The mug shot publishing industry is a niche market of tabloid journalism emerging in the United States. The industry consists of private companies that publish mug shots and booking details of individuals arrested by law enforcement agencies. These companies publish the arrest information in tabloids and through websites. More than 60 new mug shot websites were created in the two-year period ending March 2013. The related mugshot removal services, at least one of which calls itself part of the reputation management industry, profit when individuals pay a fee to have their mugshot removed from one or more websites. The two types of business are sometimes operated by the same company resulting in a combination business model which Kashmir Hill, writing for Forbes calls the "embarrassment extortion industry", and David Kravets, writing for Wired refers to as a racket. Some legal experts say that while it is "close to extortion", it is a legal business model.
Maps, Directions, and Place Reviews
Publishing
The owners of mugshot websites have stated their belief that publishing the information can spur tips to Crime Stoppers and deter others from committing crimes for fear of their information being published.
Arrest data and photos are public record, and can be accessed through the websites of law enforcement agencies. However, many agencies in small cities, towns and counties do not provide online data. To reduce the probability of their mugshot going online, at least one Florida attorney suggests that his clients pick a rural sheriff's department when they surrender to authorities.
Mug shots and the associated information are published regardless of whether or not the person is guilty or has been convicted of the crime they were arrested for. The industry has become controversial because of this and due to many of the online websites charging fees to remove mugshots and arrest profiles.
How To Remove Mugshots From Google Video
Removal
Some sites remove information free of charge if a complainant provides proof they were found not guilty or that the charges were dropped. Other sites charge a fee regardless of the disposition of the case. This controversy has led some state legislatures to propose bills to regulate the industry.
There have been reports that some businesses offering mug shot removal services are connected to the mug shot publishing websites. David Kravets wrote in Wired magazine that when he asked one site's proprietor how removals were accomplished, he was told the information was "proprietary", a "trade secret", and accomplished using a "crack legal team" that required a "tremendous amount of work to get the photos down".
It has been argued that it is pointless to pay to have mugshots removed from the Web because "the Internet never forgets." Multiple archival services store the content of most websites on a periodic basis, and that content can be retrieved at any time in the future.
Criticism
The mugshot publishing industry faces several major interrelated criticisms.
Criticisms of the industry appeared online as early as 2009.
Refusal to remove when cleared
Many mugshot publishers refuse to remove records for those whose charges have been dropped, expunged, or for those who were found not guilty.
Since there are many websites participating in this industry, removing a mugshot on one site doesn't get it removed from other sites. Some people have felt that removing their mugshot from a site results in it appearing on other sites. They compare this problem to a game of Whac-A-Mole. The owner of a mugshot removal website directed blame at Police and Sheriff departments where mugshots are posted online after an arrest, and are the source of mugshot website photos. He stated, "Here's the thing, the police can stop this overnight and that's the part no one is talking about. Why are (authorities) posting the mug shot of someone who simply missed traffic court?"
Embarrassment extortion
"Embarrassment extortion", according to writer Kashmir Hill, is when the same companies which post the mugshots are the ones offering to take them down for a fee, is the "dark side" of the mugshot publishing industry.
"It's wrong but not a violation of the criminal laws. Arbitrarily charging for mugshot removal doesn't fit the legal definition of extortion because the photos are public record" said Danny Porter, Gwinnett County, Georgia District Attorney.
Kenneth B. Nunn, law professor at the University of Florida's Fredric G. Levin College of Law, said the mug shot sites look like "a seedy business," but, "There's nothing wrong with posting these further," he said. "It's close to extortion, although not quite because there is not a threat to harm reputation, but to improve it," he said.
On Oct. 29, 2013 the Better Business Bureau launched an investigation and concluded that Watson has a First Amendment right to operate his business but investigators felt "the company is using high pressure and unethical business practice to intimidate individuals."
Private attempts to block industry
On October 5, 2013, David Segal, a reporter at the New York Times, published an article critical of the mug shot publishing industry. Prior to publication and seemingly in response to this criticism, Google took steps to lower mug shot sites rankings in their search algorithms so that such pictures no longer appear in the first page of search results when a person is searched by name. According to the New York Times article, payment processors such as Visa, MasterCard, Discover, American Express, and PayPal were in process of terminating processing payments to mugshot websites and related removal sites. Ten days later CNN Money reported, that according to American Express, it had severed all ties; and that other companies were still in the process of cutting ties with the mug shot industry.
Legislation
Several state legislatures have introduced bills to regulate the mug shot publishing industry. These bills often require that operators of mug shot websites remove information about individuals who were arrested but never convicted. This removal would have to occur after a specified period of time and without charging a fee to the person arrested.
Litigation
On December 3, 2012, a case was filed in the Lucas County Court Of Common Pleas, in Ohio, against 14 mug shot publishers. On December 27, 2013, a settlement was reached and Judge Zouhary signed an order dismissing the litigation with prejudice after the mug shot websites claimed to not be in violation of any laws. However, the websites did agree to remove the plaintiffs' mug shots and to no longer process mug shot removals. According to attorneys in the case, Citizens Information Associates LLC has agreed to pay $7,500 to Debra Lashaway of Holland, and Phillip Kaplan and Otha Randall, both of Toledo.
On October 21, 2013, U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona issued a victory for publishers who post mugshots on their websites. In Jamali v. Maricopa County, US Support LLC, et al., the federal Court flatly rejected an arrestee's claims that the publication of his mugshot violates his Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, and Ninth amendment rights under the U.S. Constitution. Additionally, the Court thoroughly rejected any possibility that the arrestee could even hope to identify a valid federal claim against publishers based on the publication of his mugshot, saying "The Court is satisfied that Plaintiff cannot plead a federal claim and that further amendments would be futile. The Court accordingly will not grant him leave to amend."
Lawyers in Ohio filed a lawsuit on behalf of 3 plaintiffs. The suit contends that more than 250,000 people in Ohio have been harmed by the mugshot web sites. A settlement was reached in the lawsuit on December 27, 2013 and several of the mugshot publishing companies involved agreed to remove the plaintiffs' mugshots as well as pay a settlement. The lawyer in charge of the class action lawsuit is no longer accepting any mugshot cases.
Source of the article : Wikipedia
EmoticonEmoticon