The Mugshot Industry. Accurate Information That Is Beneficial For Consumers?

Thursday night, ABC Nightline reported about problems consumers encountered with the mugshot industry -- websites that publish online photos of citizens arrested by law enforcement. While there have been very public, high-profile cases of celebrities' mugshots, the reality is that many consumers have been affected.

You've never heard of the mugshot industry? Neither had I until this Nightline report:

"Here's how it works, the sites legally download the latest mug shots from police web sites [that] published the faces of alleged lawbreakers on the Internet. And then often charge the accused of -- sometimes hundreds of dollars to pull all the photos..."

That's right. The sites charge consumers a fee, sometimes called a "take-down fee," to remove their mugshot photos. There are several problems with this. First, after paying one website to remove their mugshot photo, many consumers find that their mugshot photos re-appear on another website. Second, many sites don't consistently remove mugshot photos of consumers wrongfully arrested or found innocent by a court:

"... Sofia on Roddy says that was not her experience dealing with other companies she says she explained over and over again how she was the victim. And how the photos were preventing her from obtaining employment. And she provided these court document showing that prosecutors cleared her case. This was a wrongful arrests. And the case was dismissed by the state attorney's office. But her picture remains published..."

That does not sound good at all. According to ABC Nightline, there are 60 such mugshot websites. I searched online and easily found several within five minutes:

• Tampa Bay Mugshots (Florida)
• Busted! Mugshots
• Sarasota Mugshots (Florida)
• Springfield Mugshots (Missouri)
• Just Mugshots
• Shasta Mugshots (California)
• Gwinnett County Mugshots (Georgia)
• Mugshots Ocala (Florida)
• Mugshots Atlanta (Georgia)
• Go Upstate Mugshots (South Carolina)
• Cincy Mugshots (Ohio)
• Mugshots Gainsville (Florida)
• Who's Arrested

Some sites focus on a specific city or country, while others include several states and/or geographic areas. I am sure that some sites operate responsibly. Some are operated by newspapers. Why is this industry growing quickly? The ABC Nightline report interviewed one mugshot website operator, who admitted:

"Think of how many people have been arrested. Now put a small service fee on data -- of people and you can see why the industry is sort of taken off..."

Some consumers are fighting back. First, there is at least one blog about the mugshot industry. Increasing awareness among consumers is always good.

Second, in Florida legislators introduced a new bill (HB 677) to require mugshot website operators to automatically take down photos when consumers are found not guilty, or the charges were later dropped. That seems to be a very appropriate common-sense law.

Third, there is a class-action lawsuit in Ohio against several mugshot websites. According to Findlaw, the lawsuit claims:

"... these mugshot websites violate a person's right to publicity... to control how their own names and likenesses are used in the public domain, similar to how someone would own a copyright or patent... these mugshot websites may not publish such photos for the sole purpose of profiting off them, the lawsuit claims. The suit asserts that the websites' primary purpose for publishing these mugshot photos is so that those charged with a crime will pay money to remove their pictures."

The credit reporting industry is catching some most-deserved criticism about high error rates in credit reports. Plus, a couple federal laws govern and dictate a consistent process for consumers to report and challenge errors in credit reports. Accuracy seems important for the mugshot industry. HB 677 is a good start, but that is only one state. Issues with the mugshot industry are likely to continue until consumers pressure their elected officials for improved laws that better balance the privacy rights of consumers with the publishing rights of mugshot websites.

Watch the ABC News/Nightline report. And, learn more about the class-action lawsuit in Ohio.

What do you think of the mugshot industry? If you have been affected by, or paid a take-down fee to a mugshot website, what was your experience?

Comments

[Jeffrey]

I saw the Nightline report as well. TJ is Tyronne Jacques, he doesn't own a mugshot website as far as I know, he runs a reputation management company called RemoveSlander.

With your permission I'd like to point out some issues with the initial Nightline report as well as some if your own observations.

"There are several problems with this. First, after paying one website to remove their mugshot photo, many consumers find that their mugshot photos re-appear on another website. Second, many sites don't consistently remove mugshot photos of consumers wrongfully arrested or found innocent by a court.."

