dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
Search similar:


uniqs
1000

EGeezer
Premium Member
join:2002-08-04
Midwest

EGeezer

Premium Member

Mugshots and extortion

If you're booked and photographed, expect your image to be posted and retained even if you're found innocent.

A class-action lawsuit filed in Lucas County Common Pleas Court alleges that Web sites that catalog and post mugshots of arrested people are extorting those individuals.

... the Web sites -- there are dozens of them -- use public records requests to get mugshots from county and state agencies that arrest and book people into jails or prisons.

Mr. Ciolek said the mugshots -- more than 259,000 Ohioans are on these sites -- can be taken down, though there are two options.

The first, free option requires the person whose picture is online to file an application that proves their innocence, Mr. Ciolek said. That process, if the application is approved, can take two to three months.

For more immediate removal, an individual can pay at least $200 to have the photo removed from the site and also from general search engines, such as Google.

“They have to pay these Web sites to remove their photo which is extortion,” Mr. Ciolek said.



»www.toledoblade.com/Cour ··· ots.html

It would seem that it's a valid argument that if the images are used for profit, they could require a release. Charging $200 to take down the picture would certainly fall into the category, as would using the photo to draw people to paying for access to details.

Blackbird
Built for Speed
Premium Member
join:2005-01-14
Fort Wayne, IN

2 recommendations

Blackbird

Premium Member

quote:
Mr. Ciolek said the mugshots -- more than 259,000 Ohioans are on these sites -- can be taken down, though there are two options. The first, free option requires the person whose picture is online to file an application that proves their innocence, Mr. Ciolek said.
One wonders how innocence can be proven, since it requires one to prove he didn't do something, virtually impossible logically... and in many cases, people are booked, held briefly, then released with no formal charges ever actually being filed in the end - the case is simply left open. In which case, it remains unclear just what the person has to prove his innocence from...

goalieskates
Premium Member
join:2004-09-12
land of big

1 recommendation

goalieskates

Premium Member

said by Blackbird:

quote:
Mr. Ciolek said the mugshots -- more than 259,000 Ohioans are on these sites -- can be taken down, though there are two options. The first, free option requires the person whose picture is online to file an application that proves their innocence, Mr. Ciolek said.

To which I'll add, Mr. Ciolek needs to reread his constitution. It's innocent until proven guilty, at least in theory. So he should be cleaning up those mugshots automatically as the cases are ajudicated. He's part of the same government as the judicial system; they make a mistake, they need to fix it - all of it.

NormanS
I gave her time to steal my mind away
MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
TP-Link TD-8616
Asus RT-AC66U B1
Netgear FR114P

1 recommendation

NormanS

MVM

said by goalieskates:

To which I'll add, Mr. Ciolek needs to reread his constitution. It's innocent until proven guilty, at least in theory. So he should be cleaning up those mugshots automatically as the cases are ajudicated. He's part of the same government as the judicial system; they make a mistake, they need to fix it - all of it.

I read the linked article twice. If my reading comprehension isn't in the crapper, Mr. Ciolek has no role in making the mug shots accessible, or posting them.

The mug shots are obtained by for-profit companies that use public information requests to obtain them, then publish them. Mr. Ciolek is filing suit on behalf of people whose mug shots have been posted; alleging that the removal procedures amount to extortion.

I expect the fix would be that publication of mug shot photos on the Internet by for-profit companies be prohibited.

StuartMW
Premium Member
join:2000-08-06

StuartMW

Premium Member

said by NormanS:

I expect the fix would be that publication of mug shot photos on the Internet by for-profit companies be prohibited.

The problem is that certain information is public. Anyone can go down to the courthouse and request it. TV news shows do this all the time and show/discuss what they find.

In some countries such data is not public and there can be stiff fines for publishing it,

IMO the info is either public or it isn't. I don't think you can say that TV networks are "the public" but websites aren't.

Blackbird
Built for Speed
Premium Member
join:2005-01-14
Fort Wayne, IN

1 recommendation

Blackbird to NormanS

Premium Member

to NormanS
said by NormanS:

...The mug shots are obtained by for-profit companies that use public information requests to obtain them, then publish them. Mr. Ciolek is filing suit on behalf of people whose mug shots have been posted; alleging that the removal procedures amount to extortion.

I expect the fix would be that publication of mug shot photos on the Internet by for-profit companies be prohibited.

