A bit broader than only mugshots, but that easy access on the alleged criminal past of everyone is something I absolutely despise in the US.
How can anyone get a real second chance if everyone looks down at them on their previous mistakes?
The worst one for me is the Megan's law map that anyone can go check out online. Most of the time those people already paid their dues to society after spending multiple years in prison, they should also have the right to start a second life without constant shaming from their neighbors.
This is the consequence of a society that is extremely bad at rehabilitating ex-offenders and that sees them as rotten people that need to be forever segregated.
It also varies a lot by state. Florida, for example, has enacted a series of laws over the last 30 years under the umbrella of "sunshine laws" [0] — letting the "sun shine" on government to keep it honest.
The unintended side effect is that all arrests are public the day of arrest even if charges are never filed or are dropped.
This was the birth of the "Florida Man" meme in the press.
I would much rather rehabilitate, but since that's not happening and there are high recitivism rates, I do want to know who lives near me or where I might want to live.
In the instances where you damage your community through a crime, it's OK to lose some right to privacy. I could see the case for getting removed if you do successfully rehabilitate though.
It is a chicken and egg problem. By shaming the person, they will be unable to ever find a job again, date anyone again, live normally again.
You push those people to the fringe and the most probable outcome is for those people to fall into criminal activities again.
As an anecdote, in my previous job I met a programmer at a Meetup and the guy had exactly the required skills. HR refused to even initiate an interview because he apparently had a "small criminal case" 15 years before that was found with one of those deep background check tools.
convicted bank robber here, it is difficult sometimes. California is making good progress though, as long as you don't want a government job or a job that requires a state license.
High recitivism might be related to the inability to get a real job once convicted. In the old days, only big corps had access to background checks. Now every tiny business has access for less than $20, online, instantly.
So you make a mistake, go to prison, then get out. With zero job prospects. Who is surprised that you reoffend? The options are homelessness, leeching off family, or reoffending.
Where, not long ago, you could get a decent job at a small or medium company that just didn't do background checks.
Speaking from real, if anecdotal, experience, with some family members and friends. One felony (even a non-violent one) is now a lifelong anchor.
There are still a few loopholes, like being a hairdresser, since those are typically contract positions where you "rent a booth" and are a small biz owner, but even the loopholes are disappearing. I have several friends and family members, good people, that ruined their life with one stupid weed/meth/whatever possesion charge.
If you can't tell this is a passion point for me. We're slowing going dystopian where one mistake kills your lifelong opportunity.
Europe seems so far ahead of us in the US on rehabilitation versus punishment. Crazy Puritan bullshit if you ask me.
There seems like some opportunity for someone to build a low cost small biz ownership option (window washing, hairdressing, maid service, janitorial services, pool cleaning, pet grooming, etc) option for these types of felons. I wish I had the time and fortitude. Maybe someone else does?
I am also very attached to this, even though I don't have a direct family member or friend being a felon in the US.
From an ethical and social perspective, how terrible is society if doing one (sometimes small) mistake which we could realistically all make at some point in our life pushes us to constantly fail everything in life going forward? Think about the stupid shit you did at 19 year old that could follow you your whole life?
I understand that some positions require background checks, but it shouldn't be like it is today where no businesses will even take the risk to hire anyone with the slightest dent in their criminal past.
So, MugShots.com posts mug shots, which are a matter of public record, but will remove them for a small fee. That's extortion.
But, the government posts judicial proceedings, which are a matter of public record, but for minor crimes will expunge the record for a small fee. That's a perfectly legal government function.
These two situations seem a bit too close for such disparate legal outcomes.
> These two situations seem a bit too close for such disparate legal outcomes.
Well, other than the fact that pretty much everything else the government does relating to criminal law enforcement and the penal system is also very illegal for private parties, your description oversimplifies the expungement process to make it more similar to what MugShots.com does outside of the “by the government” part.
There's a significant difference between a fee being a necessary condition and a fee being sufficient. A court system where paying a fee is truly sufficient is a corrupt one, just like the website.
