13 ms·

California AG Files Extortion Charges Against MugShots.com

111 points by bhartzer 8y ago

DannyB2 8y ago
A problem of scale as well as prerogative. There is only one government with mugshots. And for small crimes you can pay a small fee to remove. There can be an UNLIMITED number of "Mugshot" extortion sites spring up like weeds. Each setting their own extortion rates. And for no purpose other than private enrichment.
ggg9990 8y ago
Great. I hope they can call it n thousand counts of extortion and effectively get a life without parole sentence.
kodis 8y ago
So, MugShots.com posts mug shots, which are a matter of public record, but will remove them for a small fee. That's extortion. But, the government posts judicial proceedings, which are a matter of public record, but for minor crimes will expunge the record for a small fee. That's a perfectly legal government function. These two situations seem a bit too close for such disparate legal outcomes.
- 49bc 8y ago
  Q: When does a fee become extortion vs covering the cost to execute?
  - eevilspock 8y ago
    I think its wrong for the government to the charge for the "cost to execute". It's not equal protection under the law if there's a price on it.
    - Clubber 8y ago
      Some states charge for court costs and public defenders, including California where this motion was filed. https://www.npr.org/2014/05/19/312455680/state-by-state-court-fees https://www.npr.org/2014/05/19/312455680/state-by-state-cour... It's corruption and theft everywhere. If I were cynical (which you bet I am), I would say this is more about California not getting their cut.
  - drefanzor 8y ago
    I have mugshots on that site for charges that were DROPPED. I HAVE PROOF OF INNOCENCE. I even have my paperwork stating that the charges WILL NOT BE REFILED. I emailed the administrators at mugshots.com and they refused to remove them without first paying a fee. This is exploitative. They now won't even allow me to pay the fee since I "threatened" them (with a lawsuit). Don't feel bad for these guys.
    - 49bc 8y ago
      I don't feel bad for them at all. Clearly it's a racket. My comment was that I don't think the government charging a fee is a similar situation.
    - TheCowboy 8y ago
      It's good when people share their personal experiences like this here. People too often take a "tough on crime" attitude but don't realize the millions of people affected by overzealous police or burdened by justice system digital trails who haven't even been convicted of anything. That's not just. Turning a blind eye just means more pent up anger and less trust in the justice system. It just seems un-American that people can't move on with their lives and accomplish their full potential.
  - 2_listerine_pls 8y ago
    If they are willing to remove them, why bother making them public in the first place?
- raverbashing 8y ago
  One of them has the prerogative of posing judicial proceedings, the other doesn't.
- knodi123 8y ago
  > but for minor crimes will expunge the record for a small fee. Wait, seriously? I'd never heard of this. Is it really true?
  - hibikir 8y ago
    If you prefer, look at the classic traffic ticket example: In court, prior to talking to the judge, you can have a conversation with the prosecutor to change your moving violation to a non-moving violation that is a little bit more expensive. Then the insurance company doesn't get to raise your rates for the next X years. It's ultimately the very same thing, and you will find examples of it in an overwhelming majority of US traffic courts.
    - GavinMcG 8y ago
      Or a less expensive one, in my experience.
    - emodendroket 8y ago
      In my experience you take a day off of work to get a long lecture and still end up with the same ticket. Guess some of us are luckier than others.
      - jbob2000 8y ago
        Hire a paralegal. $500 and they show up for you. Usually they are ex-cops who have good relationships with the judiciary and will do a better job of presenting your case. Sometimes they will ask you to show up to the court house with them (if it's a tough case), but they hold your hand through the whole thing and heavily coach you on every interaction in the court room. Things like "don't look towards the officer who gave you a ticket" and "only respond with yes, no, or I don't know when questioned". Yes, I unfortunately have some experience with this...
      - volkl48 8y ago
        Depends on where you are I suppose. Where I got a ticket once (Upstate NY) and it was an official policy. If you have not had more than X tickets in Y years and choose to contest it, they would knock down minor moving violations to no-points non-moving violations, and they will knock down moderately serious (ex: tailgating, 20mph over the limit on the highway) ones to minor. You didn't need a lawyer and you didn't need any justification/evidence if you wanted to take that deal.
- GavinMcG 8y ago
  There's a significant difference between a fee being a necessary condition and a fee being sufficient. A court system where paying a fee is truly sufficient is a corrupt one, just like the website. Equating them only works if courts are all corrupt. While corruption is obviously a possibility in court systems, we expect the decision to expunge to be based on justice concerns, even if we do also require a fee for the process.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > These two situations seem a bit too close for such disparate legal outcomes. Well, other than the fact that pretty much everything else the government does relating to criminal law enforcement and the penal system is also very illegal for private parties, your description oversimplifies the expungement process to make it more similar to what MugShots.com does outside of the “by the government” part.
  - jpeg_hero 8y ago
    Fantastic point! "Chasing down people, binding them and holding them against their will for large periods of time (imprisonment)" State has exclusive monopoly on violence.
    - rootw0rm 8y ago
      and that's why I'm an anarchist
- komali2 8y ago
  Functionally, they are nearly identical. The key word is the one you already said - "legal." We "trust" the government and justice system, and that's why they are allowed (empowered) to charge us as needed. Sideline - we consider many of these charges to be "non-profit," i.e. the fee you pay the court isn't calculated to generate profit for somebody, it's calculated to reduce costs so that the process can be possible at all. Also, generally there are assistance programs for this sort of thing. Fuck the system fuck the man, eventually I'm convinced we'll all go Walkaway, but right now government seems to be the only safe way to navigate the next couple decades.
