Suspect’s mugshot: to publish or not to publish?
Los Angeles police investigating the assault of a San Francisco Giants baseball fan at Dodger Stadium on opening day are asking the news media not to publish the leaked photo of suspect Giovanni Ramirez. They are concerned that dissemination of the photo will influence witnesses who will be called in for police lineups.
It’s a valid law enforcement concern and an interesting illustration of the dynamics between the right to a fair trial and freedom of the press. It also raises some questions about whether news organizations should consider the consequences of the publication of an inarguably newsworthy image.
The assault and its aftermath have been a major news story, both in California and across the nation. The arrest of a suspect in the brutal attack was obviously a major development and the public is interested in knowing more about who is allegedly responsible, including seeing a photograph.
When news organizations receive leaked materials, they have an ethical obligation to weigh the newsworthiness of that material against potential harm. There’s no way of knowing whether the radio station website or television station that briefly published the images did that kind of review, but both pulled the photo after hearing from police. The Los Angeles Times also announced that it would not publish the photo.
The Sixth Amendment guarantees suspects a fair trial. That means police and prosecutors have a duty to conduct a fair investigation and not to poison the jury pool. The First Amendment, on the other hand, gives the news media a free hand in publishing virtually any truthful content, largely independent of its potential impact on a fair trial.
In this case, both law enforcement and the news media did their jobs. The police tried to protect the integrity of the investigation and the news media decided to post – and then to pull – the mugshot. The key is that the decision not to publish came after a conversation, not coercion.
Tags: crime coverage, fair trial, photograph
43 Responses to “Suspect’s mugshot: to publish or not to publish?”
Let Us Know What You Think
Ken Paulson is president and chief executive officer/First Amendment Center. Previously, Paulson served as editor and senior vice president/news of USA Today and USATODAY.com.
Gene Policinski, senior vice president and executive director of the First Amendment Center, is a veteran journalist whose career has included work in newspapers, radio, television and online.
John Seigenthaler founded the First Amendment Center in 1991 with the mission of creating national discussion, dialogue and debate about First Amendment rights and values.
Dr. Charles C. Haynes is director of the Religious Freedom Education Project at the Newseum. He writes and speaks extensively on religious liberty and religion in American public life.
David L. Hudson Jr. is a scholar at the First Amendment Center. Hudson writes for firstamendmentcenter.org and for other publications devoted to First Amendment issues.
Tiffany Villager is director/First Amendment studies at the First Amendment Center, which she joined in 1993. She also served as the center’s research manager and research coordinator, and developed the center’s library.
This isn’t “leaked” information. It was released by the police therefore made to be in the public domain. The media could and should left the material public.
“I served my time” and went to truck driving school to have a professional career; however with their so called right to publish;I see my name and mugshot on their site, wheres my rights?? How am I to become a productive member of society, when past mistakes that I had paid the price for still has me serving consequenses?? I cant find work wherever I go because of this publication. Thanks ,maybe you can help pay my bills and feed my family since thi crime happened over 10 yrs ago; where’s my rights????
Although I’m an avid First Amendment supporter and would never advocate a law prohibiting publication of mug shots or other images of the accused, I have a problem with it ethically. Under our system, a person is innocent until proven guilty, but pretrial publicity often ruins a person’s reputation even if that individual later is found innocent. In some cases, the person is never even formally charged or the charges are dropped before trial, but the damage is still done. Sexual assault cases are particularly worrisome because the accuser often remains unidentified while the accused has his/her name dragged through the mud. If the media protects the identity of the accuser they should protect the identity of the accused as well.
[...] Read Ken Paulson’s commentary in full. [...]
There should be law protecting those who is not convicted. By posting mugshot of the accused which proved to be innocent it does nothing but destroyed that individual image. What rights do they have to continued to place ones picture on the web if he/she is not convicted? I know that I have lost many jobs opportunity because they did a basic Google search and decided not to hired because of those picture from the past I was arrested from protesting. The company should take the responsibility to stay update with the court systems of who is convicted or who’s not. Post the fact, not an assumption, this is the great way how you destroyed fuctional society. Post the convicted not the innocient
By definition, a mugshot represents a factual event. It means the person was arrested and a photograph was taken. Anything else is indeed an assumption.