Equating them only works if courts are all corrupt. While corruption is obviously a possibility in court systems, we expect the decision to expunge to be based on justice concerns, even if we do also require a fee for the process.
The key word is the one you already said - "legal."
We "trust" the government and justice system, and that's why they are allowed (empowered) to charge us as needed. Sideline - we consider many of these charges to be "non-profit," i.e. the fee you pay the court isn't calculated to generate profit for somebody, it's calculated to reduce costs so that the process can be possible at all. Also, generally there are assistance programs for this sort of thing.
Fuck the system fuck the man, eventually I'm convinced we'll all go Walkaway, but right now government seems to be the only safe way to navigate the next couple decades.
Those situations are not at all close. It's pretty simple: MugShots has inserted itself into the legal system, making what is already public still public is fine, levying a fee to remove the data is not because they have not been sanctioned to do so. If they were part of the government it would be a different matter but they have no business determining what the fee should be. That being the case the only reasonable fee they could arrive at is $0.
Keep in mind that in America lots of people are arrested at least once during their lifetime and that even if the charges are dropped or not substantiated that your mugshot remains.
This should not be a source of further cost to the subjects of the mugshots. After all, what would stop a few thousand of these sites from doing the same? The only party that should be allowed to levy a fee is the same party that maintains the original register.
Finally, I don't think there should even be such a thing as a public mugshot database.
If I issue a warrant against someone, and then kick down their door and point a gun at them and handcuff them, that too would not be allowed, even though the government can do it.
In the age of "Google everyone you meet" Mugshots.com and similar sites have pretty effective SEO that immediately taint (or at least question) a Google search for anyone who's ever been arrested and either isn't willing or able to pay their "removal" (read: extortion) fee. Complete with mugshot, obviously, which has the extra impact of providing visual confirmation of the identity. Bonus points in that a mugshot is rarely flattering and often documents someone at their absolute worst.
While various governmental agencies provide access to much of the same information to the public they are very scattered. For example, in the state of Wisconsin you'd have to know that it's called "Wisconsin Circuit Court Access", navigate to the page, click "I Agree", and then search. For one state. No SEO and in fact hidden behind a page that requires agreement to terms. Repeat x50 for each individual state (or those that even offer such a service), PACER for federal courts, etc. Some counties and municipalities offer their own versions as well.
Very different from the first page of results in a Google search.
The solution to being Googled by everyone you meet is obviously to have a name that's common as mud, or alternatively to share the same name as someone famous.
Or to pull the Lorenzo von Matterhorn, wherein you litter the web with SEO optimized pages describing your exploits and showing how good of a person you are and so on.
We don't want secret court proceedings. People who have just been arrested have not been formally indicted for any crime. Nothing makes it to PACER until it has been through the oversight of a grand jury.
If you prefer, look at the classic traffic ticket example: In court, prior to talking to the judge, you can have a conversation with the prosecutor to change your moving violation to a non-moving violation that is a little bit more expensive. Then the insurance company doesn't get to raise your rates for the next X years.
It's ultimately the very same thing, and you will find examples of it in an overwhelming majority of US traffic courts.
Hire a paralegal. $500 and they show up for you. Usually they are ex-cops who have good relationships with the judiciary and will do a better job of presenting your case.
Sometimes they will ask you to show up to the court house with them (if it's a tough case), but they hold your hand through the whole thing and heavily coach you on every interaction in the court room. Things like "don't look towards the officer who gave you a ticket" and "only respond with yes, no, or I don't know when questioned".
Yes, I unfortunately have some experience with this...
Depends on where you are I suppose. Where I got a ticket once (Upstate NY) and it was an official policy.
If you have not had more than X tickets in Y years and choose to contest it, they would knock down minor moving violations to no-points non-moving violations, and they will knock down moderately serious (ex: tailgating, 20mph over the limit on the highway) ones to minor. You didn't need a lawyer and you didn't need any justification/evidence if you wanted to take that deal.