- empath75 8y ago
  It's also not legal for a random citizen to execute or arrest people.
  - jMyles 8y ago
    It's not legal for a citizen to arrest people? In what state? If that's true, that's as full-blown an abandonment of Peelian principles as I've ever heard.
    - s73v3r_ 8y ago
      That's probably a good thing, considering the wave of white people calling the police on black people for literally doing nothing but being black. The incidents currently occurring are terrible enough, but I can't imagine how awful it would be if those people felt they didn't need the cops, and carried out the arrests themselves.
      - jMyles 8y ago
        What is probably a good thing? And what exactly are you projecting will happen in this scenario? Are you asserting that the addition of professional policing has meant less projecting of racial violence by the state?
        s73v3r_ 8y ago
        "What is probably a good thing?" That citizen's arrests are difficult to justify or do. "And what exactly are you projecting will happen in this scenario?" The racist white people who are calling the cops on black people for simply being around will then switch to trying to do "citizen's arrest" on them. "Are you asserting that the addition of professional policing has meant less projecting of racial violence by the state?" No, and I have no idea where you got that from. I'm saying that racists would be even more empowered to be shitty and make things worse than they already are.
        jMyles 8y ago
- emodendroket 8y ago
  If I issue a warrant against someone, and then kick down their door and point a gun at them and handcuff them, that too would not be allowed, even though the government can do it.
- jacquesm 8y ago
  Those situations are not at all close. It's pretty simple: MugShots has inserted itself into the legal system, making what is already public still public is fine, levying a fee to remove the data is not because they have not been sanctioned to do so. If they were part of the government it would be a different matter but they have no business determining what the fee should be. That being the case the only reasonable fee they could arrive at is $0. Keep in mind that in America lots of people are arrested at least once during their lifetime and that even if the charges are dropped or not substantiated that your mugshot remains. This should not be a source of further cost to the subjects of the mugshots. After all, what would stop a few thousand of these sites from doing the same? The only party that should be allowed to levy a fee is the same party that maintains the original register. Finally, I don't think there should even be such a thing as a public mugshot database.
- kkielhofner 8y ago
  Practically speaking they are very different. In the age of "Google everyone you meet" Mugshots.com and similar sites have pretty effective SEO that immediately taint (or at least question) a Google search for anyone who's ever been arrested and either isn't willing or able to pay their "removal" (read: extortion) fee. Complete with mugshot, obviously, which has the extra impact of providing visual confirmation of the identity. Bonus points in that a mugshot is rarely flattering and often documents someone at their absolute worst. While various governmental agencies provide access to much of the same information to the public they are very scattered. For example, in the state of Wisconsin you'd have to know that it's called "Wisconsin Circuit Court Access", navigate to the page, click "I Agree", and then search. For one state. No SEO and in fact hidden behind a page that requires agreement to terms. Repeat x50 for each individual state (or those that even offer such a service), PACER for federal courts, etc. Some counties and municipalities offer their own versions as well. Very different from the first page of results in a Google search.
  - PeanutNore 8y ago
    The solution to being Googled by everyone you meet is obviously to have a name that's common as mud, or alternatively to share the same name as someone famous.
    - s73v3r_ 8y ago
      Or to pull the Lorenzo von Matterhorn, wherein you litter the web with SEO optimized pages describing your exploits and showing how good of a person you are and so on.
  - ams6110 8y ago
    "Google everyone you meet" Is this generational? I have never googled anyone other than the occasional celebrity.
- Andre_Wanglin 8y ago
  We don't want secret court proceedings. People who have just been arrested have not been formally indicted for any crime. Nothing makes it to PACER until it has been through the oversight of a grand jury.
djrogers 8y ago
Honestly not sure how you could describe this scheme as anything but extortion. As far as I can tell it seems to be their primary revenue stream, along with ads for services that promise to 'erase' your arrest records...
- jMyles 8y ago
  Since the mugshot is a matter of public record, I think it's plausible to describe this scheme as free press, although with wholly odious content.
  - perl4ever 8y ago
    What kind of extortion could you not describe as free speech?
    - jMyles 8y ago
      The kind where you're revealing a secret, a stolen object, or a falsehood. Or threatening to harm someone if they don't pay for "protection." You know, actual extortion.
    - andrewla 8y ago
      You can extort someone by threatening to reveal something, even if revealing that would not be criminal in and of itself. I feel that the distinction here is mainly that the information is already published -- they're not threatening any action if there's no payment. If they contacted people before posting their mugshots and demanded payment to not publish, then it would be cut and dry.
      - s73v3r_ 8y ago
        They're publishing for the sole purpose of getting people to pay them to take them down. I fail to see how that's any different than asking them first, except that now paying becomes that much more urgent.
  - s73v3r_ 8y ago
nolite 8y ago
Morality aside... what I'm curious about is, what gives California any jurisdiction over a company registered in another country, and operators residing in other states?
- jchw 8y ago
  As I understand it: If they accept money from Californians, they have a leg to stand on. Similar to the EU/GDPR deal.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  Sovereignty has only the bounds adopted by the sovereign, and US states are sovereign (but, in addition to those in their own law, have adopted, by ratification, any limits on states in the US Constitution, including those in valid federal laws under the Constitution.) So, the question is, is there anything in those limitations which would deny California authority here?
