
California AG Files Extortion Charges Against MugShots.com - bhartzer
http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article211255899.html
======
ironjunkie
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
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.

~~~
ironjunkie
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
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.

------
kodis
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
Q: When does a fee become extortion vs covering the cost to execute?

~~~
drefanzor
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.

~~~
TheCowboy
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.

------
djrogers
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
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
What kind of extortion could you _not_ describe as free speech?

~~~
andrewla
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_
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.

------
joshe
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
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?

~~~
joshe
It's the "gaining money by threat" part that makes it a plausibly successful
charge. What they do is publishing it in a way likely to lead to more
publicity, more harm to reputation unless you pay them.

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](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.

~~~
jMyles
Yeah, I think you've basically hit the nail(s) on the head here.

But it also seems at least partly designed to obscure the fact that parts of
pre-trial confinement are tantamount to extrajudicial punishment.

------
nolite
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?

~~~
eevilspock
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
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?

~~~
n325898eunh
The state of California has extradition agreements with other US states. The
article says that the owners of the site are living in other states in the US.
So they will simply say to those states, "Hey, these people have been
convicted of a crime in our state. Please collect them and send them to us."
The other state will likely comply per their agreement.

------
jMyles
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
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
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
Here's a really interesting article on the topic:
[https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-
conspiracy/wp/201...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-
conspiracy/wp/2017/07/06/it-is-actually-difficult-to-define-
blackmail/?utm_term=.db9992a7008f)

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
...

~~~
jMyles
> 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.

------
49bc
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.

~~~
jMyles
> 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
If you don't think having your face posted on the internet even prior to
conviction, with all this entails, is punishment, then I admire the reality
distortion field that lets you see the world that way.

Speaking as someone who grew up in a sane country. (Norway).

~~~
jMyles
I think you are correct, but that's just part of the problem that we've been
convinced to attribute guilt even in the absence of proof, on the state's say-
so alone.

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.

------
ggg9990
Great. I hope they can call it n thousand counts of extortion and effectively
get a life without parole sentence.

------
URSpider94
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/201...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-
conspiracy/wp/2017/07/06/it-is-actually-difficult-to-define-
blackmail/?utm_term=.db9992a7008f)

------
DannyB2
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.

------
mc32
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.

------
poster123
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
> 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
Does this still apply in cases where the suspect has been found not guilty /
charges dropped?

------
andrewla
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.

------
mhb
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.

------
CodeWriter23
Can someone illustrate how the misdeeds of these awful people makes the crime
of money laundering?

~~~
dragonwriter
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.

------
WalterBright
"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?

------
gowld
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.