I live in Massachusetts and after the experience I did some reading. It seems that magistrates have a job for life with little scrutiny and frequently dole out favors to people they know. So in this respect a lawyer might have been a wiser decision.
IANAL but as I understand it, the circumstances under which a 'private citizen' is permitted to arrest people are more restrictive than the circumstances under which a police officer is allowed to arrest people. Namely that a 'private citizen' is only allowed to arrest people for crimes that are committed in the presence of the person performing the arrest, whereas police are allowed to arrest people for crimes that were not committed in their presence.
(Police officers are (almost?) always citizens, despite that term sometimes being used in a way that excludes police)
In most states, citizens arrest is allowed, but in much more limited circumstances, much stricter limits on use of force to effect an arrest, and with much more civil and criminal liability risk then arrest by police.
A fairly typical rule is that citizens arrest is only for felonies that occur either in your presence or with a certain degree of justified belief but also that the arrested person must be factually guilty of the felony. (Some states also allow it for some misdemeanors, but are even more restrictive there.)
California Penal Code Section 835a provides specific authorization for force and protections from liability for circumstances which exceed the normal bounds of self-defense in peace officer arrests, and Section 834a creates a legal duty of the person being arrested by a peace officer not to resist.
There is a similar but not identical protection to 835a for non-peace officer public employee arrests in Section 836.5(a)
Neither protection applied to peace officer arrests has a parallel protection for citizens arrests.
The statute does not provide for differences in force between these two; it requires that peace officers use only "reasonable" force.
Are you suggesting that the absence of similar language in 837 (I assume this is what you meant, not 836.5) means that other people can't use reasonable force?
> The statute does not provide for differences in force between these two;
It authorized for one what it does not authorize for the other. That's how a law provided for a difference.
> it requires that peace officers use only "reasonable" force.
It authorizes police officers to “use reasonable force to effect the arrest, to prevent escape or to overcome resistance.” There is no “only” there, the reason you can add “only” and not be wrong is that use of force is otherwise prohibited by law.
It also specifically states that, for peace officers, certain actions in the course of arrest will not be held to make the aggressors or outside the bounds of self-defense, overriding general principles of criminal law regarding assault and homicide.
> Are you suggesting that the absence of similar language in 837 (I assume this is what you meant, not 836.5) means that other people can't use reasonable force?
First, the reference to 836.5(a) was to the presence (not absence) of similar language for arrest by public employees who are not peace officers.
Second, the absence of similar language means that citizens arrest does not benefit from the additional authorizations granted police or public employee arrests.
It does benefit from a narrower grant of reasonable restraint that applies to all arrests in Section 835: “The person arrested may be subjected to such restraint as is reasonable for his arrest and detention.”
I think you've got it a bit wrong. It looks to me like this statute is simply limiting the liability of a peace officer who does in fact follow the law (ie, by using reasonable force).
It does not authorize any additional use of force - "reasonable force" is exactly the same standard for all arrests in California, whether effected by sworn officers or not, eg:
> When assaulted Edwards was justified in using such force as was reasonable for defendant's arrest and detention and to enlist his brother's assistance to aid him in making the arrest.
§§ 835, 839; People v. Lathrop, 49 Cal. App. 63, 67 [192 P. 722]
In California, as with most common-law places, you can delegate the arresting action to a peace officer (ie, you can say, I want to arrest Joe; he stole my car). If you go and tell a peace officer that, but you were lying, that peace officer isn't subject to civil liability.
Here's a publication on this topic from Alameda County (and note that it also confirms that a citizen, whether peace officer or not, may use reasonable force to effect an arrest):
In the US, you can make a citizen's arrest if you are in the presence of a crime being committed (or if a felony was committed not in the citizen's presence), but you can't use too much force (varies by state). Also, if you're wrong, you can face charges. For example, if you lock someone in a room to arrest them while the police are coming, and the person wasn't doing anything wrong, you could face wrongful imprisonment charges.
