and that's the part no one is talking about. Why are (authorities) posting the mugshot of someone who simply missed traffic court?"[14]

In 2012 Kenneth B. Nunn, law professor at the University of Florida's Fredric G. Levin College of Law, said the mugshot sites look like "a seedy business," but, "There's nothing wrong with posting these further," he said. "It's close to extortion, although not quite because there is not a threat to harm reputation, but to improve it," he said.[15]

In 2012 Gwinnett County Georgia District Attorney said, "It's wrong but not a violation of the criminal laws. Arbitrarily charging for mugshot removal doesn't fit the legal definition of extortion because the photos are public record.[16]

Criticisms of the industry appeared online as early as 2009.[17]

Private attempts to block industry

On October 5, 2013, David Segal, a reporter at the New York Times, published an article critical of the mugshot publishing industry.[18] Prior to publication and seemingly in response to this criticism, Google took steps to lower mugshot sites rankings in their search algorithms so that such pictures no longer appear in the first page of search results when a person is searched by name.[19] According to the New York Times article, payment processors such as Visa, MasterCard, Discover, American Express, and PayPal were in process of terminating processing payments to mugshot websites and related removal sites.[18] Ten days later CNN Money reported, that according to American Express, it had severed all ties; and that other companies were still in the process of cutting ties with the mugshot industry.[20]

Legislation

Several state legislatures have introduced bills to regulate the mugshot publishing industry. These bills often require that operators of mugshot websites remove information about individuals who were arrested but never convicted. This removal would have to occur after a specified period of time and without charging a fee to the person arrested.[21]