YOUR SITE IS PATHETIC ESPECIALLY FOR ALL THE INNOCENT
Simply posting photos without any caption of what they were charged with, or the outcome of those charges, as is done by Mugshots.com, and then referring people to an attorney who wants to charge $350 to remove their mugshot – this is a mean, nasty business model. I was arrested 16 years ago for a minor incident, Mugshots.com now has it online and it is at position number 12 when I am Googled, alongside all my business references, written and published articles, etc. This is damaging to my reputation. I am writing my Congressman about this.
I was falsely arrested for a warrant that should have not been active.
I took legal action and settled for $1200. I wish I would have not settled for such a small amount as now I have my mugshot posted for the world to see. I made a comment about this on Mugshots.com but this was not kept public, so what about my freedom of speech in this instance?
Mugshots.com then want to make money from me to have my photo/details removed if they deem fit for removal…. This is NOT fair to ones who are innocent!! I am livid and intend to seek legal counsel.
I am a Florida certified law enforcement officer. I was 19yo at the time of my arrest and I was charged under youthful offender status. My records were expunged a few years after serving 1.5 years of probation. Please tell me what right they have to publish mugshots from a record that has been expunged. I refuse to pay some company that they are obviously profiting from, an exhorbatant amount of money to remove it. I would like to know how they can have this information available and not post any contact information for us to clear up the issue. I have obtained legal representation and the fact that this is causing me issues with getting hired, I will not stand for this injustice. It is hard enough to find jobs with this economy.
I’m not an attorney but I like the subject, so let me try to explain.
“Please tell me what right they have to publish mugshots from a record that has been expunged”.
You have to understand what Expungement is to answer this question. Basically, expungement is the act of asking the state for forgiveness. It doesn’t mean stuff never happened. The first amendment protects the press as long as a publication publishes true and factual information. Those are federal laws (U.S constitution) and its stronger than any individual state law in existence on the subject.
Wrong, when a person gets their record expunged, the paperwork states that they may now say that the crime never happened.
Isn’t it illegal to (publish) post pictures of someone on the internet without their written permission (I am not talking about mugshots/public arrest records)?
This website is not connected to actual law enforcement entities. It is a private company trying to make money.
There are thousands of people (if not millions if we look through history) that get charged with crimes, whether falsely accused or not, that do not deserve to have their picture (or mugshot) up on any website. I am pretty sure the case can be argued that this company is exploiting people for a profit.
The person or people who put this site up state that they are doing it because they care about public safety. In fact, for the most part they are harming the safety of many people. It is obvious that it is only done for money.
There are other websites (more official) that are run by the government (and not for money) that put up the pictures of people who are wanted by the law. This should be the ONLY place we can find these types of photos.
You’re wrong Stacy on two counts:
1. To claim things never happened when they in fact did. On Mugshots.com, go to their blog section, there are few articles on the subject of Expungement, worth a read if it really interests you.
2. That anyone needs permission to republish public records. You do not. The fact is these images and records are not owned by the person to begin with, so there isn’t a possibly to claim some sort of copyright infringement here. They were taken by government bodies and released, usually part of state’s public records laws.
How about this then…..Property rights now protect not only one’s personal property, good will, or interest in a business or product/service, but also protect one’s name or “persona,” 1 and/or image.
Public record or not, its my face and to have it removed from the web for money falls under blackmail, extortion and coercion.
This needs to change…..
As an ex-P.I. I know it is legal to take any images I want as long as it can be seen in public. So say I got a picture of your kid in a fist fight when he was 10 and after the fight he defecated on the loser, and I decided to blow it up to, say billboard size as the same person was trying to do something important in his life. How do think he would feel. Something stupid that was nothing more than part of a learning curve would now haunt him the rest of his days… crappy example I know.
The point is once you’ve paid your debt to society that should be it. Someone that digs up your past and holds it against you for money is not acting legally in the utmost sense.
Hi,
I also had my records expunged over 10 yrs ago, and everything was fine, my only problem is I’m trying to find work, and feel that i will be discriminated against, hence I’m seeking legal counsel, sorry guys
but I will seek legal counsel on this, you’re making money on people’s mistakes and sad misfortunes. This should Not be going on but I can see your point with the economy the way it is what better way to make money and make others miserable….
Hopefully you won’t mess up one day and be on your own website.