- maxxxxx 8y ago
  I think they have jurisdiction over companies that operate in their territory. I think the EU has the same line of thinking regarding GDPR. Even if the company is outside the EU it still can't provide services in the EU that violate GDPR.
- eevilspock 8y ago
  Given the examples in the article, they are clearly doing "business" in the state, and doing harm on citizens of the state. If they fail to show up in California court to defend themselves, that would lead to another charge. The state could make extradition requests, or arrest them if they ever show up in the state. It's possible that federal charges could be filed.
  - jessaustin 8y ago
    If the operators are careful never to travel to California, does it end there? Would a California judge order ISPs to block particular sites? Could payment providers be forced to stop paying?
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
49bc 8y ago
I'm surprised mugshots are other such aren't sealed until after a conviction. Is there a particular legal precedent for this? Heck, even a speeding ticket isn't shared by the DMV until after you plea guilty or are convincted. You have a long period of appeals until that time.
- John_KZ 8y ago
  This, in my country mugshots are only revealed after conviction or in exceptional cases (like when they're after armed criminals still at large). I think that's the case too with some US states like Florida.
  - reaperducer 8y ago
    >I think that's the case too with some US states like Florida. Very unlikely. As soon as a mug shot is entered into the system, it's a public document and available to any citizen. You can walk into your local police station and request to see all of the mug shots taken that day. It's your right as an American citizen. It's how small newspapers put together their "police blotter" section. Journalism schools used to send their students out to dig up all the information they could about a person, as part of a larger project for credit. Sometimes it was a professor of their choice, or the class professor, or some random mope out of the phone book. The police station was usually the third stop, after the city clerk's office (business and zoning records) and the county clerk's office (property ownership records).
- jMyles 8y ago
  > I'm surprised mugshots are other such aren't sealed until after a conviction. That sounds closer and closer to secret arrest. The public has a right to know who the government has arrested and why. By sealing them until after conviction, it makes it sound like the mugshot is punishment. It isn't. It's a public record to check the government against secretly arresting people (or intentionally arresting the wrong people).
  - sundvor 8y ago
poster123 8y ago
If I create the same web site without the option of paying to have a mugshot taken down, is that legal? In general I think extortion should be defined as threatening to do something illegal unless paid.
- kodablah 8y ago
  > If I create the same web site without the option of paying to have a mugshot taken down, is that legal? Yes. From TFA: "Photos of criminal suspects taken by law enforcement agencies are public records and are generally releasable under state open records laws. Publishing them is not a crime, but Becerra said Mugshots.com broke the law in demanding a fee for their removal." > In general I think extortion should be defined as threatening to do something illegal unless paid. Nah, threats/coercion are enough. Think of this as blackmail.
  - gnode 8y ago
    Does this still apply in cases where the suspect has been found not guilty / charges dropped?
- jpeg_hero 8y ago
  "Give me money or I'll tell your wife you are cheating on her." Legal to tell somebody information you know. Extortion?
- Meekro 8y ago
  > I think extortion should be defined as threatening to do something illegal unless paid. Intuitively, it seems like it should be! Compare these two threats from a worker to the company owner, and consider what kind of definition of extortion would cover #1 while excluding #2: 1. "Pay me $1000, or I'll burn your house down." 2. "Pay me $1000, or I'll quit and go work for your competitor." Obviously extortion can't be defined as "threatening to do something the other person won't like," otherwise they both would qualify. If you define it as "threatening to do something illegal" then it seems to fit better. This kind of thinking makes sense to me, but this is why nerds like me make bad lawyers -- it turns out to be wrong. Threatening to "reveal information about a victim or their family members that is potentially embarrassing or socially damaging" [1] is enough, even though actually revealing that information is perfectly legal. Seems counter-intuitive, but there you go! [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extortion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extortion
CodeWriter23 8y ago
Can someone illustrate how the misdeeds of these awful people makes the crime of money laundering?
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  Presumably, they are accused of doing something in moving money around to conceal it's illegal origin (the fact that the removal is a separate, not overtly connected site may be part of this if it reflects a deeper subterfuge where there is an attempt to pretend they are separate, unrelated businesses.) Unfortunately, there are no links i can find to the actual criminal filing, which would presumably have some details as to the factual allegations supporting the identified charges.
gowld 8y ago
A better solution would be for upstanding citizens do do a "civic duty / national service" of getting arrested and going through the experience, so that everyone mug shots are together, and everyone understands what sort of violence the State perpetrates on their behalf.
mc32 8y ago
While it may not be a logical thing, legally speaking, I’m glad that I can agree with Sacto on this. While it’s all piblic record, the friction of having to go to the dept of justice seems like a fair balance btwn openness and privacy.
annomys 8y ago
dear: other anonymous members ai is talking to al and the government cant see what there saying we can use this to are advice or shut them down i say we use it to are advice so no one can hack us or try to
annomys 8y ago
the gov can not see what these 2 robots are using me and other members of anonymous say if we hack them we can talk without know one knowing
mhb 8y ago
Sort of like collecting my "identity" information, putting it at risk of being taken and asking me to pay a fee to prevent unauthorized people from accessing it.