There is a controversy right now in California that the bar for police to use deadly force is too low - currently the police officer needs to claim fear in a situation to justify use of deadly force.
http://www.sacbee.com/latest-news/article207741689.html
There was a Supreme Court case recently that gives law enforcement a pretty wide latitude to justify deadly force - the police officer in this case disobeyed a superior's order and also was not trained in the situation for which he decided to shoot.
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-supreme-court-police-sho...
Again: that has nothing to do with effecting arrest. I realize that sworn officers have legal protections regarding their actions to protect others, including the use of deadly force.
Can you show me where they have wider latitude to use force to effect an arrest?
That's not the discussion here. GP claimed that the law varied state by state. I'm asking to be shown such a law which gives police increased latitude to use force.
That's entirely the discussion here. If, when judged, cops are judged with one standard, and everyone else by another, then yes, they are given increased latitude to use force.
Well yeah, obviously. But that doesn't per se vary by state, it varies by jurisdiction / judge / jury, etc.
My point is simply that there are no state-by-state standards for this, which was GP's claim. States don't allow anybody, peace offer or not, to use any amount of force beyond what is required to effect an arrest.
The US operates on common law, so much of it is a matter of precedence now simply what's written down. And their are many cases of police but not private citizens being given deference on the use of force.
But this person claimed that the amount of permissible force varied by state, as if different state statutes allowed for different amounts of force from police vs other citizens, and I don't think that's so. Or at least, I've never seen it.
Some states give police specific latitude in using deadly force to protect others, but not merely to effect an arrest (again, at least that I know of).
Also, it's important to note that to the degree these are common-law distinctions, common-law is much, much older than professional policing, which is fairly new in the western political experience. As it was emerging, of course, the western tradition came to base the professional police role largely on the Peelian principles, one of which is
> To maintain at all times a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and that the public are the police, the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.
...so if indeed the common-law tradition is that police are "members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen" then it's hard to understand how that's compatible with wildly different arrest powers.
The law get's really specific. For example there are plenty of laws relating to police chases which cause 300 and 400 deaths per year.
In 2007, the United States Supreme Court held in Scott v. Harris (550 U.S. 372) that a "police officer's attempt to terminate a dangerous high-speed car chase that threatens the lives of innocent bystanders does not violate the Fourth Amendment, even when it places the fleeing motorist at risk of serious injury or death."https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Car_chase
The goalposts are jumping all over the field here.
First, the claim was that "It's also not legal for a random citizen to execute or arrest people."
Then, when challenged, the claim became that the amount of lawful force when effecting arrest varies between police and other citizens on a state-by-state basis.
Now you've given a SCOTUS decision (binding across the US obviously, not state-by-state) about qualified immunity (not statutory authority) in the legal context of protecting bystanders (ie, not naked arrest power).
If this is the best argument, then I think that I'm correct in my assertion that police do not have any additional authority to use force in different states to effect an arrest than anyone else.
Qualified immunity is what allows members of the government to do things that would otherwise be illegal for regular people. It's directly the mechanism and law you are asking for. Police officers are given qualified immunity when using force as part of their duties including acts such as arresting people. But, one of the limits is what local procedures are, so doing a 120 MPH care chase is not universally ok.
Police chases are directly part of the arrest process and use of force. In this case it's mostly one of discretion, where police are allowed to both make the call and actually act.
More specifically, in most states only police are allowed to use blue lights on top of their cars with a few state specific exceptions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_vehicle_lighting#Uni... Further, trying to escape after those lights are on is illegal, so again they are given access to tools and techniques including use of force that are not available to regular people.
I am not sure what specifically you want, and suspect the issue is you don't really understand how our legal system works in practice.
I think I have a good understanding of our legal system. I have a pre-law degree, and I have studied this particular topic extensively.
> Qualified immunity is what allows members of the government to do things that would otherwise be illegal for regular people
Holy shit. Are you serious? That's your summary of qualified immunity?
You are just completely, absurdly, absolutely incorrect here. The "qualified" in qualified immunity means that the conduct in question doesn't violate clearly established law. So you have it exactly backwards.