I wasn’t even convicted of the crime I was arrested for. But my mugshot is posted. The case was dismissed and nonconviction was the verdict. So why do they have a right to post my mugshot? On top of that they have me listed ad Mexican snd I am black. How is,that fair or even right when you google my name there it is. Its not fair its not even relevent. They ssy the site is,for friends and family I was in jail 4 days….my mug shot is up for six months thats not there for family and friends its there for public humiliation.
CJ
Arrest is not a conviction. It just means you were arrested. What’s not fair about it? It’s the same for everyone else.
“Florida recognizes an independent common law right protecting economic interests in a person’s likeness. Florida has also codified this right in Florida Statute 540.08:
Unauthorized publication of name or likeness.–
(1) No person shall publish, print, display or otherwise publicly use for purposes of trade or for any commercial or advertising purpose the name, portrait, photograph, or other likeness of any natural person without the express written or oral consent to such use …
Thus, Florida’s publicity law enables individuals to protect themselves from unauthorized commercial appropriation of their personas. Of course, the statute does provide exceptions for news organizations and other such reasons. But it is important to note that the right of publicity is generally regarded as a property right. Damages in publicity cases are measured by the commercial injury to the business value of personal identity. J. Thomas McCarthy says: “The right of publicity is not . . . just another kind of privacy right. It . . . is a wholly different and separate legal right.” 19 COLUM.-VLA J.L. & ARTS 129. Infringement damages, therefore, are determined by the fair market value of the plaintiff’s identity, the infringer’s profits, and damage to the licensing opportunities for the plaintiff’s identity.
In the case of the mugshot sites mentioned above, the sites are generating revenue using other’s photographs. So it is clearly a commercial activity or for commercial purposes, as defined in the Florida statute above. But is it also a news organization providing newsworthy subject matter? Many would say not. But the state of the law on blogs, tweets and other new media is in a state of flux and will not be settled for quite some time. With regard to damages, web search results can certainly cause damage, especially in cases where the subject of a mugshot is looking for employment or seeking admission to a school. A mugshot could kill such prospects for a job-seeker or prospective student. So these mugshot sites are operating at their own peril.
If someone in Florida has been damaged or will be damaged by a mugshot on one of these web sites, they should hire an attorney that is familiar with the Florida right of publicity.”
These sites are obviously media outlets, operate under news organization umbrella and its protection. It’s a misconception that public records can’t be commercialized. Look at it this way way, if a TV station can use a mugshot and a name, these sites can as well. The site didn’t originate the data, the states did. The states then publish the data and made it public, mostly for transparency reasons and in order for others to either view it or re-syndicate it. Likeness claims usually mean you try to come across as someone else, not that it is the actual representation of the person. That won’t hold the first court hearing. Actually, nothing you have said would.
What on earth makes you think mugshots.com is a “boni fide” News Outlet?
Statute 540.08: “a) The publication, printing, display, or use of the name or likeness of any person in any newspaper, magazine, book, news broadcast or telecast, or other news medium or publication as part of any “Bona Fide” news report or presentation having a current and legitimate public interest and where such name or likeness is not used for advertising purposes..” >>lawserver.com/law/state/florida/statutes/florida_statutes_540-08
If I start an anonymous blog and/or website under the guise of “public interest,” whereby I copy all mugshots including detailed residential info, birth date, etc, gathered at the time of arrest, off sheriff’s websites, only to insist the individual, once they find the info on my website (and they will) send me paid airline tickets to whatever destination I choose before I remove their arrest info and picture from my site, does that make me a boni fide News Outlet/Organization/Media? Not on this planet.
Further, if online mugshot websites are claiming “ public interest,” why then does mugshots.com allow mugshot removal for a pay-off of hundreds of dollars? What happened to “public interest?”What part of a mugshot removal post a hefty pay off, in the amount of hundreds of dollars, filtered to mugshots.com, is in the “public’s interest?”
The mugshot will not be removed unless hundreds of dollars finds its way to mugshots.com
“Florida recognizes an independent common law right protecting economic interests in a person’s likeness. Florida has also codified this right in Florida Statute 540.08:
Unauthorized publication of name or likeness.–
(1) No person shall publish, print, display or otherwise publicly use for purposes of trade or for any commercial or advertising purpose the name, portrait, photograph, or other likeness of any natural person without the express written or oral consent to such use …
Thus, Florida’s publicity law enables individuals to protect themselves from unauthorized commercial appropriation of their personas. Of course, the statute does provide exceptions for news organizations and other such reasons. But it is important to note that the right of publicity is generally regarded as a property right. Damages in publicity cases are measured by the commercial injury to the business value of personal identity. J. Thomas McCarthy says: “The right of publicity is not . . . just another kind of privacy right. It . . . is a wholly different and separate legal right.” 19 COLUM.-VLA J.L. & ARTS 129. Infringement damages, therefore, are determined by the fair market value of the plaintiff’s identity, the infringer’s profits, and damage to the licensing opportunities for the plaintiff’s identity.