Arizona
On April 1, 2019 Arizona Governor Doug Ducey signed Arizona House Bill 2191, which took effect on August 27, 2019. This law created two new statutes, A.R.S. § 44-7901 and § 44-7902 pertaining to "mugshot website operators". The operative portion of the law, A.R.S. § 44-7902(B), provides: "A mugshot website operator may not use criminal justice records or the names, addresses, telephone numbers and other information contained in criminal justice records for the purpose of soliciting business for pecuniary gain, including requiring the payment of a fee or other valuable consideration in exchange for removing or revising criminal justice records that have been published on a website or other publication."[22] The law provides for daily civil penalties starting at $100 per day and increasing to $500 per day after 60 days.[23] However, the law also contains broad exceptions explaining the statute "does not apply to any act performed for the purpose of disseminating news to the public, including the gathering, publishing or broadcasting information to the public for a news-related purpose ... ."[24]
Florida
On June 5, 2017 Florida Governor Rick Scott signed senate Bill 118, which took effect on July 1, 2018, prohibiting a person or entity engaged in publishing or disseminating arrest booking photographs from soliciting or accepting a fee or other payment to remove a photograph. The new law will require any person or entity to remove an arrest booking photograph within specified time frame to be determined after the receipt of the written request. Should the publisher of the photo refuse or neglect to comply, the individual will then be authorized to bring a civil court action before the court to impose a civil penalty and be compensated for attorney fees and court costs of the individual.[25]
California
On August 15, 2015 California Governor Jerry Brown signed Senator Jerry Hill's Senate Bill 1027, which went into effect on January 1, 2015, that prohibits websites from publishing arrest mugshots and then charging to take them down. Specifically, the legislation makes it unlawful to solicit or accept payment to remove, correct or modify mugshots. A civil action may be brought against any website that violates the law. The person or entity who brings suit may seek damages equal to the greater of $1,000 per violation or the actual damages suffered. SB 1027 does not restrict access to arrest records and booking photos by the media and interested individuals.[26]
Colorado
On April 11, 2014 House Bill 14-1407 was signed into law. House Bill 14-1407 requires commercial websites that charges a fee to remove people’s mugshots or other identifying information to remove that information for free if the person was found innocent of the crime for which they were arrested.[27]
Connecticut
On July 15, 2014 The Connecticut State Supreme Court issued a ruling that restricts the amount of information police are required to release about arrests. The court ruled that police are required only to release basic “blotter” information about arrests, including the name and address of the person arrested, the date, time and place of the arrest, the criminal charges and a news release or narrative of the arrest. Under the ruling, mugshots do not have to be disclosed.[28][29]
Georgia
A new law went into effect in Georgia on May 6, 2013, that regulates how mugshot websites handle requests to remove an individual's image.[30] Specifically, the bill requires mugshot websites to remove images of persons who were cleared of their charges and cannot charge a fee for the removal.[31] The removal must be completed within 30 days of request and the website cannot charge a fee for the removal.[32] Georgia enacted another bill, effective July 1, 2014, which prohibits the disclosure of arrest booking photographs except under certain circumstances; to provide for related matters; to repeal conflicting laws; and for other purposes.[33]
Missouri
On July 9, 2014 Gov. Jay Nixon signed legislation making it a misdemeanor to publish police booking photos on websites and then seek money to take the photos down.[34] HB1665 became effective on August 28, 2014.[35]
New Jersey
New Jersey introduced a bill that would prevent the dissemination of mugshots until the suspect has been found guilty. The measure (A3906), approved 9-0 with one abstention by the Assembly Law and Public Safety Committee, would amend the state's open public records act to make confidential the photographs of anyone arrested if they have not yet been convicted.[36]
Oregon
A bill was introduced in Oregon's House in 2013 that would forbid any law enforcement agency from publishing mugshots online. A single individual's mugshot and booking information could still be obtained through written requests submitted in person.[37] The bill has been amended removing those provisions but now requires mugshot sites to remove mugshots within 30 days after receiving paperwork showing that the charges did not result in a conviction.[38]
South Carolina
Lawmakers led by Sen. Paul Thurmond, R-Charleston, on Feb 23, 2016 enacted bill S255 that would require websites take down booking photos if the people aren’t found guilty.[39][40][41]
Texas
During its 2013 legislative session, the Texas State Senate passed two bills regulating the businesses who publish mugshots and accept payment to remove the information.[42] It requires these businesses to publish either an e-mail address, fax number, or a mailing address to allow people to contact the business. Any individual can contact the business disputing the accuracy of the information being published by the business. The business has 45 days to respond, in writing, about the dispute and the results of its investigation into the dispute. The bill also forbids these businesses from publishing the arrest records of anyone who has not been convicted and establishes a fine for those business that do so.[43]
Utah
On April 1, 2013, Utah Governor Gary Herbert signed HB 408 into law.[44] The bill prohibits booking photos from appearing on mugshot websites that require payment to remove the image. It requires that any individual requesting booking photos to sign a sworn statement that the image they received will not be used these kinds of websites. Violations of that sworn statement could result in criminal charges of lying to police.[45]
Virginia
On March 23, 2015 SB 720 was signed into law.[46] SB720 creates a civil action against any person who disseminates, publishes, or maintains or causes to be disseminated, published, or maintained the criminal history record information of an individual pertaining to that individual's charge or arrest for a criminal offense and solicits, requests, or accepts money or other thing of value for removing such information. Such person shall be liable to the individual who is the subject of the information for actual damages or $500, whichever is greater, in addition to reasonable attorney fees and costs.

Litigation

On December 3, 2012, a case was filed in the Lucas County Court Of Common Pleas, in Ohio, against 14 mugshot publishers.[47] On December 27, 2013, a settlement was reached and Judge Zouhary signed an order dismissing the litigation with prejudice after the mugshot websites claimed to not be in violation of any laws. However, the websites did agree to remove the plaintiffs' mugshots and to no longer charge to process mugshot removals.[48]

Lawyers in Ohio filed a lawsuit on behalf of three plaintiffs. The suit contends that more than 250,000 people in Ohio have been harmed by the mugshot web sites.[49] A settlement was reached in the lawsuit on December 27, 2013 and several of the mugshot publishing companies involved agreed to remove the plaintiffs' mugshots as well as pay a settlement.[50]

On January 20, 2016 multiple plaintiffs filed a class action lawsuit against Mugshots.com and Unpublish and its alleged owner Sahar Sarid and operators in Illinois. The case is currently pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The case is styled Gabiola, et al. v. Keesee, et al., no. 1:16-cv-02076.[3][51]

On May 16, 2018 California Attorney General Becerra announced criminal charges of identity theft, money laundering, and extortion against the four individuals believed to be behind the cyber exploitation website mugshots.com.[4] The four men charged have been arrested.[52] Thomas Keesee[53] and Sahar Sarid[53] were charged in an affidavit that characterized the business they own as "permeated with fraud"[54] and described their efforts to conceal their identities: "listing their business address in Nevis, West Indies, registering their domain name in Belize and using a website hosting company in Australia.[55] Kishore Vidya Bhavnanie[53] and David Usdan[53] were also arrested.[56] Several of their mugshots are available online.[53] All four were extradited to California to face charges.[5]

gollark: ↑
gollark: I think you have a bit of a hero worship thing going on.
gollark: Parse THAT!
gollark: Nobody is requiring a response here, but we can totally make them.
gollark: I agree with "andrew" the "discorder".