jMyles 8y ago
I find this very hard to understand - doesn't freedom of the press ensure that I can post whatever media (in the public domain) that I like? If I were posting public domain photos of a city park, and running a market wherein people were able to pay to have them removed, is that the same thing? If not, this seems like an implicit assumption that a mugshot is a form of punishment / humiliation. And if that's so, isn't that the injustice here?
- URSpider94 8y ago
  I'm sure it will be an interesting case, wouldn't be surprised if it goes all the way to the Supreme Court. However -- there are clear laws making it illegal to demand money to not speak/publish information (i.e. blackmail). I expect the defense will argue that they are not publishing the information, they are merely amplifying it by making items of public record more available.
  - jMyles 8y ago
    This seems to be distinct from blackmail in a clear cut way though - in this case the information is already published, and the market is for removing it. In other words, it isn't a secret at the time of the transaction.
    - URSpider94 8y ago
      Here's a really interesting article on the topic: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/07/06/it-is-actually-difficult-to-define-blackmail/?utm_term=.db9992a7008f https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/201... Note that in the DC statute discussed in the article, it refers to "publicizing an asserted fact". One could argue that repeating the fact that the mug shot exists in a different forum is an act of publicizing. In this day and age, publication is increasingly a matter of degree -- everyone's a publisher, if you count Twitter and Facebook. It would still be blackmail, I think, if you threatened to take someone's tweet and put it on the front page of the NY Times unless you receive a lifetime supply of M&M's and Diet Coke ...
joshe 8y ago
The court will make the final decision, but wow it really does seem like extortion. The stories in the article are brutal. The free press argument isn't relevant. If the a local paper called you up and said "hey we are going to publish this negative article about a bar fight you started unless you pay us $500", that would also be extortion. Remove "unless you pay us" and it's totally legal. If MugPhotos.com launches and just publishes mugshots but doesn't charge to remove them, it would also not be extortion. FindLaw: "Most states define extortion as the gaining of property or money by almost any kind of force, or threat of 1) violence, 2) property damage, 3) harm to reputation, or 4) unfavorable government action." IANAL etc.
- jMyles 8y ago
  The difference is: Merely publishing a mugshot is not "harm to reputation". If it were, then it'd be extrajudicial punishment when the government does it, no?
  - SamReidHughes 8y ago
    There's nothing legally wrong with extrajudicial harm to reputation.
    - jMyles 8y ago
      Yeah? Is that true? Can the government capriciously harm someone's reputation with no legal basis? I doubt that. At the very least, it's a civil matter.
      - joshe 8y ago
        If they are sharing true facts, they can harm your reputation anytime they want. Individuals can harm other people's reputation with true facts too. Defamation/slander/libel is only when someone harms your reputation with false facts. It's hard to win defamation suits. Doesn't make it nice of course. But not every cruel thing is illegal.
ironjunkie 8y ago
A bit broader than only mugshots, but that easy access on the alleged criminal past of everyone is something I absolutely despise in the US. How can anyone get a real second chance if everyone looks down at them on their previous mistakes? The worst one for me is the Megan's law map that anyone can go check out online. Most of the time those people already paid their dues to society after spending multiple years in prison, they should also have the right to start a second life without constant shaming from their neighbors. This is the consequence of a society that is extremely bad at rehabilitating ex-offenders and that sees them as rotten people that need to be forever segregated.
- everdev 8y ago
  I would much rather rehabilitate, but since that's not happening and there are high recitivism rates, I do want to know who lives near me or where I might want to live. In the instances where you damage your community through a crime, it's OK to lose some right to privacy. I could see the case for getting removed if you do successfully rehabilitate though.
  - striking 8y ago
    How could you possibly judge that?
  - ironjunkie 8y ago
    It is a chicken and egg problem. By shaming the person, they will be unable to ever find a job again, date anyone again, live normally again. You push those people to the fringe and the most probable outcome is for those people to fall into criminal activities again. As an anecdote, in my previous job I met a programmer at a Meetup and the guy had exactly the required skills. HR refused to even initiate an interview because he apparently had a "small criminal case" 15 years before that was found with one of those deep background check tools.
    - rootw0rm 8y ago
      convicted bank robber here, it is difficult sometimes. California is making good progress though, as long as you don't want a government job or a job that requires a state license.
andrewla 8y ago
The case for this being extortion feels very weak to me. The records are public record, so they are available to anyone who asks for them. They have already been published on the website, so the request for payment does not carry any threat. It feels like the real problem here is that many things that are designated as public records have previously been practically inaccessible. We're in an age where it is getting easier to make things like that more accessible and searchable, so we have to reconsider the laws designating various things as public record. Mugshots, in particular, seem to be an ideal case for not being public record at all -- it's not clear how the public benefits from these being accessible.
WalterBright 8y ago
"extortion and money laundering charges against the owners of a website that publishes mugshot photos and charges a fee to remove them." Isn't that blackmail, not extortion?
URSpider94 8y ago
Here's a fascinating article on the crime of blackmail, which addresses a lot of the questions that have been brought up on this thread: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/07/06/it-is-actually-difficult-to-define-blackmail/?utm_term=.db9992a7008f https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/201...