If a publisher publishes something legitimately and incur costs in the process of publishing, and suddenly a person without any copyright or other legal rights to the material comes around and wants it a published article down, shouldn't there be a financial transaction to cover the initial costs, administrative fees, as well as future losses of the material? Essentially what's going on here is that people who feel ashamed of their dirty laundry being published approach the sites on their own and demand/threaten that sites will take the information down or else. This is a global problem, not exclusive to mugshots.

http://www.dmlp.org/blog/2013/florida-bill-targets-%E2%80%9Cmugshot-websites%E2%80%9D-hits-crime-reporting

"First, after paying one website to remove their mugshot photo, many consumers find that their mugshot photos re-appear on another website. "

In other words, it's "oh, why didn't I get that too?!". You have to explore the PROMISE made with the service, not some wishful thinking by arrestees. if you go through these sites you'll see they specifically tell you that the removal is from their database, not from the internet or all existing or future sites that utilize public records. No misrepresentation - no problem.

"Second, many sites don't consistently remove mugshot photos of consumers wrongfully arrested or found innocent by a court:"

What would Casey Anthony to do, or Michael Jackson? The fact that some are innocents or not has no bearing on the legitimate publication of mugshots and arrest records. A mugshot isn't a "disposition shot". It usually just a record that's taken during the investigation process. These sites all have disclaimers, each and every one of them, that say the same. Again, no misrepresentation, no problem.

""... Sofia on Roddy says that was not her experience dealing with other companies she says she explained over and over again how she was the victim. And how the photos were preventing her from obtaining employment. And she provided these court document showing that prosecutors cleared her case. This was a wrongful arrests. And the case was dismissed by the state attorney's office. But her picture remains published...""

She's a victim of free press. The fact that an arrest record can affect your reputation isn't a problem, it's just the way the system works. Don't like the system? Change the constitution.

http://www.avvo.com/legal-answers/choosing-forum-for-invasion-of-privacy-lawsuit--fe-597021.html

"If someone published a list of persons who had been arrested for DUI, as long as the list is accurate, no one could possibly complain about the fact that his name appears on this list. The same is true for lists and photographs of registered sex offenders. The same is true for mug shots. Do they have the potential for harming your reputation. You bet!! "

" these mugshot websites violate a person's right to publicity."

That lawsuit, initiated by a part-time attorney who again has objectives set on reputation issues, is false and my feeling is it won't go far.

http://www.avvo.com/legal-answers/choosing-forum-for-invasion-of-privacy-lawsuit--fe-597021.html

"The only potential claim would be for violation of your right of publicity. But this will not fly because the mug shot companies are not suggesting that you endorse their products---they simply publish mug shots of persons who were arrestee and/or convicted.

Indeed, my view is that your claims would be frivolous. I suspect that very few lawyers would be willing to pursue such claims---I would be worried that I would face Rule 11 Sanctions if I would do so. "

HB 677 is dead-on-arrival and completely unconstitutional. In Florida? Good luck getting that one passed.

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/608788-hb-677-letter-from-s-morley.html

[Bordeos2000]

Sigh. When are you scammers going to stop posting that free and entirely piss-poor legal advice all over the internet? Why don't you identify yourself to the press instead of posting not credible and long-winded comments.

[Dana Cook]

I was recently arrested and my mugshot was plastered all across the internet as a result. It couldn't have happened at a worse time. I work for the local government and even though I was charged and not convicted of anything it still looks bad. I found www.cleanslatecorp.com on a message board and for one low fee they were able to remove my mugshot. Even though I am still awaiting my day in court I feel so much better not having my mugshot removed from various websites.

[Bob]

Sadly Jeffery's post above has hit the nail on the head (and there are also numerous more nails to be hit as well). I [may be] the founder of one of the mugshot sites listed above. One that got in at the beginning and it had absolutely nothing to do with money.

I would just like to give one bit of advice to anyone looking to have their picture removed... Do some research/ask a company like RemoveSlander or any other reputation companies whether they will be able to get your image off of certain sites... Because they cant! There are a lot of Mugshot sites that do not have any sort of agreements with these companies and have no obligation to take your image down if approached by them.

[Person]

A bipartisan committee supported Georgia Bill 150 which has been in effect since May 6, 2013. Bill 150 specifically deals with mugshot racketeer's. However, Webmaster's, hosting companies and search engines blatantly and adamantly refuse to obey US Law.

