California AG Files Extortion Charges Against MugShots.com
sacbee.com
sacbee.com
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.
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.
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.
What are the rates and what makes them high? Do the rates vary by type of crime? Are, say, victimless crimes overrepresented?
So you make a mistake, go to prison, then get out. With zero job prospects. Who is surprised that you reoffend? The options are homelessness, leeching off family, or reoffending.
Where, not long ago, you could get a decent job at a small or medium company that just didn't do background checks.
Speaking from real, if anecdotal, experience, with some family members and friends. One felony (even a non-violent one) is now a lifelong anchor.
There are still a few loopholes, like being a hairdresser, since those are typically contract positions where you "rent a booth" and are a small biz owner, but even the loopholes are disappearing. I have several friends and family members, good people, that ruined their life with one stupid weed/meth/whatever possesion charge.
If you can't tell this is a passion point for me. We're slowing going dystopian where one mistake kills your lifelong opportunity.
Europe seems so far ahead of us in the US on rehabilitation versus punishment. Crazy Puritan bullshit if you ask me.
There seems like some opportunity for someone to build a low cost small biz ownership option (window washing, hairdressing, maid service, janitorial services, pool cleaning, pet grooming, etc) option for these types of felons. I wish I had the time and fortitude. Maybe someone else does?
From an ethical and social perspective, how terrible is society if doing one (sometimes small) mistake which we could realistically all make at some point in our life pushes us to constantly fail everything in life going forward? Think about the stupid shit you did at 19 year old that could follow you your whole life?
I understand that some positions require background checks, but it shouldn't be like it is today where no businesses will even take the risk to hire anyone with the slightest dent in their criminal past.
Not getting the reason for the snark.
The unintended side effect is that all arrests are public the day of arrest even if charges are never filed or are dropped.
This was the birth of the "Florida Man" meme in the press.
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.
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.
Don't feel bad for these guys.
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.
Wait, seriously? I'd never heard of this. Is it really true?
It's ultimately the very same thing, and you will find examples of it in an overwhelming majority of US traffic courts.
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...
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.
See, e.g., this description (from a law firm which represents people in the process):
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.
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.
"Chasing down people, binding them and holding them against their will for large periods of time (imprisonment)"
State has exclusive monopoly on violence.
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.
If that's true, that's as full-blown an abandonment of Peelian principles as I've ever heard.
edit: Why the downvotes? Come on now, HN. Just post a link. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. But at least give a source.
But this person claimed that the amount of permissible force varied by state, as if different state statutes allowed for different amounts of force from police vs other citizens, and I don't think that's so. Or at least, I've never seen it.
Some states give police specific latitude in using deadly force to protect others, but not merely to effect an arrest (again, at least that I know of).
Also, it's important to note that to the degree these are common-law distinctions, common-law is much, much older than professional policing, which is fairly new in the western political experience. As it was emerging, of course, the western tradition came to base the professional police role largely on the Peelian principles, one of which is
> To maintain at all times a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and that the public are the police, the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.
...so if indeed the common-law tradition is that police are "members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen" then it's hard to understand how that's compatible with wildly different arrest powers.
The law get's really specific. For example there are plenty of laws relating to police chases which cause 300 and 400 deaths per year.
In 2007, the United States Supreme Court held in Scott v. Harris (550 U.S. 372) that a "police officer's attempt to terminate a dangerous high-speed car chase that threatens the lives of innocent bystanders does not violate the Fourth Amendment, even when it places the fleeing motorist at risk of serious injury or death." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Car_chase
First, the claim was that "It's also not legal for a random citizen to execute or arrest people."
Then, when challenged, the claim became that the amount of lawful force when effecting arrest varies between police and other citizens on a state-by-state basis.
Now you've given a SCOTUS decision (binding across the US obviously, not state-by-state) about qualified immunity (not statutory authority) in the legal context of protecting bystanders (ie, not naked arrest power).
If this is the best argument, then I think that I'm correct in my assertion that police do not have any additional authority to use force in different states to effect an arrest than anyone else.
Police chases are directly part of the arrest process and use of force. In this case it's mostly one of discretion, where police are allowed to both make the call and actually act.
More specifically, in most states only police are allowed to use blue lights on top of their cars with a few state specific exceptions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_vehicle_lighting#Uni... Further, trying to escape after those lights are on is illegal, so again they are given access to tools and techniques including use of force that are not available to regular people.
