CA Atty. General slays seedy mugshot industry

[Gil Bang 26070]

California’s attorney general said Wednesday he has filed extortion and money laundering charges against owners of the website Mugshots.com, accusing them of posting mugshot photos and then charging those pictured money to remove the the photos from the internet.

California Atty. Gen. Xavier Becerra said the four people charged received more than $64,000 in removal fees from some 175 Californians over a three-year period. Nationally, the scheme took in $2 million in from 5,703 people over the same period. 

The site posted mugshots taken from law enforcement websites even if the people who were arrested never had charges filed against them or later had them dropped. The mugshots can make it harder for them to get jobs and housing, Becerra said.

 

 

“This pay-for-removal scheme attempts to profit off of someone else’s humiliation,” Becerra said in a statement. “This is exploitation, plain and simple.”

The defendants named in the complaint are Sahar Sarid, Kishore Vidya Bhavnanie, Thomas Keesee and David Usdan, the alleged owners and operators of Mugshots.com. 

The site would not remove the mugshots until a fee was paid to a secondary website called Unpublisharrest.com, the attorney general alleged.

[TKthunder2 5012]

So honest question, how is that business model illegal?  Yes it’s seedy but it’s simply posting publicly available information and charging a fee to have your information removed.  Was paying to have your phone number unlisted also considered extortion?

[El Diablo 4232]

Would a fantasy league of mugshot people be illegal?

 

Asking for a... never mind.

[Lhorn 4971]

^^^ LOL.  I guess since Shag wasn't asking for money seems like it would be OK.  

[Shmitty 112]

5 hours ago, TKthunder2 said:

So honest question, how is that business model illegal?  Yes it’s seedy but it’s simply posting publicly available information and charging a fee to have your information removed.  Was paying to have your phone number unlisted also considered extortion?

How was it not illegal?  It's quite unethical.  

[Lhorn 4971]

Lots of things are quite unethical but still legal.  This seems to fall under the category of extortion which is why I would guess it's illegal.  Now the March Madness of Austin area young ladies arrested for DWI is more for educational purposes, entertainment and perhaps even fapping.  Nothing unethical about that.

[MaybeACoordinator 8350]

Those things were modern day scandal sheets. Most big cities had one in the old days -- a journalist would get some dirt on you, and you would have to pay them not to publish. Today's grocery tabloids use a similar model. 

[El Diablo 4232]

5 hours ago, Shmitty said:

How was it not illegal?  It's quite unethical.  

So you're convicting the owners of the mugshot website before they've even been tried? Why don't you just publish the pictures of the 4 people charged. 

[NotActuallyALonghorn 4979]

I think maybe he is saying how is there not a law against it?

[El Diablo 4232]

2 hours ago, NotActuallyALonghorn said:

I think maybe he is saying how is there not a law against it?

Well, they're being charged so there may be a law against it, we'll have to wait and see. Should the story not have been written until after they were convicted?

[woohorn 1131]

I thought that the whole point of extortion was that you can't threaten to do something you have every right to do unless you get $$.

[Judge Roybeanbag 11822]

Hmm....  maybe we should send Kevin a threatening note after we post mugshots over there.  

[DanRydell 799]

So honest question, how is that business model illegal?  Yes it’s seedy but it’s simply posting publicly available information and charging a fee to have your information removed.  Was paying to have your phone number unlisted also considered extortion?

Extortion is basically obtaining money by threat of violence, financial harm, adverse governmental action, or harm to reputation.

You have a right to publicize that I was arrested. But it’s extortion to say “I’m going to publicize that you were arrested unless you give me $1000.”

[hayden_horn 11365]

I think making mug shots public before conviction is terrible. It can ruin people's lives who have actually done nothing wrong. 

[Modessit 5608]

Extortion is basically obtaining money by threat of violence, financial harm, adverse governmental action, or harm to reputation.

You have a right to publicize that I was arrested. But it’s extortion to say “I’m going to publicize that you were arrested unless you give me $1000.”

The bolded part is the sticky part. If they specifically sought people out - especially to those who were more susceptible to reputation hits such as doctors, realtors, etc - then it's extortion.

If they just post everyone's mugshot and somebody wants it taken down, then why not have a standard fee to do so? They aren't breaking any law by using info - including pictures - posted on a public government site.

There are lots of companies you can find that offer to remove negative search results for you. They don't do it for free. How is that not extortion?

[TwiceHorn 31648]

11 hours ago, hayden_horn said:

I think making mug shots public before conviction is terrible. It can ruin people's lives who have actually done nothing wrong. 