In the case of the mugshot sites mentioned above, the sites are generating revenue using other’s photographs. So it is clearly a commercial activity or for commercial purposes, as defined in the Florida statute above. But is it also a news organization providing newsworthy subject matter? Many would say not. But the state of the law on blogs, tweets and other new media is in a state of flux and will not be settled for quite some time. With regard to damages, web search results can certainly cause damage, especially in cases where the subject of a mugshot is looking for employment or seeking admission to a school. A mugshot could kill such prospects for a job-seeker or prospective student. So these mugshot sites are operating at their own peril.
If someone in Florida has been damaged or will be damaged by a mugshot on one of these web sites, they should hire an attorney that is familiar with the Florida right of publicity.
Mark Terry is a Board Certified Intellectual Property attorney with over a decade of experience dealing with patent, trademark and copyright issues, including a previous career as a Patent Examiner at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.”
“Of course, the statute does provide exceptions for news organizations and other such reasons”.
Next.
Hacking a sheriff’s website (without consent) for mugshot, arrest info, and identity info, then posting that info onto your website does not a “news organization” make. Anybody can do it. Most know better.
legalhobby is right, there’s nothing there, it’s legal to publish arrest records, period. You can check this on Avvo.com and read many attorneys agreeing as well.
How about a lawsuit for misuse or abuse of public records by the public? Wouldn’t the reported behavior noted below be worthy of a legal complaint against these mugshot websites?
Anonymous mugshots.com is an uninvited, unwelcomed-hacker site, as well as the other mugshot websites. They hack sheriff’s websites (without consent) for content in mass quantity in one fell swoop, later mini swoops. Viewable public info, specifically arrestee info, currently displayed on sheriff’s websites, was not made viewable for anyone’s financial gain. Public records and the FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) were not designed for the purpose of anonymous mugshot website’s obvious financial benefit, misuse or abuse. And yet this is exactly what is happening.
Anonymous mugshots.com is just one anonymous mugshot website operating in this manner. They all operate anonymously. If they’re leaving the information up indefinitely until money finds its way to paying them off to take it down, then they are operating anonymously. No? Ok, who owns or operates mugshots.com? What are mugshots.com’s credentials?
The problem with anonymous mugshots.com and the other mugshot websites isn’t so much the mugshot itself appearing on their tedious, pay-up or it stays-up websites, but all the personal info listed with the mugshot. Such as full date-of-birth, full address, place-of-birth, etc. Anonymous mugshots.com deliberately uses Google’s street view widget, showing the arrestee’s actual residence and neighborhood How awful for not only the arrestee, but anyone who may own, want to own, or sell the property in the future
Googling an address alone using just a street number along with street name will instantly bring existing mugshot, arrest info, and identity info into the search results, if the info was previously hacked from sheriff’s websites then transferred to the anonymous mugshot websites. That is, any random address search will serve to inform and notify any unsolicited, unsuspecting, unwarranted address inquiry that at one time a person residing at that very address was arrested. Therefore, the residence itself is forever implicated. In effect, long-term inconvenience, due to unwarranted implications associated with the property, is what current owners and future owners should expect.
Anonymous mugshots.com and other mugshot websites are expecting you to find this info (they know you will) so you can pay them to take it down, which they offer to do, anonymously. If there were no financial gain in it, they wouldn’t do what they do. They wouldn’t put out the effort. Remember, they go so far as to pay SEO’s (search engine optimizing) for their effective optimizing services, after all. Also, they pay their servers to maintain their registrar anonymity.
Currently there are at least half a dozen mugshot websites with operations similar to anonymous mugshots.com, in that they pay for SEO’s to optimize search results and get your name and picture onto Google’s top results (first page, first hit). They all charge hundreds of dollars, anonymously, for the removal of the information about you. So what do you do? Go about paying out hundreds of dollars to each and every mugshot websites as often as they creep up? It has already been noted how some have paid anonymous mugshots.com only to see their info subsequently pop up onto other mugshot websites. Searching your name then reveals numerous hits with the very same detailed info you just paid to remove Btw, most website owners never own just one domain. Typically they own multiple domains. Anonymous Mugshots.com claims they operate independent of any other mugshot websites, or “removal” site. Again, they operate anonymously. Consider the source.
