Mugshot Malpractice?

As someone who has spent almost 2 years through our legal system pursuing an individual for wire theft, fraud, etc, etc, it made my day seeing the "defendant's" mug shot and lengthy arrest record posted for all to see. There are some people that should have the world know just who they are and what they have done.
These websites should remove the mugshot photos if a person is found innocent. If guilty, let the world see.

Mr Rankin,

First, thank you again for your interesting and useful newsletter.

I respectfully disagree that,

“There are legitimate reasons to publish arrest records, including mugshots. The most important reason is to notify the public that the government has seized a citizen.”

Indeed, “it would be very bad if the government could make people vanish without a trace.”

However, in democratic countries, the police is required to notify the family of the arrested person and her/his lawyer. It is also required to bring the arrested person to a court-of-law if it wishes to extend the arrest beyond a short period of, say, 24 hours.

The above measures are definitely sufficient to both protect the rights of the arrested person and to serve the interest of the public.

The publication of arrest records and mug shots are a CRUEL PUNISHMENT of people BEFORE they were even prosecuted.

In the U.S., a person can be arrested, released from custody within several hours because the police realised that she/he were innocent and yet get her/his reputation ruined forever. Is it not so?

The practice of publishing arrest records and mug shots is one of many indications of the wickedness of the American legal system.

Unitary.

Thanks for this info, Bob. I'm passing it on. I know someone young who was booked for saying something within earshot of the police (short version of the story) and there's a "mugshot" online of the ankle cuff (thank God it's not a face photo). This is a really fine person who was frustrated.

While looking for a job, this particular piece of information weighed heavily on the young person's mind. Not knowing how to address it - if a prospective employer asked about it - was putting a serious damper on the job search.

I gave the following great advice that blasted through the mental barrier: If you are asked about that incident in the job interview, say with complete confidence, "Yes. I'm not proud of that. I was caught in a frustrating situation and let a bad word slip within earshot of the police. I intend for it never to happen again." Let that bullet fly and drop, indicating that that is the end of the matter.

And it was. Within a short time, this person landed a good job with head held high.

IAAL. Spain has basic protections for people with old mugshots, giving then the right to force their removal from search engine results.

Just yesterday, Google got a decision that will almost certainly mean the end of the Spanish protections. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/26/business/global/european-court-opinion-favors-google-in-privacy-battle.html

There's much to be said on both sides. Google, quite plausibly, argues that the mugshots are in the public domain. Google has no way to learn about dropped charges, let along make the judgment about whether youthful indiscretions should be forgiven. (Remember the Prodigal Son.)

People with the old mugshots say, with equal force, that they need to live their lives. Sites like The Smoking Gun may limit their photos to recent arrests, but there's a slimy underbelly in making advertzing $$$ by slamming good people years after the event.

It's an unintended consequence of the invention of the internet, and there's no principled way to decide where to come down. Only history will tell.

Mr. Attorney, you nee to go back to law school.

1. They have the right to publish arrest records.

2. Their disclaimers are in place to protect from what you say is "false light".

3. They have no obligation to follow up on dispositions.

4. 'publicity rights' is about trading on someone's name, nothing to do with publishing rights.

Larry, having the right to do something doesn't mean you should do it, and not being obliged to do something is no excuse for not doing what's right. Doing whatever you can get away with is the strategy of sociopaths.

Your 4th point is just wrong; infringing upon someone's right of publicity involves publicizing, which is publishing.

David, read below. I spoke to few attorneys about this, Right Of Publicity won't work in these cases. Even in the removal process, they aren't blindly offering it to everyone, they simply offering a service if you place an order. If anyone is ever affected by Right Of Publicity here (and I highly doubt it), it would only be limited to those who placed an order first.

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

"Here is your problem----a mug shot was taken of you. It is available from sources on line. You do not own the copyright in the mug-shot---the copyright is owned by whoever took the photograph and/or the governmental authority who paid him. Thus, you have no legal right to limit its use and distribution. It is a true picture that reflects an unfortunate but real event that occurred in your life. Guess what--you have no claim for invasion of privacy---you have no right to keep private your arrest and conviction history---including mug shots.

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. "