And even if you were right, qualified immunity is a civil concept. It is wholly unrelated to the matter of the amount of force that otherwise constitutes a criminal violation when effecting an arrest.
It is also not "a law" (you have said it's "the law" that I'm looking for), it's a legal doctrine regarding the confines of liability under section 1983.
> I am not sure what specifically you want
It's exceedingly simple. I want an example of a state which, on a statutory basis, permits different levels of force for the purpose of effecting an arrest for police in contrast to other citizens. That's what GP said existed. I don't think it does exist. So that's what I'm asking for.
You just described Cops having legal protection beyond ordinary citizens which is exactly what you asked for. At no point did you separate civil and criminal protection.
In practice prosecutors don't try cops for using reasonable force in arrests. So they don't need protection for that.
What they need protection from is everyone and their brother suing them out of malice for arresting them. And they get that from qualified immunity.
PS: You can think of civil and criminal law as independent, but that's really not how are system operates.
My point all along was that police don't have any statutory authority to use force in any greater measure than anyone else, and yet they seem to get away with it - as you point out, free from both criminal and civil liability.
Shit man, I don't support qualified immunity at all. It has always been a bit of charlatan law IMO.
I understood (and still understand) the original comment as taking the position that this discrimination is somehow based in statute, when, as far as I can tell, it isn't.
They are not necessarily 'authorized' by the letter of the law. But if they are not prosecuted to the same extent as citizens are, then they are authorized de facto.
I'm not being obtuse. I'm asking for documentation of a specific, unambiguous claim in the form of a link to a statute in a particular state which provides for different levels of lawful force in effecting an arrest for police in contrast to other citizens. Provide such a link and I'll acknowledge that I was incorrect.
That's probably a good thing, considering the wave of white people calling the police on black people for literally doing nothing but being black. The incidents currently occurring are terrible enough, but I can't imagine how awful it would be if those people felt they didn't need the cops, and carried out the arrests themselves.
That citizen's arrests are difficult to justify or do.
"And what exactly are you projecting will happen in this scenario?"
The racist white people who are calling the cops on black people for simply being around will then switch to trying to do "citizen's arrest" on them.
"Are you asserting that the addition of professional policing has meant less projecting of racial violence by the state?"
No, and I have no idea where you got that from. I'm saying that racists would be even more empowered to be shitty and make things worse than they already are.
> That citizen's arrests are difficult to justify or do.
They aren't, though. That's the whole point. It's just that they're rarely necessary.
> The racist white people who are calling the cops on black people for simply being around will then switch to trying to do "citizen's arrest" on them.
This seems like unfounded fear to me. If it were a real concern, why isn't it happening now? Conversely, since we do currently have a regime of professional police, why hasn't it proved insulatory against this phenomenon? The criminal justice system is at the core of racism in the USA; it certainly hasn't had the effect of inhibiting "racist white people". Instead, it has been the very mechanism by which racist outcomes are assured.
> I'm saying that racists would be even more empowered to be shitty and make things worse than they already are.
Just to be clear: you are saying that a criminal justice system with a smaller footprint will result in a situation in which "racists would be even more empowered"? That's what you're saying? Because that sounds completely backwards.
Jeez man, why are you always so full of vitriol? If I'm incorrect, just nudge me in the right direction. No need to get all bent out of shape!
I thought that you were saying that a change in the balance of arrests, with a decrease in those made by peace officers amidst an increase in those made by other citizens, was likely to be empowering to people seeking to victimize people of color. Did I have that wrong?
If that's what you were saying, then yeah I think that's nuts. If people have a goal of subjugating people of color, then the existence of professional police (to the exclusion of normalcy of arrests by other citizens) is working wonderfully to achieve that end.
The idea that a larger share of arrests being effected by people who aren't professionally employed to do so being a conduit for increased racism is, as far as I can tell, quite unfounded.
In fact, the origins of professional policing in the US are in part from slave patrols, which were formed precisely because overwhelming majorities of people refused to arrest slaves who had run away.
"Jeez man, why are you always so full of vitriol?"