See also

References
  1. "Published mugshots: A constant reminder of one man's past". CNN.COM. Retrieved 27 September 2015.
  2. Conner, Cheryl. "The Dark Side Of Reputation Management: How It Affects Your Business". Forbes. Retrieved 18 January 2019.
  3. Yerak, Becky. "Lawsuit: Mug shot website posts incomplete records so sister site can solicit 'takedown' fees". Chicago Tribune. Retrieved 14 June 2018.
  4. "Attorney General Becerra Announces Criminal Charges Against Four Individuals Behind Cyber Exploitation Website". California Attorney General. Retrieved 2018-05-18.
  5. Tashea, Jason. "2018's most important legal tech stories". ABA Journal. Retrieved 18 January 2019.
  6. Prince, Jeff (November 9, 2011). "An Ugly Business". Fort Worth Weekly. Retrieved December 30, 2012.
  7. Kravets, David (August 3, 2011). "Mug-Shot Industry Will Dig Up Your Past, Charge You to Bury It Again". Wired. Retrieved April 23, 2013.
  8. Kim, Susanna (April 23, 2012). "Businesses Charge Hundreds To Remove MugShots Online". ABC News. Retrieved December 30, 2012.
  9. Savannah Rain. Shattered Family. Xlibris Corporation. pp. 759–. ISBN 978-1-4797-5860-9. Retrieved 18 April 2013.
  10. "Mug-Shot Industry Will Dig Up Your Past, Charge You to Bury It Again". Wired. Retrieved February 28, 2018.
  11. Tom Meyer, WKYC-TV (16 February 2015). "Investigator - Mugged by mugshots called extortion". WKYC.
  12. Kravets, David (July 2013). "Mugshot-Removal Sites Accused of Extortion". Wired. Retrieved October 10, 2015.
  13. "Lawsuit filed over mugshot websites". WVGazette. January 5, 2013. Retrieved September 25, 2015.
  14. Osunsami, Steve (March 7, 2013). "MugShot Websites: Profiting off People in Booking Photos?". ABC Nightline. Retrieved April 23, 2013.
  15. "Businesses Make Profit By Copying MugShots Online; Critics Say 'Close to Extortion'". ABCNewsBusiness. April 23, 2012. Retrieved April 23, 2012.
  16. "Mugshots Inc: 'Legalized extortion' or Constitutional privilege?". Gwinette Daily Post. July 21, 2012. Retrieved September 25, 2015.
  17. "Get Out Of Google Jail For $50, Web Site Captures MugShots". seroundtable.com. seroundtable.com. Retrieved 25 September 2015.
  18. Segal, David (October 5, 2013). "Mugged by a MugShot Online". New York Times. Retrieved October 5, 2013.
  19. "Payment Providers And Google Will Kill The Mug-Shot Extortion Industry Faster Than Lawmakers Can". Forbes. 7 October 2013.
  20. Pagliery, Jose (16 October 2013). "Mugshot extortion sites still up and running ... for now". CNNMoney.
  21. "MugShots and Booking Photo Websites". National Conference of State Legislatures. Retrieved 30 March 2014.
  22. A.R.S. § 44-7902(B)
  23. A.R.S. § 44-7902(D)
  24. A.R.S. § 44-7902(E)
  25. Harris, David. "New law forces websites to pull mugshots of the acquitted". OrlandoSentinel.com. Retrieved 22 September 2017.
  26. "SB1027". Senate.CA.Gov. August 15, 2014. Retrieved August 13, 2015.
  27. "HB47" (PDF). leg.state.co.us. April 11, 2014. Retrieved August 14, 2015.
  28. "State Supreme Court ruling restricts release of arrest information". TheDay.com. July 7, 2014. Retrieved July 7, 2014.
  29. "COMMISSIONER OF PUBLIC SAFETY v.FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION ET AL. (SC 19047)" (PDF). CT.Gov. July 15, 2014. Retrieved July 15, 2014.
  30. "Mugshot websites". [Georgia] Governor's Office of Consumer Protection. Retrieved May 11, 2013.
  31. Dillon, Denise (May 6, 2013). "New law bans charges to remove online mugshots". My Fox Atlanta. Archived from the original on June 15, 2013. Retrieved May 11, 2013.