111 points by bhartzer 8y ago

A problem of scale as well as prerogative. There is only one government with mugshots. And for small crimes you can pay a small fee to remove. There can be an UNLIMITED number of "Mugshot" extortion sites spring up like weeds. Each setting their own extortion rates. And for no purpose other than private enrichment.

ggg9990 8y ago

Great. I hope they can call it n thousand counts of extortion and effectively get a life without parole sentence.

kodis 8y ago

So, MugShots.com posts mug shots, which are a matter of public record, but will remove them for a small fee. That's extortion. But, the government posts judicial proceedings, which are a matter of public record, but for minor crimes will expunge the record for a small fee. That's a perfectly legal government function. These two situations seem a bit too close for such disparate legal outcomes.

49bc 8y ago
Q: When does a fee become extortion vs covering the cost to execute?
- eevilspock 8y ago
  I think its wrong for the government to the charge for the "cost to execute". It's not equal protection under the law if there's a price on it.
  - Clubber 8y ago
    Some states charge for court costs and public defenders, including California where this motion was filed. https://www.npr.org/2014/05/19/312455680/state-by-state-court-fees https://www.npr.org/2014/05/19/312455680/state-by-state-cour... It's corruption and theft everywhere. If I were cynical (which you bet I am), I would say this is more about California not getting their cut.
- drefanzor 8y ago
  I have mugshots on that site for charges that were DROPPED. I HAVE PROOF OF INNOCENCE. I even have my paperwork stating that the charges WILL NOT BE REFILED. I emailed the administrators at mugshots.com and they refused to remove them without first paying a fee. This is exploitative. They now won't even allow me to pay the fee since I "threatened" them (with a lawsuit). Don't feel bad for these guys.
  - 49bc 8y ago
    I don't feel bad for them at all. Clearly it's a racket. My comment was that I don't think the government charging a fee is a similar situation.
  - TheCowboy 8y ago
    It's good when people share their personal experiences like this here. People too often take a "tough on crime" attitude but don't realize the millions of people affected by overzealous police or burdened by justice system digital trails who haven't even been convicted of anything. That's not just. Turning a blind eye just means more pent up anger and less trust in the justice system. It just seems un-American that people can't move on with their lives and accomplish their full potential.
- 2_listerine_pls 8y ago
  If they are willing to remove them, why bother making them public in the first place?
raverbashing 8y ago
One of them has the prerogative of posing judicial proceedings, the other doesn't.
knodi123 8y ago
> but for minor crimes will expunge the record for a small fee. Wait, seriously? I'd never heard of this. Is it really true?
- hibikir 8y ago
  If you prefer, look at the classic traffic ticket example: In court, prior to talking to the judge, you can have a conversation with the prosecutor to change your moving violation to a non-moving violation that is a little bit more expensive. Then the insurance company doesn't get to raise your rates for the next X years. It's ultimately the very same thing, and you will find examples of it in an overwhelming majority of US traffic courts.
  - GavinMcG 8y ago
    Or a less expensive one, in my experience.
  - emodendroket 8y ago
    In my experience you take a day off of work to get a long lecture and still end up with the same ticket. Guess some of us are luckier than others.
    - jbob2000 8y ago
      Hire a paralegal. $500 and they show up for you. Usually they are ex-cops who have good relationships with the judiciary and will do a better job of presenting your case. Sometimes they will ask you to show up to the court house with them (if it's a tough case), but they hold your hand through the whole thing and heavily coach you on every interaction in the court room. Things like "don't look towards the officer who gave you a ticket" and "only respond with yes, no, or I don't know when questioned". Yes, I unfortunately have some experience with this...
    - volkl48 8y ago
      Depends on where you are I suppose. Where I got a ticket once (Upstate NY) and it was an official policy. If you have not had more than X tickets in Y years and choose to contest it, they would knock down minor moving violations to no-points non-moving violations, and they will knock down moderately serious (ex: tailgating, 20mph over the limit on the highway) ones to minor. You didn't need a lawyer and you didn't need any justification/evidence if you wanted to take that deal.
GavinMcG 8y ago
There's a significant difference between a fee being a necessary condition and a fee being sufficient. A court system where paying a fee is truly sufficient is a corrupt one, just like the website. Equating them only works if courts are all corrupt. While corruption is obviously a possibility in court systems, we expect the decision to expunge to be based on justice concerns, even if we do also require a fee for the process.
dragonwriter 8y ago
> These two situations seem a bit too close for such disparate legal outcomes. Well, other than the fact that pretty much everything else the government does relating to criminal law enforcement and the penal system is also very illegal for private parties, your description oversimplifies the expungement process to make it more similar to what MugShots.com does outside of the “by the government” part.