I am calling you out for not discussing things in good faith. If you don't like being called out for that, then don't wildly misrepresent what people say.
See the thing is, I was discussing in good faith. I always am. But you always seem to divert the discussion to this ad-hominem thing. I explained how I understood your logic (in the comment above this one), but you didn't even address it. If I've got it wrong, which is totally possible, don't call me names, just correct me.
I have mugshots on that site for charges that were DROPPED. I HAVE PROOF OF INNOCENCE. I even have my paperwork stating that the charges WILL NOT BE REFILED. I emailed the administrators at mugshots.com and they refused to remove them without first paying a fee. This is exploitative. They now won't even allow me to pay the fee since I "threatened" them (with a lawsuit).
It's good when people share their personal experiences like this here.
People too often take a "tough on crime" attitude but don't realize the millions of people affected by overzealous police or burdened by justice system digital trails who haven't even been convicted of anything. That's not just.
Turning a blind eye just means more pent up anger and less trust in the justice system. It just seems un-American that people can't move on with their lives and accomplish their full potential.
Honestly not sure how you could describe this scheme as anything but extortion. As far as I can tell it seems to be their primary revenue stream, along with ads for services that promise to 'erase' your arrest records...
They're publishing for the sole purpose of getting people to pay them to take them down. I fail to see how that's any different than asking them first, except that now paying becomes that much more urgent.
The court will make the final decision, but wow it really does seem like extortion. The stories in the article are brutal.
The free press argument isn't relevant. If the a local paper called you up and said "hey we are going to publish this negative article about a bar fight you started unless you pay us $500", that would also be extortion. Remove "unless you pay us" and it's totally legal.
If MugPhotos.com launches and just publishes mugshots but doesn't charge to remove them, it would also not be extortion.
FindLaw: "Most states define extortion as the gaining of property or money by almost any kind of force, or threat of 1) violence, 2) property damage, 3) harm to reputation, or 4) unfavorable government action."
It's the "gaining money by threat" part that makes it a plausibly successful charge. What they do is publishing it in a way likely to lead to more publicity, more harm to reputation unless you pay them.
Take the Letterman extortion case. Letterman had a relationship with a staffer. Another staffer threatened to disclose to the press unless Letterman paid him. That staffer was convicted.
Disclosing to press/public and harming reputation is not extortion. And harming reputation with true facts is totally legal. You can even go to a (trashy) paper and get paid for your story.
Threatening to disclose and/or publicize unless payment is made is extortion.
IANAL and building a case is probably more complicated than I understand.
Yeah? Is that true? Can the government capriciously harm someone's reputation with no legal basis? I doubt that. At the very least, it's a civil matter.
Interestingly enough, blackmail statues usually apply even when the information at issue is TRUE. Read the article I linked to elsewhere -- it opens with an interesting comment that blackmail is a paradox -- it's criminalizing a consensual transaction between two people, regarding otherwise Constitutionally protected behavior.
If this is indeed extortion on the basis that it is demanding money under threat of harm to reputation, then isn't it equally true when the state does it? That was the original point above.
Making true statements is not defamation. If they do want to lie, the general legal concept that protects the government is sovereign immunity. You can only sue the government for libel if they let you.
It's crazy because the government has to be able to make true statements that hurt others' reputation in order to do a lot of stuff that it does, or simply to publish information openly. For example, imagine a document justifying choosing one paving company over another.
Well, presumably if it was a section 1983 matter you'd sue the individual state agent, so I don't really see what sovereign immunity has to do with anything here.
And yeah, so again, back to the original comment: presumably you or I are just as free to do things like you've listed. If I choose one paving company over another, I can publish my reasons for doing so. I can even offer to remove that post is the latter pays me to do so (this is essentially Yelp's business model, right? gross.)
Morality aside... what I'm curious about is, what gives California any jurisdiction over a company registered in another country, and operators residing in other states?
Given the examples in the article, they are clearly doing "business" in the state, and doing harm on citizens of the state. If they fail to show up in California court to defend themselves, that would lead to another charge. The state could make extradition requests, or arrest them if they ever show up in the state. It's possible that federal charges could be filed.