  32. Crawley, Paul (March 26, 2013). "Commercial mugshot bill clears Ga. Senate". WXIA-TV, Channel 11. Archived from the original on June 28, 2013. Retrieved April 23, 2013.
  33. http://www.legis.ga.gov/Legislation/en-US/display/20132014/HB/845
  34. "Missouri measure targets arrest mugshot websites". ConnectTriStates.com. July 9, 2014. Retrieved July 9, 2014.
  35. "HB1665". House.Mo.Gov. August 8, 2014. Retrieved August 8, 2014.
  36. Baxter, Christopher (April 4, 2013). "Mugshot got you down? Bill would ban public release in N.J. before conviction". NJ.com. Retrieved November 18, 2013.
  37. Craig, Paul (April 3, 2013). "Lawmakers propose taking mugshots offline". KPTV-KPDX TV. Retrieved April 22, 2013.
  38. Gaston, Christian (April 18, 2013). "Oregon bill targeting mugshot websites changes focus, heads to a vote". The Oregonian. Retrieved April 22, 2013.
  39. "S.255". SCStateHouse.Gov. January 13, 2015. Retrieved August 13, 2015.
  40. .S*0255(Rat #0134, Act #0132 of 2016) General Bill, By Thurmond, S*0255 (Rat #0134, Act #0132 of 2016) General Bill, By Thurmond Senate Bill S*255. ".Session 121 - (2015-2016) - S*255". scstatehouse.gov. South Carolina Legislature. Retrieved 2016-07-28.CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  41. By Thurmond Similar (H 3700) (Feb 23, 2016). "S*0255 (Rat #0134, Act #0132 of 2016) General Bill". South Carolina Legislature.
  42. Herman, Ken (April 28, 2013). "Herman: The humble mugshot and why we can't look away". Austin-American Statesman. Retrieved April 28, 2013.
  43. "83(R) SB 1289 - Introduced Version - Bill Text". Texas Legislature Online. Retrieved April 22, 2013.
  44. "H.B. 408 Bill Status". Utah Government. Retrieved May 11, 2013.
  45. Meyers, Donald (April 11, 2013). "Salt Lake County declares jailhouse booking photos copyrighted material". The Salt Lake Tribune. Retrieved May 11, 2013.
  46. "SB 720 Arrest photos on internet; penalty". Virginia Legislative Information System. Retrieved August 13, 2015.
  47. "Lashaway et al v. JustMugshots". Lucas County Court Of Common Pleas. Retrieved January 8, 2014.
  48. "Web site opts to settle, pay over use of mugshots". ToledoBlade.com. Retrieved January 8, 2014.
  49. John Caniglia, Cleveland.com (October 10, 2013). "Lawsuit over mug-shot web sites captures a public records dilemma". WKYC.
  50. John Caniglia, Cleveland.com (January 7, 2014). "Ohio lawsuit over online mugshots reaches settlement; suit was one of several filed in federal court". WKYC.
  51. "Fight Mugshot Extortion" (PDF). Fight Mugshot Extortion. Retrieved 2018-03-28.
  52. "Mugshots.com owners arrested in South Florida on California extortion and money laundering charges". WPTV.com. Retrieved 2018-05-18.
  53. "Israeli Arrested in Florida for Role in Exploitative Online Mugshot Removal Scheme 'This pay-for-removal scheme attempts to profit off of someone else's humiliation,' a press release by California's attorney general said". Haaretz. Retrieved 18 January 2019.
  54. Nayar, Anjali. "When Your Arrest Photo Appears on a Mugshot Website Lawmakers are cracking down on sites like Mugshots.com and UnpublishArrest.com. At such a mushrooming online nexus of extortion and blackmail, will the legislation make any difference?". Vice. Retrieved 18 January 2019.
  55. Schmidt, Samantha. "This site will remove your mug shot — for a price, authorities say. Its owners are charged with extortion". Washington Post. Retrieved 18 January 2019.
  56. Hardee, Howard. "Branded by a mugshot in the digital age". News Review. Retrieved 18 January 2019.
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.