It has also already been reported and noted that once you’ve emailed anonymous mugshots.com to give them a much deserved piece of your mind in want of expressing your outrage, then daring to refuse to send the anonymous hackers a dime, your mugshot will then be “distributed” further. Your mugshot will then appear not just on the one mugshot website but multiple mugshot websites – immediately. It’s enough to drive a person straight over the edge. Unfortunately, from personal knowledge, I can testify it already has…
Think long and hard before you dare filter a single cent to any anonymous mugshot website out there. Especially remember they are anonymous, their vendor lists themselves are mostly scammers and fraudsters and they can all mess with you any way they want. And they will. They have your info, about them you have – ZILCH. The “removal” sites often operate fictitiously and down-right deceptively. Do a thorough search on all those so-called “mugshot removal sites.” The plot thickens as the full scope of this maddening mugshot racket inevitably comes to light.
Surely these anonymous mugshot websites need to be outlawed.
So in other words, I, a nobody, can copy a neighbors mugshot off the sheriff’s website, post it onto my blog with the note, ‘Mugshot removal information: Please contact a “vendor” from the “vendor” list for removal of this mugshot’ (the vendors being like-minded hapless “nobodies” like my cousin or brother, a neighbor, my old college buddy, or even some hapless tool with a law degree – all with varying $7.99 a month .com’s – all trying to look and act all professional like).
The “vendor” arrangement: I remove the mugshot, then I receive the lion’s share of the removal extortion fee from that 3rd party “vendor.” Sounds like a plan. A business model. In this economy every single mugshot has the potential of being a big, fat dollar sign in my slimy pocket! Coolio!
Hey, I can even register several mugshot websites (@ $7.99 each – its’s just that easy) with differing names, then once the fools pay the initial extortion fee I’ll wait a few short months before making their mugshots magically appear on the other mugshot websites! Coolio again! On going mugshot extortion! Marvelous!
I’ll even call it a “legal business model,” a “legal redistribution of mugshots” all for my financial benefit. And if “arrested” even dare email me through my site only to tell me what a monster or predator they think I am or in anyway make be feel bad about myself, why then… I’ll just have to show them who’s boss: I’ll contact all my other internet mugshot website buddies to get them to “redistribute” the mugshots even further – blast them all over the place. I won’t even wait! Good times!
Foshizzle I’ll make sure their mugshot appears on all my other .com’s in addition to the other “nobodies” mugshots extortion sites (for as little as a $7.99 a month domain fee – a mugshots.com extortion site can be yours too!). That way, when the person googles his/her name, google’s 1st page will be littered with their mugshot. Brilliant!
Hey, maybe I won’t get any extortion money from them, but, perhaps, I’ll have shamed them to the point of self-destruction or insanity and they’ll eventually kill themselves – hopefully before they get all psycho and lash out at society after I’ve messed with their livelihood and entire life. Who cares, right? Who needs them! The world be rid of them. They shouldn’t have gotten arrested, the fools. Now their life and money IS mine! All mine!! bwwwwwwahhhahahah!!!
Good times!!!!
Aside: Question: Do I have to pay taxes on my extortion “business/industry/ model/plan” revenue? Hmm?
********FYI: This is not a “mugshot business” or “mugshot industry.”
This is extortion by intent via the internet. This so-called “redistribution” of mugshots is no different than me posting ANYTHING about anybody on the internet with the intent of demand payment through another entity to take it down! The demand: Pay up or it stays up.
It’s an extortion CRIME! And I for one will be watching and waiting for mugshots.com domains inevitable bubble to burst and their house to come tumbling down.
FYI: This just in. Someone contacted mugshots.com recently through their website, begging them to remove a relatives’ mugshot. The reply stated, “Send us a fully nude picture of yourself, so we can do a comparison; we’ll then consider your request.”
Who are these people!
Who owns Mugshots.com ?!?