I am not sure what specifically you want, and suspect the issue is you don't really understand how our legal system works in practice.
> Qualified immunity is what allows members of the government to do things that would otherwise be illegal for regular people
Holy shit. Are you serious? That's your summary of qualified immunity?
You are just completely, absurdly, absolutely incorrect here. The "qualified" in qualified immunity means that the conduct in question doesn't violate clearly established law. So you have it exactly backwards.
And even if you were right, qualified immunity is a civil concept. It is wholly unrelated to the matter of the amount of force that otherwise constitutes a criminal violation when effecting an arrest.
It is also not "a law" (you have said it's "the law" that I'm looking for), it's a legal doctrine regarding the confines of liability under section 1983.
> I am not sure what specifically you want
It's exceedingly simple. I want an example of a state which, on a statutory basis, permits different levels of force for the purpose of effecting an arrest for police in contrast to other citizens. That's what GP said existed. I don't think it does exist. So that's what I'm asking for.
In practice prosecutors don't try cops for using reasonable force in arrests. So they don't need protection for that.
What they need protection from is everyone and their brother suing them out of malice for arresting them. And they get that from qualified immunity.
PS: You can think of civil and criminal law as independent, but that's really not how are system operates.
My point all along was that police don't have any statutory authority to use force in any greater measure than anyone else, and yet they seem to get away with it - as you point out, free from both criminal and civil liability.
Shit man, I don't support qualified immunity at all. It has always been a bit of charlatan law IMO.
I understood (and still understand) the original comment as taking the position that this discrimination is somehow based in statute, when, as far as I can tell, it isn't.
Can you show me where they have wider latitude to use force to effect an arrest?
My point is simply that there are no state-by-state standards for this, which was GP's claim. States don't allow anybody, peace offer or not, to use any amount of force beyond what is required to effect an arrest.
A fairly typical rule is that citizens arrest is only for felonies that occur either in your presence or with a certain degree of justified belief but also that the arrested person must be factually guilty of the felony. (Some states also allow it for some misdemeanors, but are even more restrictive there.)
I have never heard of this. Can you show me such a law? Excessive force is illegal no matter whom is effecting the arrest.
There is a similar but not identical protection to 835a for non-peace officer public employee arrests in Section 836.5(a)
Neither protection applied to peace officer arrests has a parallel protection for citizens arrests.
https://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-procedure/citizen-s-ar...
Are you suggesting that the absence of similar language in 837 (I assume this is what you meant, not 836.5) means that other people can't use reasonable force?
Has a court ever held this?
It authorized for one what it does not authorize for the other. That's how a law provided for a difference.
> it requires that peace officers use only "reasonable" force.
It authorizes police officers to “use reasonable force to effect the arrest, to prevent escape or to overcome resistance.” There is no “only” there, the reason you can add “only” and not be wrong is that use of force is otherwise prohibited by law.
It also specifically states that, for peace officers, certain actions in the course of arrest will not be held to make the aggressors or outside the bounds of self-defense, overriding general principles of criminal law regarding assault and homicide.
> Are you suggesting that the absence of similar language in 837 (I assume this is what you meant, not 836.5) means that other people can't use reasonable force?
First, the reference to 836.5(a) was to the presence (not absence) of similar language for arrest by public employees who are not peace officers.
Second, the absence of similar language means that citizens arrest does not benefit from the additional authorizations granted police or public employee arrests.
It does benefit from a narrower grant of reasonable restraint that applies to all arrests in Section 835: “The person arrested may be subjected to such restraint as is reasonable for his arrest and detention.”
It does not authorize any additional use of force - "reasonable force" is exactly the same standard for all arrests in California, whether effected by sworn officers or not, eg:
> When assaulted Edwards was justified in using such force as was reasonable for defendant's arrest and detention and to enlist his brother's assistance to aid him in making the arrest.
§§ 835, 839; People v. Lathrop, 49 Cal. App. 63, 67 [192 P. 722]
In California, as with most common-law places, you can delegate the arresting action to a peace officer (ie, you can say, I want to arrest Joe; he stole my car). If you go and tell a peace officer that, but you were lying, that peace officer isn't subject to civil liability.
Here's a publication on this topic from Alameda County (and note that it also confirms that a citizen, whether peace officer or not, may use reasonable force to effect an arrest):
http://le.alcoda.org/publications/point_of_view/files/Citize...