You can actually extend this line of thinking to convicted people as well.

But lets look at Cal. Penal Code 518, et seq.

Quote

CHAPTER 7. Extortion [518 - 527]

  ( Chapter 7 enacted 1872. )

  518.

.  

(a) Extortion is the obtaining of property or other consideration from another, with his or her consent, or the obtaining of an official act of a public officer, induced by a wrongful use of force or fear, or under color of official right.

(b) For purposes of this chapter, “consideration” means anything of value, including sexual conduct as defined in subdivision (b) of Section 311.3, or an image of an intimate body part as defined in subparagraph (C) of paragraph (4) of subdivision (j) of Section 647.

(c) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), this section does not apply to a person under 18 years of age who has obtained consideration consisting of sexual conduct or an image of an intimate body part.

 519.  

 

Fear, such as will constitute extortion, may be induced by a threat of any of the following:

1. To do an unlawful injury to the person or property of the individual threatened or of a third person.

2. To accuse the individual threatened, or a relative of his or her, or a member of his or her family, of a crime.

3. To expose, or to impute to him, her, or them a deformity, disgrace, or crime.

4. To expose a secret affecting him, her, or them.

5. To report his, her, or their immigration status or suspected immigration status.

 

Seems like a bit of a stretch of the existing law.  Maybe 519(3).

Edited May 19, 2018 by TwiceHorn

[Modessit 5608]

Well, you wouldn't be exposing it since the police website did so first.

Inducing a "wrongful use of force or fear" of the "official act of a public officer" - i.e. the arrest - would imply specifically seeking out an individual to inform them that you will publish if they don't pay in some way. If you publish everyone and then a specific individual contacts YOU, I don't see how extortion can be considered even if you require money to comply. You didn't initiate the contact.

Theoretically, let's say you didn't ask for money but refused to remove the image. You are then sued for slander, unlawful use of likeness, etc. You argue that you're just collating government public records for viewing - not dissimilar to sites that provide phone numbers, property records, etc, that you can find everywhere. The mess of a trial means more negative publicity for Ms. Mugshot so you end up settling out of court, get a financial settlenent, and agree to remove the photo. How is that any better than just saying, "You want it gone? Pay up. Otherwise it stays up."

[DanRydell 799]

The bolded part is the sticky part. If they specifically sought people out - especially to those who were more susceptible to reputation hits such as doctors, realtors, etc - then it's extortion.

If they just post everyone's mugshot and somebody wants it taken down, then why not have a standard fee to do so? They aren't breaking any law by using info - including pictures - posted on a public government site.

There are lots of companies you can find that offer to remove negative search results for you. They don't do it for free. How is that not extortion?

The mugshot websites aren’t offering to scrub your mugshot from the rest of the internet for a fee. They’re only agreeing to discontinue their own publication of it. If their standard fee simply covered the costs of removal rather than being a profit engine, it would probably be different.

[TKthunder2 5012]

18 hours ago, Modessit said:

 

 

The bolded part is the sticky part. If they specifically sought people out - especially to those who were more susceptible to reputation hits such as doctors, realtors, etc - then it's extortion.

If they just post everyone's mugshot and somebody wants it taken down, then why not have a standard fee to do so? They aren't breaking any law by using info - including pictures - posted on a public government site.

There are lots of companies you can find that offer to remove negative search results for you. They don't do it for free. How is that not extortion?

 

Bingo.  They publish everyone’s mugshot, not just rich or famous people or those they have a personal grudge against.  Then people contact them to have them take down content that they have legally obtained and published.  They ask for a large fee, because if it was a small fee they’d be doing this for lots of people and that’s not the point of their business (which is getting web traffic and selling advertising).  Again I don’t see how this is extortion.

[texasjacket 289]

They should have been posting links to facebook and nextbook nosy neighbor groups, "hey wanna find out if you new neighbor is a bad guy? Search our database for an easy 29.99 fee!"

[DanRydell 799]

Bingo.  They publish everyone’s mugshot, not just rich or famous people or those they have a personal grudge against.  Then people contact them to have them take down content that they have legally obtained and published.  They ask for a large fee, because if it was a small fee they’d be doing this for lots of people and that’s not the point of their business (which is getting web traffic and selling advertising).  Again I don’t see how this is extortion.

“Pay me or I’ll keep publishing shameful information about you” is literally the definition of extortion. I don’t know why this is hard to understand.