Take a chill pill lol
They are based in Belize City. Knowing a bit about Belize and about Belize City (very dangerous for Americans), it is not hard to imagine who these people are. The difficulty is that they are out of the country and not Americans….makes it far more complicated. It is an inherently dangerous game but will prove extremely difficult to stop the extortion. Shocking and disgusting site. We agree. And also tons of false information being distributed via Google. One would think that perhaps google themselves could stop up to this, wouldn’t you?
As for Jeffrey S. you are quite the guy. Perhaps you can find work down there in Belize City with like minded fellows? Are you enjoying looking at lives ruined with false information? People like you are exactly what people like them are looking for.
doubted….but they may operate out of Florida. Any whois search only reveals their paid masked/anonymous info. They pay their server for anonymity much like you can pay a hidemyIP service to mask your IP identity by changing to different locals all over the world (so every time you visit a website, your info is different). Belize is mugshots.com’s masked location, nothing more.
Mugshots.com is somewhere in Florida according to some leaked info.
Prior to 2011, mugshots.com was basically a defunct site with not much content or updating going on. Mugshots.com basically displayed some old gangster and celebrity black & white mugs prior to 2011.
I find it hard to believe you ever got a reply from Mugshots.com. I tried to make contact through the site few times and never got a reply, I think their form is broken!
Public records — Case closed.
Also not true. The facts are wrong and demanding money is extortion. Vase definitely not closed and you shouldn’t be flip when you don’t know the law or what you are talking about. Who ARE you peopl???
There’s no demand, what are you talking about? Didn’t you visit the site? The service is optional.
“Public records — Case closed.”
Uh, doesn’t mean anybody can do anything they want with those public records. Mugshots.com is an anonymous, illegal, extortion website. If that wasn’t the case, so many people wouldn’t at this very minute be raging.
How about a lawsuit for misuse or abuse of public records? Wouldn’t the reported behavior noted below be worthy of a legal complaint against these mugshot websites?
Mugshots.com is an anonymous hacker site, as well as the other mugshot websites The problem with mugshots.com isn’t so much the mugshot itself, but all the personal info listed with the mugshot, such as full date-of-birth, full address, place of birth, etc. Mugshots.com even uses Google’s “street view” widget showing the arrestee’s actual house! How awful for not only the arrestee, but anyone who may own the property in the future! Mugshots.com is just one mugshot website, operating anonymously. And they all operate anonymously. If they’re leaving the information up indefinitely until money finds its way to paying them off to take it down, then they are operating anonymously.
Currently there are at least half a dozen mugshot websites operating like mugshots.com, in that they pay for SEO’s (search engine optimizing) to optimize search results and get your name and picture onto Google’s top results (first page, first hit). They all charge hundreds of dollars, anonymously, for the removal of the information about you. So what do you do? Go around paying out many thousands of dollars to ALL the mugshot websites! It has already been noted how some have paid mugshots.com, only to see their info subsequently pop up onto another mugshot websites. Mugshots.com claims they operate independent of any other mugshot website out there. Again, they operate anonymously. Consider the source.
It has already been noted that once you’ve emailed mugshots.com, or other mugshot websites, giving them a piece of your mind by expressing your outrage then daring to refuse to send the anonymous hackers a dime, your mugshot will then appear not just on the one mugshot website but multiple mugshot websites. Searching your name then reveals numerous hits with the very same detailed info you just paid to remove! It’s enough to drive a person straight over the edge. Unfortunately, from personal knowledge, I can testify it already has…
Think long and hard before you send a single cent to any “vendor” on mugshots.com’s vendor list or any mugshot removal site. They often operate fictitiously and down right deceptively. Do a thorough search on those so-called “mugshot removal sites.” The plot only thickens when the full scope of this maddening mugshot racket inevitably comes to light.
Who owns Mugshots.com and mugshot posting websites like them? Their anonymous ownership only serves to compel speculation. That, in itself, can’t be a good thing. Where’s the regulation? Do these for profit websites have business licenses? Do they have federal tax id’s? Where’s the accountablity?
LIFE 101: Public Records does not mean anyone can do anything they want with those records.
The public, self proclaimed “news media,” your neighbor, your employer, your enemy cannot misuse or abuse or shame or harass you; thereby compelling you to protect your “right to be left alone,” [or] compel you to prevent your past from being regurgitate then redistributed vastly on the world wide web with determined malice for projected profit… all without due consequences.
This isn’t rocket science, it’s basic human nature.