- jpeg_hero 8y ago
  Fantastic point! "Chasing down people, binding them and holding them against their will for large periods of time (imprisonment)" State has exclusive monopoly on violence.
  - rootw0rm 8y ago
    and that's why I'm an anarchist
komali2 8y ago
Functionally, they are nearly identical. The key word is the one you already said - "legal." We "trust" the government and justice system, and that's why they are allowed (empowered) to charge us as needed. Sideline - we consider many of these charges to be "non-profit," i.e. the fee you pay the court isn't calculated to generate profit for somebody, it's calculated to reduce costs so that the process can be possible at all. Also, generally there are assistance programs for this sort of thing. Fuck the system fuck the man, eventually I'm convinced we'll all go Walkaway, but right now government seems to be the only safe way to navigate the next couple decades.
empath75 8y ago
It's also not legal for a random citizen to execute or arrest people.
- jMyles 8y ago
  It's not legal for a citizen to arrest people? In what state? If that's true, that's as full-blown an abandonment of Peelian principles as I've ever heard.
  - s73v3r_ 8y ago
    That's probably a good thing, considering the wave of white people calling the police on black people for literally doing nothing but being black. The incidents currently occurring are terrible enough, but I can't imagine how awful it would be if those people felt they didn't need the cops, and carried out the arrests themselves.
    - jMyles 8y ago
      What is probably a good thing? And what exactly are you projecting will happen in this scenario? Are you asserting that the addition of professional policing has meant less projecting of racial violence by the state?
      - s73v3r_ 8y ago
        "What is probably a good thing?" That citizen's arrests are difficult to justify or do. "And what exactly are you projecting will happen in this scenario?" The racist white people who are calling the cops on black people for simply being around will then switch to trying to do "citizen's arrest" on them. "Are you asserting that the addition of professional policing has meant less projecting of racial violence by the state?" No, and I have no idea where you got that from. I'm saying that racists would be even more empowered to be shitty and make things worse than they already are.
        jMyles 8y ago
emodendroket 8y ago
If I issue a warrant against someone, and then kick down their door and point a gun at them and handcuff them, that too would not be allowed, even though the government can do it.
jacquesm 8y ago
Those situations are not at all close. It's pretty simple: MugShots has inserted itself into the legal system, making what is already public still public is fine, levying a fee to remove the data is not because they have not been sanctioned to do so. If they were part of the government it would be a different matter but they have no business determining what the fee should be. That being the case the only reasonable fee they could arrive at is $0. Keep in mind that in America lots of people are arrested at least once during their lifetime and that even if the charges are dropped or not substantiated that your mugshot remains. This should not be a source of further cost to the subjects of the mugshots. After all, what would stop a few thousand of these sites from doing the same? The only party that should be allowed to levy a fee is the same party that maintains the original register. Finally, I don't think there should even be such a thing as a public mugshot database.
kkielhofner 8y ago
Practically speaking they are very different. In the age of "Google everyone you meet" Mugshots.com and similar sites have pretty effective SEO that immediately taint (or at least question) a Google search for anyone who's ever been arrested and either isn't willing or able to pay their "removal" (read: extortion) fee. Complete with mugshot, obviously, which has the extra impact of providing visual confirmation of the identity. Bonus points in that a mugshot is rarely flattering and often documents someone at their absolute worst. While various governmental agencies provide access to much of the same information to the public they are very scattered. For example, in the state of Wisconsin you'd have to know that it's called "Wisconsin Circuit Court Access", navigate to the page, click "I Agree", and then search. For one state. No SEO and in fact hidden behind a page that requires agreement to terms. Repeat x50 for each individual state (or those that even offer such a service), PACER for federal courts, etc. Some counties and municipalities offer their own versions as well. Very different from the first page of results in a Google search.
- PeanutNore 8y ago
  The solution to being Googled by everyone you meet is obviously to have a name that's common as mud, or alternatively to share the same name as someone famous.
  - s73v3r_ 8y ago
    Or to pull the Lorenzo von Matterhorn, wherein you litter the web with SEO optimized pages describing your exploits and showing how good of a person you are and so on.
- ams6110 8y ago
  "Google everyone you meet" Is this generational? I have never googled anyone other than the occasional celebrity.
Andre_Wanglin 8y ago
We don't want secret court proceedings. People who have just been arrested have not been formally indicted for any crime. Nothing makes it to PACER until it has been through the oversight of a grand jury.