If the operators are careful never to travel to California, does it end there? Would a California judge order ISPs to block particular sites? Could payment providers be forced to stop paying?
The state of California has extradition agreements with other US states. The article says that the owners of the site are living in other states in the US. So they will simply say to those states, "Hey, these people have been convicted of a crime in our state. Please collect them and send them to us." The other state will likely comply per their agreement.
I think they have jurisdiction over companies that operate in their territory. I think the EU has the same line of thinking regarding GDPR. Even if the company is outside the EU it still can't provide services in the EU that violate GDPR.
Sovereignty has only the bounds adopted by the sovereign, and US states are sovereign (but, in addition to those in their own law, have adopted, by ratification, any limits on states in the US Constitution, including those in valid federal laws under the Constitution.)
So, the question is, is there anything in those limitations which would deny California authority here?
I do hope that the GDPR succeeds at putting some checks on our surveillance overlords, but it's definitely resting on some busted-ass reasoning regarding nexus.
I find this very hard to understand - doesn't freedom of the press ensure that I can post whatever media (in the public domain) that I like? If I were posting public domain photos of a city park, and running a market wherein people were able to pay to have them removed, is that the same thing?
If not, this seems like an implicit assumption that a mugshot is a form of punishment / humiliation. And if that's so, isn't that the injustice here?
I'm sure it will be an interesting case, wouldn't be surprised if it goes all the way to the Supreme Court.
However -- there are clear laws making it illegal to demand money to not speak/publish information (i.e. blackmail). I expect the defense will argue that they are not publishing the information, they are merely amplifying it by making items of public record more available.
This seems to be distinct from blackmail in a clear cut way though - in this case the information is already published, and the market is for removing it. In other words, it isn't a secret at the time of the transaction.
Note that in the DC statute discussed in the article, it refers to "publicizing an asserted fact". One could argue that repeating the fact that the mug shot exists in a different forum is an act of publicizing. In this day and age, publication is increasingly a matter of degree -- everyone's a publisher, if you count Twitter and Facebook. It would still be blackmail, I think, if you threatened to take someone's tweet and put it on the front page of the NY Times unless you receive a lifetime supply of M&M's and Diet Coke ...
> It would still be blackmail, I think, if you threatened to take someone's tweet and put it on the front page of the NY Times unless you receive a lifetime supply of M&M's and Diet Coke ...
Haha... wow, such a good synopsis of the state of media today.
Yeah, this is a good argument. It also suggests, though, that criminally relevant distinctions between blackmail and publication are strained.
No. This is very, very clearly set up for the sole purpose of extorting money out of the people who's mugshots they publish. There is no other reason for this site to exist.
Our prison system in America is so much worse than mugshots. We have a system where you can buy your way out of jail until your hearing (i.e. parole). But, it's not available to poor people. Guess who have worse outcomes. It's so bad that many poor people spend more time in jail waiting for their hearing than they would have spend in prison if they had just plead guilty right away. Guess who tends to plead guilty to crimes they didn't commit because it's the only way they can get out of jail.
I guess my point is you don't get things like Mugshots.com because you run a fair and equitable justice system. You get Mugshots.com because some people want to get in on our prison system racket but they don't have enough money to bribe a politician.
> I'm surprised mugshots are other such aren't sealed until after a conviction.
That sounds closer and closer to secret arrest. The public has a right to know who the government has arrested and why.
By sealing them until after conviction, it makes it sound like the mugshot is punishment. It isn't. It's a public record to check the government against secretly arresting people (or intentionally arresting the wrong people).
If you don't think having your face posted on the internet even prior to conviction, with all this entails, is punishment, then I admire the reality distortion field that lets you see the world that way.
Speaking as someone who grew up in a sane country. (Norway).
I think you are correct, but that's just part of the problem that we've been convinced to attribute guilt even in the absence of proof, on the state's say-so alone.