Mug shots are photographic records made when a person is arrested simply to allow for identification by investigators or victims. What possible purpose can making them "public records" until a person is at least formally charged or has escaped custody (which itself is a chargable crime)? Such release isn't done for the arrested person's SSN, his drivers license number, etc. Federal courts have ruled that a mug shot can be too prejudicial to a jury during an accused's trial, so it serves no evidential purposes to the authorities even in a trial situation. Hence, other than satisfying somebody's salacious curiosity, why is it allowed to be released to the public for an uncharged or found-innocent individual under a FOI request? Indeed, release ought to be prohibited under FOI rules.

NormanS
I gave her time to steal my mind away
MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
TP-Link TD-8616
Asus RT-AC66U B1
Netgear FR114P

1 recommendation

NormanS

MVM

said by Blackbird:

... why is it allowed to be released to the public for an uncharged or found-innocent individual ...

That is twice somebody has stated, in this thread, that an individual can be, "found innocent". Such a "finding" is not possible. At trial there are only two possible outcomes, neither of which is, "innocent". When a person is arrested, they can go to trial, plead out, or be released with charges dropped. None of which relates to, "innocence"; only to guilt, and whether the state can prove guilt, or not.

Hence, other than satisfying somebody's salacious curiosity, why is it allowed to be released to the public for an uncharged or found-innocent individual under a FOI request? Indeed, release ought to be prohibited under FOI rules.

Indeed. Until the trial is over, and the verdict is in, publication of mug shots serves no useful purpose. Worse, private, for-pay sites have to monetize their action, somehow, and have no incentive to take down mug shots when a jury has completed their task, regardless of the outcome.

I can see release and publication for bail "skips"; but under no other circumstances that I can think of. As for "Freedom of the Press", well ... publication of the mug shots doesn't advance that freedom; but it does infringe on the rights of the accused.

norwegian
Premium Member
join:2005-02-15
Outback

norwegian

Premium Member

said by NormanS:

said by Blackbird:

... why is it allowed to be released to the public for an uncharged or found-innocent individual ...

That is twice somebody has stated, in this thread, that an individual can be, "found innocent". Such a "finding" is not possible. At trial there are only two possible outcomes, neither of which is, "innocent". When a person is arrested, they can go to trial, plead out, or be released with charges dropped. None of which relates to, "innocence"; only to guilt, and whether the state can prove guilt, or not.

While I like the way you tried to clarify this, you are in fact innocent until a third party brings forward complaints against you. Whether their story is true or not, doesn't change the fact it does put the light on you.

Because of this, personal views for me suggests this needs to be "black and white", something I don't say very often. To prove your innocence you would then have to prove the accuser is guilty of mis-information and if that path involves money, which you do not have, then you still loose. I think in today's world with previous cases twisting what can be fact or not, it is harder to prove either way - because someone else's case sat precedence on the subject relative to your trial.

It's like the patent office, 1 big pile of ......!

NormanS
I gave her time to steal my mind away
MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
TP-Link TD-8616
Asus RT-AC66U B1
Netgear FR114P

NormanS

MVM

said by norwegian:

While I like the way you tried to clarify this, you are in fact innocent until a third party brings forward complaints against you. Whether their story is true or not, doesn't change the fact it does put the light on you.

"Innocence" is not provable under any circumstance; it is "presumed". A trial is not about proving "innocence", but proving guilt. Failure to prove guilt results in a, "not guilty" verdict.

How ever you want to cut, slice, dice, and dry it, until guilt is proved, innocence is only "presumed", not "proved".

Blackbird
Built for Speed
Premium Member
join:2005-01-14
Fort Wayne, IN

Blackbird to NormanS

Premium Member

to NormanS
said by NormanS:

said by Blackbird:

... why is it allowed to be released to the public for an uncharged or found-innocent individual ...

That is twice somebody has stated, in this thread, that an individual can be, "found innocent". Such a "finding" is not possible. At trial there are only two possible outcomes, neither of which is, "innocent". When a person is arrested, they can go to trial, plead out, or be released with charges dropped. None of which relates to, "innocence"; only to guilt, and whether the state can prove guilt, or not. ...

An excellent point, and I stand corrected! A person can only be found "not guilty" of a charge. Innocence is always presumed, otherwise. A better word for what I was trying to express in "found-innocent" would have been "exonerated".