(Police officers are (almost?) always citizens, despite that term sometimes being used in a way that excludes police)
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?
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.
They aren't, though. That's the whole point. It's just that they're rarely necessary.
> 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.
This seems like unfounded fear to me. If it were a real concern, why isn't it happening now? Conversely, since we do currently have a regime of professional police, why hasn't it proved insulatory against this phenomenon? The criminal justice system is at the core of racism in the USA; it certainly hasn't had the effect of inhibiting "racist white people". Instead, it has been the very mechanism by which racist outcomes are assured.
> I'm saying that racists would be even more empowered to be shitty and make things worse than they already are.
Just to be clear: you are saying that a criminal justice system with a smaller footprint will result in a situation in which "racists would be even more empowered"? That's what you're saying? Because that sounds completely backwards.
Have you seen the rash of white people calling the cops on black people just for being around? I'm sorry, but I cannot agree that this is "unfounded".
"Just to be clear: you are saying that a criminal justice system with a smaller footprint "
That is so unbelievably not close to what I said that I cannot believe you are discussing in good faith.
I thought that you were saying that a change in the balance of arrests, with a decrease in those made by peace officers amidst an increase in those made by other citizens, was likely to be empowering to people seeking to victimize people of color. Did I have that wrong?
If that's what you were saying, then yeah I think that's nuts. If people have a goal of subjugating people of color, then the existence of professional police (to the exclusion of normalcy of arrests by other citizens) is working wonderfully to achieve that end.
The idea that a larger share of arrests being effected by people who aren't professionally employed to do so being a conduit for increased racism is, as far as I can tell, quite unfounded.
In fact, the origins of professional policing in the US are in part from slave patrols, which were formed precisely because overwhelming majorities of people refused to arrest slaves who had run away.
I am calling you out for not discussing things in good faith. If you don't like being called out for that, then don't wildly misrepresent what people say.
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.
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.
Is this generational? I have never googled anyone other than the occasional celebrity.
Or threatening to harm someone if they don't pay for "protection."
You know, actual extortion.
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.
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.
Merely publishing a mugshot is not "harm to reputation". If it were, then it'd be extrajudicial punishment when the government does it, no?
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.
If this is indeed extortion on the basis that it is demanding money under threat of harm to reputation, then isn't it equally true when the state does it? That was the original point above.
Can you show me a precedent that shows that state agents are immune from the typical ramifications of defamation?
It's crazy because the government has to be able to make true statements that hurt others' reputation in order to do a lot of stuff that it does, or simply to publish information openly. For example, imagine a document justifying choosing one paving company over another.
And yeah, so again, back to the original comment: presumably you or I are just as free to do things like you've listed. If I choose one paving company over another, I can publish my reasons for doing so. I can even offer to remove that post is the latter pays me to do so (this is essentially Yelp's business model, right? gross.)
So how will the system treat this as different?
Take the Letterman extortion case. Letterman had a relationship with a staffer. Another staffer threatened to disclose to the press unless Letterman paid him. That staffer was convicted.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Halderman
Disclosing to press/public and harming reputation is not extortion. And harming reputation with true facts is totally legal. You can even go to a (trashy) paper and get paid for your story.
Threatening to disclose and/or publicize unless payment is made is extortion.
IANAL and building a case is probably more complicated than I understand.
But it also seems at least partly designed to obscure the fact that parts of pre-trial confinement are tantamount to extrajudicial punishment.
So, the question is, is there anything in those limitations which would deny California authority here?
I do hope that the GDPR succeeds at putting some checks on our surveillance overlords, but it's definitely resting on some busted-ass reasoning regarding nexus.
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?
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.
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 ...
Haha... wow, such a good synopsis of the state of media today.
Yeah, this is a good argument. It also suggests, though, that criminally relevant distinctions between blackmail and publication are strained.
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.
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).
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).
Speaking as someone who grew up in a sane country. (Norway).
We need instead to presume that everybody who is arrested (and whose mugshot is posted) is innocent unless compelling evidence, based on sworn testimony, is presented.
I don't see how adding secrecy is a solution to extrajudicial punishment.
I guess my point is you don't get things like Mugshots.com because you run a fair and equitable justice system. You get Mugshots.com because some people want to get in on our prison system racket but they don't have enough money to bribe a politician.
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.
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.
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.
Legal to tell somebody information you know.
Extortion?
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!
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.
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.
Isn't that blackmail, not extortion?