Georgia Bill 150
“Without fee or compensation, remove from such person's website the subject individual's arrest booking photograph.”

justmugshots.com - $159.99 – Hosting amazon.com

JUSTMUGSHOTS COM
C/O ARTHUR D'ANTONIO III
929 PORTLAND AVENUE S #1802
MINNEAPOLIS, MN  55404

US Code
18 USC § 641 - Public money, property or records
1. Whoever steals or purloins public records.
2. Whoever knowingly converts public records to their use.
3. Without authority sells public records.
3. Without authority conveys public records.

18 USC 1030 - Fraud and related activity in connection with computers
(2) intentionally accesses a computer without authorization or exceeds authorized access, and thereby obtains
(C) information from any protected computer;

18 USC 1028A - Aggravated identity theft
Whoever, knowingly transfers, possesses, or uses (website), without lawful authority, a means of identification (government photograph) of another person shall, in addition to the punishment provided for such felony, be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 2 years.

18 USC 2319 Criminal infringement of a copyright & 17 USC 506 Criminal offenses
For the purpose of commercial advantage (website) and private financial gain.

Governmental Prima Facie Evidence of name and likeness copyright:
State Certified Birth Certificate, State Drivers License, Passport and other government documents and records created to identify and validate name and likeness.

18 USC 1584 - Sale into involuntary servitude
(a) Whoever knowingly and willfully holds to involuntary servitude or sells into any condition of involuntary servitude, any other person for any term, or brings within the United States any person so held, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.

Internet Spyware (I-SPY) Prevention Act of 2007
Intentionally obtains (steals/screen scraps), or transmits (internet) to another person information with the intent to defraud (unpublish/repair reputation).

18 USC 875 - Interstate communications
Transmits (internet) communication interstate (world wide web) with the intent to injure reputation to extort (unpublish/repair reputation).

18 USC 873 Blackmail
Whoever, under a threat of informing, or as a consideration for not informing, against any violation of any law of the United States, demands or receives any money or other valuable thing, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

18 USC 1962 - Prohibited activities
(c) It shall be unlawful for any person employed by or associated with any enterprise engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce, to conduct or participate, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of such enterprise’s affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity or collection of unlawful debt.

18 USC 880 - Receiving the proceeds of extortion
A person(s) who receives, possesses, conceals, or disposes of any blackmail (unpublish/repair reputation) money.

[Andy Dufrane]

The paragraph from the Nightline report, published above, is inaccurate. These mugshot extortion websites are not publishing the "latest" mugshots. Bustedmugshots.com for example is pulling mugshots going back decades. I saw mugshots on Busted going back to 1996. People arrested for minor misdemeanors in 1996, now living their lives, suddenly have their mugshot on the internet from an arrest that happened almost 20 years ago. These sites are not reporting anything, the sole purpose is to extort money from their victims.
The websites exploit Google so that when someone googles their victims name, the mugshot appears at the top of the first page of search results. It is like putting a big billboard on the highway of someones mugshot, and saying "pay me to remove this billboard."

[George]

Readers:

I let the above 2 comments through, even though they probably do not contain the persons' real names. Person? And, you may remember that Andy Dufrane is a character in the film, "The Shawshank Redemption." Clearly, people feel strongly about the mugshot industry -- on both sides of the argument. Some want to discuss the mughsot industry, and not reveal who they are.

George
Editor
http://ivebeenmugged.typepad.com

[remove-mugshots]

http://remove-mugshots.com/

WE HELP YOU TO REMOVE YOUR MUGSHOTS, ARREST RECORDS AND CLEAN YOUR ONLINE REPUTATION

We can remove the arrest records and mugshots from arrests.org, bustedmugshots.com, mugshotsonline.com, slcmugshots.com, mugshotlist.com, arre.st, arrestfiles.org, mugshotsworld.com, justmugshots.com, mugshots.mobi, mugme.org, flarrests.com , pdxmugshots.com

[George]

Readers:

All comments are moderated. i let the above comment through so you can see the types of offers and spam used by some in the mugshot industry.

In my opinion, a reputable, trustworthy website would automatically and regularly verify, prune, and scrub their own mugshot content so that it is based NOT on mugshots taken of suspects arrested, but INSTEAD solely only on court convictions. Then again, that would eliminate the revenue stream from consumers willing to pay to have their mugshots removed. So, it's all about the cash, not true content accuracy.

George
Editor
http://ivebeenmugged.typepad.com