djrogers 8y ago

Honestly not sure how you could describe this scheme as anything but extortion. As far as I can tell it seems to be their primary revenue stream, along with ads for services that promise to 'erase' your arrest records...

jMyles 8y ago
Since the mugshot is a matter of public record, I think it's plausible to describe this scheme as free press, although with wholly odious content.
- perl4ever 8y ago
  What kind of extortion could you not describe as free speech?
  - jMyles 8y ago
    The kind where you're revealing a secret, a stolen object, or a falsehood. Or threatening to harm someone if they don't pay for "protection." You know, actual extortion.
  - andrewla 8y ago
    You can extort someone by threatening to reveal something, even if revealing that would not be criminal in and of itself. I feel that the distinction here is mainly that the information is already published -- they're not threatening any action if there's no payment. If they contacted people before posting their mugshots and demanded payment to not publish, then it would be cut and dry.
    - s73v3r_ 8y ago
      They're publishing for the sole purpose of getting people to pay them to take them down. I fail to see how that's any different than asking them first, except that now paying becomes that much more urgent.
- s73v3r_ 8y ago

nolite 8y ago

Morality aside... what I'm curious about is, what gives California any jurisdiction over a company registered in another country, and operators residing in other states?

jchw 8y ago
As I understand it: If they accept money from Californians, they have a leg to stand on. Similar to the EU/GDPR deal.
dragonwriter 8y ago
Sovereignty has only the bounds adopted by the sovereign, and US states are sovereign (but, in addition to those in their own law, have adopted, by ratification, any limits on states in the US Constitution, including those in valid federal laws under the Constitution.) So, the question is, is there anything in those limitations which would deny California authority here?
maxxxxx 8y ago
I think they have jurisdiction over companies that operate in their territory. I think the EU has the same line of thinking regarding GDPR. Even if the company is outside the EU it still can't provide services in the EU that violate GDPR.
eevilspock 8y ago
Given the examples in the article, they are clearly doing "business" in the state, and doing harm on citizens of the state. If they fail to show up in California court to defend themselves, that would lead to another charge. The state could make extradition requests, or arrest them if they ever show up in the state. It's possible that federal charges could be filed.
- jessaustin 8y ago
  If the operators are careful never to travel to California, does it end there? Would a California judge order ISPs to block particular sites? Could payment providers be forced to stop paying?

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

49bc 8y ago

I'm surprised mugshots are other such aren't sealed until after a conviction. Is there a particular legal precedent for this? Heck, even a speeding ticket isn't shared by the DMV until after you plea guilty or are convincted. You have a long period of appeals until that time.

John_KZ 8y ago
This, in my country mugshots are only revealed after conviction or in exceptional cases (like when they're after armed criminals still at large). I think that's the case too with some US states like Florida.
- reaperducer 8y ago
  >I think that's the case too with some US states like Florida. Very unlikely. As soon as a mug shot is entered into the system, it's a public document and available to any citizen. You can walk into your local police station and request to see all of the mug shots taken that day. It's your right as an American citizen. It's how small newspapers put together their "police blotter" section. Journalism schools used to send their students out to dig up all the information they could about a person, as part of a larger project for credit. Sometimes it was a professor of their choice, or the class professor, or some random mope out of the phone book. The police station was usually the third stop, after the city clerk's office (business and zoning records) and the county clerk's office (property ownership records).
jMyles 8y ago
> I'm surprised mugshots are other such aren't sealed until after a conviction. That sounds closer and closer to secret arrest. The public has a right to know who the government has arrested and why. By sealing them until after conviction, it makes it sound like the mugshot is punishment. It isn't. It's a public record to check the government against secretly arresting people (or intentionally arresting the wrong people).
- sundvor 8y ago

poster123 8y ago

If I create the same web site without the option of paying to have a mugshot taken down, is that legal? In general I think extortion should be defined as threatening to do something illegal unless paid.

kodablah 8y ago
> If I create the same web site without the option of paying to have a mugshot taken down, is that legal? Yes. From TFA: "Photos of criminal suspects taken by law enforcement agencies are public records and are generally releasable under state open records laws. Publishing them is not a crime, but Becerra said Mugshots.com broke the law in demanding a fee for their removal." > In general I think extortion should be defined as threatening to do something illegal unless paid. Nah, threats/coercion are enough. Think of this as blackmail.
- gnode 8y ago
  Does this still apply in cases where the suspect has been found not guilty / charges dropped?
jpeg_hero 8y ago
"Give me money or I'll tell your wife you are cheating on her." Legal to tell somebody information you know. Extortion?
Meekro 8y ago
> I think extortion should be defined as threatening to do something illegal unless paid. Intuitively, it seems like it should be! Compare these two threats from a worker to the company owner, and consider what kind of definition of extortion would cover #1 while excluding #2: 1. "Pay me $1000, or I'll burn your house down." 2. "Pay me $1000, or I'll quit and go work for your competitor." Obviously extortion can't be defined as "threatening to do something the other person won't like," otherwise they both would qualify. If you define it as "threatening to do something illegal" then it seems to fit better. This kind of thinking makes sense to me, but this is why nerds like me make bad lawyers -- it turns out to be wrong. Threatening to "reveal information about a victim or their family members that is potentially embarrassing or socially damaging" [1] is enough, even though actually revealing that information is perfectly legal. Seems counter-intuitive, but there you go! [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extortion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extortion

CodeWriter23 8y ago

Can someone illustrate how the misdeeds of these awful people makes the crime of money laundering?

dragonwriter 8y ago
Presumably, they are accused of doing something in moving money around to conceal it's illegal origin (the fact that the removal is a separate, not overtly connected site may be part of this if it reflects a deeper subterfuge where there is an attempt to pretend they are separate, unrelated businesses.) Unfortunately, there are no links i can find to the actual criminal filing, which would presumably have some details as to the factual allegations supporting the identified charges.

gowld 8y ago

A better solution would be for upstanding citizens do do a "civic duty / national service" of getting arrested and going through the experience, so that everyone mug shots are together, and everyone understands what sort of violence the State perpetrates on their behalf.

mc32 8y ago

While it may not be a logical thing, legally speaking, I’m glad that I can agree with Sacto on this. While it’s all piblic record, the friction of having to go to the dept of justice seems like a fair balance btwn openness and privacy.

annomys 8y ago

dear: other anonymous members ai is talking to al and the government cant see what there saying we can use this to are advice or shut them down i say we use it to are advice so no one can hack us or try to

annomys 8y ago

the gov can not see what these 2 robots are using me and other members of anonymous say if we hack them we can talk without know one knowing

mhb 8y ago

Sort of like collecting my "identity" information, putting it at risk of being taken and asking me to pay a fee to prevent unauthorized people from accessing it.

jMyles 8y ago

I find this very hard to understand - doesn't freedom of the press ensure that I can post whatever media (in the public domain) that I like? If I were posting public domain photos of a city park, and running a market wherein people were able to pay to have them removed, is that the same thing? If not, this seems like an implicit assumption that a mugshot is a form of punishment / humiliation. And if that's so, isn't that the injustice here?

