Posting of police records

[Kay of Houston]

Is it o.k. to post someone's police records on social sites? Talking about Face Book and someone posting copies of police records. Any advice is appreciated. Thanks.

[LNK]

Unless it violates their TOS (Terms Of Service), I don't think there's anything you could do.

It's a public record, so unless a court ordered the file sealed, anyone could go look it up.

IANAL, so perhaps SJ or someone with actual legal expertise could answer more authoritatively, but that's how I see it.

[ShysterJon]

Originally Posted by Kay of Houston

Is it o.k. to post someone's police records on social sites? Talking about Face Book and someone posting copies of police records. Any advice is appreciated. Thanks.

I'm not sure what you mean by "o.k." Is it morally repugnant to try to injure someone by publishing embarrassing information about them? Yes. But would it be illegal to post police records on the Internet that were obtained through legal means and were not later expunged? No.

[CS123]

Kay it is getting much worse than that. There were recently posts on here that discussed the issue of mugshots but I can't find them. In a nutshell they copy the mugshot photos and post them on their website, if you want them off you have to pay them. Although it isn't directly related to what you are asking it kind of runs parallel to it. I do know how to find the links and the credit goes to the guy(s) that found them in the first place. There are more news sources that discuss the issue if you want to search for them. They deal with the credit card industry shutting them down by not processing cards for them. They, the CC industry, all talked a good talk but not sure they followed through. This will get you started on finding out how bad this is likely to get.

They, LE, could probably control the pictures usage via the Digital Millennium Copyright Act but that would take time and money and probably some legislation. Unauthorized use of someone else's photos is developing its own "ambulance chasers" seeking payouts but that is off topic for what you are asking. The clear message is people aren't playing nicely, what they are doing in both of the instances in my opinion is legal extortion.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/06/bu...anted=all&_r=0
http://money.cnn.com/2013/10/16/tech...shot-websites/

[ck1942]

Very doubtful that LE can control "mug shots" which are part and parcel of common public records in Texas.

LE cannot, for one thing, assert copyright of any public record, much less a mug shot; and, imo, even if the mug shots are redacted or expunged by court order, once they have entered the public domain very little can be done imo about removing them nor preventing them appearing any where on the Internet.

Best defense obviously is not be in a place or position where a mug shot can be made.

[natasteewsym]

Originally Posted by Kay of Houston

Is it o.k. to post someone's police records on social sites? Talking about Face Book and someone posting copies of police records. Any advice is appreciated. Thanks.

Are you kidding? Of course its fine.

[ShysterJon]

Originally Posted by ck1942

imo, even if the mug shots are redacted or expunged by court order, once they have entered the public domain very little can be done imo about removing them nor preventing them appearing any where on the Internet.

In Texas, there are remedies regarding private (that is, non-government) businesses that buy criminal background information (CBI) from government entities and publish it or sell it. The remedies stem from a series of recent amendments to the Texas Expunction Statute (Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Chapter 55) making expunction orders applicable to private businesses. Now, if a private business sells or publishes CBI that the business knows has been expunged, it's a Class B misdemeanor. There are also civil remedies regarding non-compliant businesses.

When I file an expunction petition, I list all government entities that possibly COULD have information about my client's case, and the petition also contains the language from the statute regarding private businesses. In Dallas County, the expunction orders are drafted by an Assistant District Attorney, and she also includes language about private businesses.

Entities (both government and private) that maintain CBI have the option of either deleting the information or sending it into the court that issued the expunction order. The entities all delete it, since CBI is maintained on computers.

When a private business buys a new CBI database from a government entity, the expunged information should be deleted. But sometimes the private businesses maintain and publish information from old databases. I always run checks after an expunction order has been issued. If I find CBI about my client still in cyberspace, like a mugshot, I send a copy of the expunction order to the website with a copy of the pages from the statute setting forth the criminal penalties and civil remedies for publishing expunged information. I have never had a website refuse to delete information.

[CS123]

There are some interesting articles relating to copyright and who owns it at the State and Local levels but not so for the Federal level. The article from the the law group appears to be fact based while the other is opinion. There is a comment below the law group blog where the Boise Sheriff appears to take issue with the photos on his Departments site too. I am sure sooner or later this will be litigated and the courts will rule on it.
http://giocondalaw.blogspot.com/2012...mug-shots.html
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/201...ing-them.shtml

I apologize for dragging the subject in the original post off topic from records to photos.

[Mr. GPop]

@ShysterJon so the best way would be to list all local law enforcements, state and federal then the local DA will fill in the parts about private business's and that covers anyone who has bought the information?

Now, what if a private business or citizen has your CBI, they get told to destroy it lest get a misdemeanor charge on them, and refuse since a class B misdemeanor might have some teeth, but its not all that big a deal.. what if they ignore it?

[ShysterJon]

Originally Posted by Mr. GPop

@ShysterJon so the best way would be to list all local law enforcements, state and federal then the local DA will fill in the parts about private business's and that covers anyone who has bought the information?

No, that's not what I wrote. I wrote about the process in Dallas County. In every other county where I've filed an expunction petition, the petitioner's lawyer drafts the proposed order. Either way, the order should include every conceivable law enforcement agency that could have records about the case AND the language from the expunction statute regarding private businesses that buy and publish CBI.

Originally Posted by Mr. GPop

Now, what if a private business or citizen has your CBI, they get told to destroy it lest get a misdemeanor charge on them, and refuse since a class B misdemeanor might have some teeth, but its not all that big a deal.. what if they ignore it?

It's never happened regarding any of my cases, but if it did, I'd make a criminal complaint in the offender's home jurisdiction.

[Mr. GPop]

ok. so which ever side does the filing should cover every angle then...will look into this

[ck1942]

SJ's facts are spot on....certainly at least for Texas jurisdictions where information was obtained from CBI.

Possibly also for other U.S. jurisdictions (and websites hosted within same) as well and maybe some foreign websites would pay attention, too, if CBI is involved.

However, for example, in the instant of a newspaper website publishing a mug shot and an accompanying story lifted directly from the pages of its newspaper, one well might question the absoluteness of any removal request - expunction or not.

Certainly the website can be redacted, but no way the published newspapers can be recalled.

Think First Amendment issues, first and foremost. Both above, and certainly below:

Then, there exist more than a few commercial enterprises (think bonding companies for example, possibly credit reporting bureaus, private security (government security) agencies, "legal" newspapers, etc.) which track certain very public activities such as bankruptcies, monetary felony convictions, etc. and etc.

imo, every one of those enterprises certainly can also claim the "First Amendment" right of publishing that data either in public, in private or even online, expunged or not.

Again, your best bet is to avoid any police action that might show up anywhere you don't want it to be.

[Grouchy]

Here's a case where the cops used a mugshot as a screensaver which was visible to the public. The fed judge said

[t]he fact of Philbrook's arrest is part of her criminal offender record, and, as such, she should not have had an expectation of privacy in connection therewith. . . . Furthermore, a mug-shot is not `highly personal,’ as it is part of the official records of the police. It is, moreover, vastly different from a `family photograph’ which is considered to be protected. Although the defendants' conduct was inappropriate, it did not constitute a violation of Philbook's privacy under [Massachusetts General Laws c. 214 § 1B and summary judgment on that issue is proper.

http://cyb3rcrim3.blogspot.com/2009/10/wallpaper.html