I have just learned of Mugshots.com and am appalled. My son got a DUI when he had just turned 18. Devastated at that time from my divorce, he was a struggling teenager. He went on to become Summa Cum Laude at a terrific university, win various awards for his school work and sports, and graduated from a huge university at the very top of his class. He is now looking for work and discovered his photo (now ten years old) is posted. It also states he is out on bond which is a total lie. This is extortion. The web site goes on about Americans right to know, yet it is based in one of the most violent cities in Central America, Belize City. You have to pay to get your photo removed. We are shocked and appalled. Why is no one doing anything? As they are based in another country, and are using extortion on Americans (I can’t imagine how many of these are false and ruining lives) it makes it hard to go after them. Still, perhaps the police who released the pictures to them to begin with can be tracked down and sued. There are plenty of legal ways to find out about people with out such a disgusting site. My son is devastated. Ten years of excrutiating work and focused effort to turn his life around and now this. These are the most dispicable kinds of people and aren’t even Americans.
Since the State an local gov’t are in colusion with these mugshot websites, I would suggest someone open a website called gettoknowyourpolice.com. A friendly website that shows pictures of police officers, there address, who lives there, wives name, how many children, etc…. That way everyone (including people arrested) can know and feel more comfortable with those assigned to protect them. If they want their picture taken down, they can pay a small admin fee (say $500). It’s in the publics interest to know.
The state and local gov’t's aren’t in collusion with these mugshot websites. In fact they hate them. Some sheriff’s offices are taking down their online arrest records; others will follow.
The extortion, mugsite websites will eventually be outlawed. Unfortunately, though, by then, too much damage to persons’ livelihoods and their sanity will have irrevocably occurred.
Mugshots.com isn’t operated out of Belize. They may have an offshore registrar but that is highly doubted….but they may operate out of Florida. Any “whois” search only reveals their paid masked/anonymous info. They pay their server for anonymity much like you can pay a “hidemyIP” service to “mask” your IP identity by changing to different locals all over the world (so every time you visit a website, your info is different). Belize is mugshots.com’s “masked” location, nothing more.
Mugshots.com is somewhere in Florida according to some “leaked” info.
Prior to 2011, mugshots.com was basically a defunct site with not much content or updating going on. Mugshots.com basically displayed some old gangster and celebrity black & white mugs prior to 2011.
According to their own website, new “owners” took over in 2011. In late September 2011 the extortion efforts began with the aid of affiliated “removal sites” and even several Florida Attorneys were listed as “vendors.” Mugshots.com changes its website narratives frequently; all of which has been monitored, copied and compiled for future use when needed. In other words, no change goes unnoticed. Mugshots.com’s evolution in narrative reveals just how unsophisticated the site is but desperately wants to be.
You can’t believe a single thing the website says about itself, it’s an anonymous website in hiding. They’d probably soil themselves if you ever found them and confronted them (more likely a single individual). Crime
FYI: According to online reports, mugshots.com is owned and operated by Moniker Privacy Services LLC. Look it up on the internet. Somebody put a lot of effort into getting this detailed info out. If this is true, then further inquiry reveals Moniker Privacy Services is active with its principal address in Pompano Beach, Florida. A business license search at sunbiz.org
sunbiz.org/scripts/cordet.exe?action=DETFIL&inq_doc_number=M10000001115&inq_came_from=NAMFWD&cor_web_names_seq_number=0000&names_name_ind=&names_cor_number=&names_name_seq=&names_name_ind=&names_comp_name=MONIKERPRIVACYSERVICES&names_filing_type=
reveals Todd Greene is the managing member. The same Todd Greene with Moniker Privacy Services LLC, who according to this news report, was involved with the unlawful porn distribution of a minor – featured here: blogs.miaminewtimes.com/riptide/2011/04/bieyanka_moore_moniker_privacy_services.php
They have the right to publish this info so I’m really not concerned with who owns what. If they didn’t that would be another story.
I was arrested years ago on a drug charge; first offender. I served probation and was told my “conviction” would not count, would not show anywhere other than with law inforcement if I was re-arrested for a felony. I was also told could answer “no” on any job application when asked if I had ever been arrested or convicted of a felony. So someone please explain to me why I should have chosen to take the first offender guilty plea based on what I was told, rather than risk being found guilty without that option, however all anyone has to do is google my name and there I am, basically defeating the purpose! Also makes me look like a liar to any perspective employer if this pops up.
I hope someone sues you for everything your pathetic site is worth and figures out a way to win.