[NeverMarryAStripper 21999]

What about pay me or you can sit in jail until I decide to let you prove that you’re innocent

[TwiceHorn 31648]

14 minutes ago, DanRydell said:

 

“Pay me or I’ll keep publishing shameful information about you” is literally the definition of extortion. I don’t know why this is hard to understand.

Well, except I posted the "definition" of extortion in California.  Care to place it in that context?  Or are we going to use the imaginary, layperson's definition?

 

The problem is, I think, that the site in question didn't originally publish the information, it's just republishing it. 

[DanRydell 799]

Well, except I posted the "definition" of extortion in California.  Care to place it in that context?  Or are we going to use the imaginary, layperson's definition?  

The problem is, I think, that the site in question didn't originally publish the information, it's just republishing it. 

 

 

I don’t really understand why you think the California definition is dissimilar from the definition I posted but sure. The website is obtaining consideration through the threat of exposing a disgrace. That placed in that context well enough for you?

 

[TwiceHorn 31648]

10 minutes ago, DanRydell said:

 

I don’t really understand why you think the California definition is dissimilar from the definition I posted but sure. The website is obtaining consideration through the threat of exposing a disgrace. That placed in that context well enough for you?

 

There's no threat.  The disgrace is already exposed, and further, exposed by a third party perfectly legally.

Edited May 20, 2018 by TwiceHorn

[DanRydell 799]

There's no threat.  The disgrace is already exposed.

 

There’s a threat as soon as the person requests that the exposure cease and is told “it’s staying up unless and until you pay us”.

 

And it’s continued exposure. Surely you’re not arguing that as long as as I previously told someone you cheated on your wife, it wouldn’t be extortion for me to threaten to tell other people unless you pay me.

[TKthunder2 5012]

12 minutes ago, DanRydell said:

 

I don’t really understand why you think the California definition is dissimilar from the definition I posted but sure. The website is obtaining consideration through the threat of exposing a disgrace. That placed in that context well enough for you?

 

There is no threat.  Thus it is not extortion. They publish publicly available information and charge a fee for removing content that they legally obtained and published.  Where is the threat?  If they called these people up BEFORE publishing their mugshots and threaten to publish them unless a fee is paid then you are right but that is not what’s going on here.

[TwiceHorn 31648]

Just now, DanRydell said:

 

There’s a threat as soon as the person requests that the exposure cease and is told “sure, for a price...”

And it’s continued exposure. Surely you’re not arguing that as long as as I previously told someone you cheated on your wife, it wouldn’t be extortion for me to threaten to tell other people unless you pay me.

Not a convincing analogy.  I get why people find this offensive, I just don't think it's squarely addressed by extortion laws, these in particular.

[DanRydell 799]

Not a convincing analogy.  I get why people find this offensive, I just don't think it's squarely addressed by extortion laws, these in particular.

Why do you think people want their mugshots removed from the site exactly if not to prevent additional exposure?

[TwiceHorn 31648]

1 minute ago, DanRydell said:

 

Why do you think people want their mugshots removed from the site exactly if not to prevent additional exposure?

Well, for one thing they're dumb.  In most cases, the arrest record will be available to anyone interested elsewhere.

[NotActuallyALonghorn 4979]

8 minutes ago, DanRydell said:

 

There’s a threat as soon as the person requests that the exposure cease and is told “it’s staying up unless and until you pay us”.

 

And it’s continued exposure. Surely you’re not arguing that as long as as I previously told someone you cheated on your wife, it wouldn’t be extortion for me to threaten to tell other people unless you pay me.

It's more like the newspaper published that you cheated on your wife and then somebody else subsequently published it and said it would stay as long as you didn't pay them a fee. Still unethical, but not quite what you are describing.

[DanRydell 799]

Well, for one thing they're dumb.  In most cases, the arrest record will be available to anyone interested elsewhere.

Why did you dodge the question?

[TwiceHorn 31648]

Just now, NotActuallyALonghorn said:

It's more like the newspaper published that you cheated on your wife and then somebody else subsequently published it and said it would stay as long as you didn't pay them a fee. Still unethical, but not quite what you are describing.

Was going to use the same analogy.

[TwiceHorn 31648]

1 minute ago, DanRydell said:

 

Why did you dodge the question?

I didn't.  If the crime is coercion of dumb people, convict.

[DanRydell 799]

It's more like the newspaper published that you cheated on your wife and then somebody else subsequently published it and said it would stay as long as you didn't pay them a fee. Still unethical, but not quite what you are describing.

So what’s your test for when a disgrace has reached a critical mass of exposure that it can no longer be exposed by a would be extorter?