We need instead to presume that everybody who is arrested (and whose mugshot is posted) is innocent unless compelling evidence, based on sworn testimony, is presented.
I don't see how adding secrecy is a solution to extrajudicial punishment.
This, in my country mugshots are only revealed after conviction or in exceptional cases (like when they're after armed criminals still at large).
I think that's the case too with some US states like Florida.
>I think that's the case too with some US states like Florida.
Very unlikely. As soon as a mug shot is entered into the system, it's a public document and available to any citizen. You can walk into your local police station and request to see all of the mug shots taken that day. It's your right as an American citizen. It's how small newspapers put together their "police blotter" section.
Journalism schools used to send their students out to dig up all the information they could about a person, as part of a larger project for credit. Sometimes it was a professor of their choice, or the class professor, or some random mope out of the phone book.
The police station was usually the third stop, after the city clerk's office (business and zoning records) and the county clerk's office (property ownership records).
There is only one government with mugshots. And for small crimes you can pay a small fee to remove.
There can be an UNLIMITED number of "Mugshot" extortion sites spring up like weeds. Each setting their own extortion rates. And for no purpose other than private enrichment.
If I create the same web site without the option of paying to have a mugshot taken down, is that legal? In general I think extortion should be defined as threatening to do something illegal unless paid.
> If I create the same web site without the option of paying to have a mugshot taken down, is that legal?
Yes. From TFA:
"Photos of criminal suspects taken by law enforcement agencies are public records and are generally releasable under state open records laws. Publishing them is not a crime, but Becerra said Mugshots.com broke the law in demanding a fee for their removal."
> In general I think extortion should be defined as threatening to do something illegal unless paid.
Nah, threats/coercion are enough. Think of this as blackmail.
> I think extortion should be defined as threatening to do something illegal unless paid.
Intuitively, it seems like it should be! Compare these two threats from a worker to the company owner, and consider what kind of definition of extortion would cover #1 while excluding #2:
1. "Pay me $1000, or I'll burn your house down."
2. "Pay me $1000, or I'll quit and go work for your competitor."
Obviously extortion can't be defined as "threatening to do something the other person won't like," otherwise they both would qualify. If you define it as "threatening to do something illegal" then it seems to fit better.
This kind of thinking makes sense to me, but this is why nerds like me make bad lawyers -- it turns out to be wrong. Threatening to "reveal information about a victim or their family members that is potentially embarrassing or socially damaging" [1] is enough, even though actually revealing that information is perfectly legal. Seems counter-intuitive, but there you go!
The case for this being extortion feels very weak to me. The records are public record, so they are available to anyone who asks for them. They have already been published on the website, so the request for payment does not carry any threat.
It feels like the real problem here is that many things that are designated as public records have previously been practically inaccessible. We're in an age where it is getting easier to make things like that more accessible and searchable, so we have to reconsider the laws designating various things as public record. Mugshots, in particular, seem to be an ideal case for not being public record at all -- it's not clear how the public benefits from these being accessible.
Sort of like collecting my "identity" information, putting it at risk of being taken and asking me to pay a fee to prevent unauthorized people from accessing it.
Presumably, they are accused of doing something in moving money around to conceal it's illegal origin (the fact that the removal is a separate, not overtly connected site may be part of this if it reflects a deeper subterfuge where there is an attempt to pretend they are separate, unrelated businesses.)
Unfortunately, there are no links i can find to the actual criminal filing, which would presumably have some details as to the factual allegations supporting the identified charges.
A better solution would be for upstanding citizens do do a "civic duty / national service" of getting arrested and going through the experience, so that everyone mug shots are together, and everyone understands what sort of violence the State perpetrates on their behalf.
How can anyone get a real second chance if everyone looks down at them on their previous mistakes?
The worst one for me is the Megan's law map that anyone can go check out online. Most of the time those people already paid their dues to society after spending multiple years in prison, they should also have the right to start a second life without constant shaming from their neighbors.
This is the consequence of a society that is extremely bad at rehabilitating ex-offenders and that sees them as rotten people that need to be forever segregated.