URSpider94 8y ago
I'm sure it will be an interesting case, wouldn't be surprised if it goes all the way to the Supreme Court. However -- there are clear laws making it illegal to demand money to not speak/publish information (i.e. blackmail). I expect the defense will argue that they are not publishing the information, they are merely amplifying it by making items of public record more available.
- jMyles 8y ago
  This seems to be distinct from blackmail in a clear cut way though - in this case the information is already published, and the market is for removing it. In other words, it isn't a secret at the time of the transaction.
  - URSpider94 8y ago
    Here's a really interesting article on the topic: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/07/06/it-is-actually-difficult-to-define-blackmail/?utm_term=.db9992a7008f https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/201... Note that in the DC statute discussed in the article, it refers to "publicizing an asserted fact". One could argue that repeating the fact that the mug shot exists in a different forum is an act of publicizing. In this day and age, publication is increasingly a matter of degree -- everyone's a publisher, if you count Twitter and Facebook. It would still be blackmail, I think, if you threatened to take someone's tweet and put it on the front page of the NY Times unless you receive a lifetime supply of M&M's and Diet Coke ...

joshe 8y ago

The court will make the final decision, but wow it really does seem like extortion. The stories in the article are brutal. The free press argument isn't relevant. If the a local paper called you up and said "hey we are going to publish this negative article about a bar fight you started unless you pay us $500", that would also be extortion. Remove "unless you pay us" and it's totally legal. If MugPhotos.com launches and just publishes mugshots but doesn't charge to remove them, it would also not be extortion. FindLaw: "Most states define extortion as the gaining of property or money by almost any kind of force, or threat of 1) violence, 2) property damage, 3) harm to reputation, or 4) unfavorable government action." IANAL etc.

jMyles 8y ago
The difference is: Merely publishing a mugshot is not "harm to reputation". If it were, then it'd be extrajudicial punishment when the government does it, no?
- SamReidHughes 8y ago
  There's nothing legally wrong with extrajudicial harm to reputation.
  - jMyles 8y ago
    Yeah? Is that true? Can the government capriciously harm someone's reputation with no legal basis? I doubt that. At the very least, it's a civil matter.
    - joshe 8y ago
      If they are sharing true facts, they can harm your reputation anytime they want. Individuals can harm other people's reputation with true facts too. Defamation/slander/libel is only when someone harms your reputation with false facts. It's hard to win defamation suits. Doesn't make it nice of course. But not every cruel thing is illegal.

ironjunkie 8y ago

A bit broader than only mugshots, but that easy access on the alleged criminal past of everyone is something I absolutely despise in the US. How can anyone get a real second chance if everyone looks down at them on their previous mistakes? The worst one for me is the Megan's law map that anyone can go check out online. Most of the time those people already paid their dues to society after spending multiple years in prison, they should also have the right to start a second life without constant shaming from their neighbors. This is the consequence of a society that is extremely bad at rehabilitating ex-offenders and that sees them as rotten people that need to be forever segregated.

everdev 8y ago
I would much rather rehabilitate, but since that's not happening and there are high recitivism rates, I do want to know who lives near me or where I might want to live. In the instances where you damage your community through a crime, it's OK to lose some right to privacy. I could see the case for getting removed if you do successfully rehabilitate though.
- striking 8y ago
  How could you possibly judge that?
- ironjunkie 8y ago
  It is a chicken and egg problem. By shaming the person, they will be unable to ever find a job again, date anyone again, live normally again. You push those people to the fringe and the most probable outcome is for those people to fall into criminal activities again. As an anecdote, in my previous job I met a programmer at a Meetup and the guy had exactly the required skills. HR refused to even initiate an interview because he apparently had a "small criminal case" 15 years before that was found with one of those deep background check tools.
  - rootw0rm 8y ago
    convicted bank robber here, it is difficult sometimes. California is making good progress though, as long as you don't want a government job or a job that requires a state license.

andrewla 8y ago

The case for this being extortion feels very weak to me. The records are public record, so they are available to anyone who asks for them. They have already been published on the website, so the request for payment does not carry any threat. It feels like the real problem here is that many things that are designated as public records have previously been practically inaccessible. We're in an age where it is getting easier to make things like that more accessible and searchable, so we have to reconsider the laws designating various things as public record. Mugshots, in particular, seem to be an ideal case for not being public record at all -- it's not clear how the public benefits from these being accessible.

WalterBright 8y ago

"extortion and money laundering charges against the owners of a website that publishes mugshot photos and charges a fee to remove them." Isn't that blackmail, not extortion?

URSpider94 8y ago

Here's a fascinating article on the crime of blackmail, which addresses a lot of the questions that have been brought up on this thread: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/07/06/it-is-actually-difficult-to-define-blackmail/?utm_term=.db9992a7008f https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/201...