Alleged Owners of Mugshots.com Have Been Arrested For Extortion (lawandcrime.com)

Reader schwit1 writes: The alleged owners of Mugshots.com have been charged and arrested. These four men Sahar Sarid, Kishore Vidya Bhavnanie, Thomas Keesee, and David Usdan only removed a person's mugshot from the site if this individual paid a "de-publishing" fee, according to the California Attorney General on Wednesday. That's apparently considered extortion. On top of that, they also face charges of money laundering, and identity theft.

If you read a lot of articles about crime, then you're probably already familiar with the site (which is still up as of Friday afternoon). They take mugshots, slap the url multiple times on the image, and post it on the site alongside an excerpt from a news outlet that covered the person's arrest. According to the AG's office, the owners would only remove the mugshots if the person paid a fee, even if the charges were dismissed. This happened even if the suspect was only arrested because of "mistaken identity or law enforcement error." You can read the affidavit here.

Comments

Good. Arrest =/= guilt

[b0s0z0ku]

Frankly, arrest info shouldn't be published on the Internet at all, though it should be available to those who go in person to a courthouse. It's inexcusable that a cop's whim can ruin a person's reputation and career, even if all charges are later dismissed or judged as not guilty.

Going after the data pimps is a good first step. Next step should be arresting/suing sheriffs and police chiefs who post such info to the Internet so it can be sucked up by data miners.

Just a thought...

[hyades1]

Wouldn't it be funny if somebody hacked the site and put their mugshots up on it!

Re:Good. Arrest =/= guilt

[b0s0z0ku]

I'm not against convictions being available, but tarnishing someone's reputation based on an arrest that may or may not be justified should be illegal. The records have to be available in a courthouse for the defendant to fight the case, but if the case is dropped or the defendant is found not-guilty, they should be destroyed entirely.

Making them available only in person is a barrier to casual searching -- if it's important enough to find out, it's important enough for you to take a trip to the courthouse.

Re:Good. Arrest =/= guilt

[Austerity Empowers]

It's an important distinction, arrests mean nothing. Convictions mean you were found guilty, plead guilty or chose not to fight it (nolo contendere). The latter I think falls in the public right to know, and while I understand the intent behind forcing someone to a courthouse, I don't think that's reasonable.

But putting up arrest photos is just sleazy. Anyone can be arrested because some cop got a bug up his ass, it doesn't mean you were remotely guilty but posting it might have adverse effects on your life.

Re:Good. Arrest =/= guilt

[Jason Levine]

There's a difference between arrest and guilt. Suppose I'm walking down the street and suddenly a police car pulls over and the officers arrest me. Suppose they're acting on a tip that a man fitting my description has been doing some unsavory things to kids in the area. Suddenly, my name is linked to those crimes and anyone searching for me would see that.

Now, let's say that - after a day - the police realize they have the wrong guy, apologize, and release me. I'm sure I'd still be rattled over the situation, but at least it would die down, right? Wrong. This site (and others like it) would still be proclaiming my arrest for this crime, still associating my name with the crime as if I were found guilty and not released with no charges pressed. Years later, people might see this link and judge me based on a case of mistaken identity. Even if it went to trial and I was acquitted, this site would still be blaring my link to the alleged crime as if it were a proven fact that I was guilty.

Arrests should be withheld until charges are pressed. Once charges are pressed, they should be available at a local courthouse. If a defendant is found guilty, then the evidence should be made public.

I won't agree with b0s0z0ku's statement that a not-guilty verdict or dropped case should result in the records being destroyed. There's value to holding onto them if only to tell how often this sort of thing occurs. However, these cases should be released only in aggregate (e.g. "there were 27 dropped cases in Precinct A over the past year") not in detail. Other than that, they should be locked away and regarded as not existing if any future charge is presented or when evaluating a person.

In any event, an arrest mugshot should definitely not be posted worldwide for everyone to see and then left up long after the charges were dropped.

Re:Officers should be liable for libel; not these

[Jason Levine]

I don't think officers should be open for libel for arresting a person. There should definitely be false arrest charges if it can be proven that the officers knowingly targeted an innocent person for some reason. However, if it's just a case of mistaken identity or not enough evidence, the officers were just doing their job. Police officers have the ability to do many things that normal citizens can't do because their job demands it.

Now the Mugshots website, on the other hand, could definitely be open to libel charges. They are insinuating that an individual is linked to a crime merely because that person was arrested. As I understand it, they didn't use terms like "allegedly" (which all decent news organizations will use to avoid slander/libel suits), but instead simply said "John Jackson/Robbery." By doing so, they are implying that John Jackson was found guilty of robbery when he wasn't. Even if charges were dropped, the site kept that link up and - even worse - charged people for the "privilege" of having this link to a crime they didn't commit removed.