[NotActuallyALonghorn 4979]

I don't have one, and I wouldn't be surprised if California doesn't either. Convicting these guys for extortion would be a gamble that whatever the courts say the answer is jives with what the AG says it is.

[Modessit 5608]

I don't know why me charging a fee for something YOU request is "extortion". If I pay web hosting and domain registration fees, and either have a script to automatically pull the images and post them or pay somebody to go look for them and post them - why should I have to remove it for free or peanuts just because you don't like the fact that your public arrest was noticed and mentioned elsewhere. I'd be inundated with every bozo wanting it. It would be like having to drive to every gas station to pick up all the Busted papers because you don't want anyone to see.

Now, if they charge one person more than they charge a second person - then it could be extortion. But if it's a standard fee then I don't think so.

[DanRydell 799]

I didn't.  If the crime is coercion of dumb people, convict.

Do you think it’s possible that even one additional person could learn of an arrest due to its publication on mugshots.com who otherwise would not?

[TwiceHorn 31648]

3 minutes ago, DanRydell said:

 

Do you think it’s possible that even one additional person could learn of an arrest due to its publication on mugshots.com who otherwise would not?

Certainly.  It is no doubt coercive, but we'll just have to see if it meets the Cal. Penal Code definition.

[Celery Man 21022]

I think in practice, the mugshots hosted by the police/local government/what have you aren't as "sticky" as the ones that get put on privately run sites.  You get through the whole thing with whatever happened, and then years later someone google image searches your name and there pops up your mugshot.

[TwiceHorn 31648]

10 minutes ago, Celery Man said:

I think in practice, the mugshots hosted by the police/local government/what have you aren't as "sticky" as the ones that get put on privately run sites.  You get through the whole thing with whatever happened, and then years later someone google image searches your name and there pops up your mugshot.

I think this is probably true as regards the photo itself.  It's an interesting problem.

 

Further, I think there's a First Amendment dimension to it.  The site is perfectly entitled to run the mugshots, as long as they are not adding untrue information (and the subject of the mugshot is probably a limited public figure for this purpose, so any untrue information would have to be "with malice").  The question then becomes are they permitted to charge to forego their First Amendment right, and, if so, how much and under what circumstances?

Drafting a criminal statute that addresses this head-on could be a challenge.

Edited May 20, 2018 by TwiceHorn

[Celery Man 21022]

I have absolutely no moral high ground to stand on as an early contributor to the APD booking photos page.  Just want to say that first, since it is true - I stopped because the ickiness of it started to supersede its efficacy at addressing the boredom of my job at the time.

Later, I began dating and am now engaged to a person who had an arrest from... I think she punched her stepdad in the face during a domestic dispute and later got picked up and booked for it in conjunction with shoplifting wine.  She's since recovered and is a normal stable functioning human being.  Her mugshots have dropped off of google, but it was always a "thing" she was anxious about when waiting to hear back on jobs that the the busted.com or whatever images would pop up if you scrolled long enough searching her name.

[TwiceHorn 31648]

11 minutes ago, Celery Man said:

I have absolutely no moral high ground to stand on as an early contributor to the APD booking photos page.  Just want to say that first, since it is true - I stopped because the ickiness of it started to supersede its efficacy at addressing the boredom of my job at the time.

Later, I began dating and am now engaged to a person who had an arrest from... I think she punched her stepdad in the face during a domestic dispute and later got picked up and booked for it in conjunction with shoplifting wine.  She's since recovered and is a normal stable functioning human being.  Her mugshots have dropped off of google, but it was always a "thing" she was anxious about when waiting to hear back on jobs that the the busted.com or whatever images would pop up if you scrolled long enough searching her name.

Yeah, my sympathies overall are with her and people like her.  The sad fact is, though, that the arrest record probably shows up in the Kroll databases and similar that employers and landlords use.

 

If we are going to treat people the way we do, with large punitive sentences, then I think something needs to be done somehow to let people get on with their lives after serving those frequently unduly punitive sentences.  I'm not sure how that is accomplished, exactly, but it deserves more thought than the powers that be give it.

 

One start is for governments not to publish these damn things in the first place.  It serves no real purpose.  Same is generally true of arrest records.  Make the goddamn news papers go down to the court house and search through the files themselves.

Edited May 20, 2018 by TwiceHorn

[woohorn 1131]

These websites aren't just a single payment to remove and they don't exist for ad revenue. The same people set up multiple sites and once you pay for removal, your picture just shows up on another site run by the same people. It is not any kind of public service or bastion of free speech that I can see.