We Can Make This Disappear for a Fee
There are schemes for making money so sleazy that they ought to be illegal. I ran into one recently that isn’t illegal — but just barely so.
There is a website called whosarrested.com that gathers up mugshots and arrest records from those counties that make this information publicly available. This doesn’t bother me; arrest records are considered public records. There is no right to privacy on this. Courts may order the government to expunge arrest records where there was no indictment, but they are not required to do so for each and every case where the arrest led to no charges.
I can see that there might be some value to having this information available. Increasingly, employers are using the services of companies such as Social Intelligence Corporation to scour the Internet for every embarrassing, stupid, or out of context remark that you have ever made. A recent article in the Daily Mail reports, “One applicant found himself out of the running for a job after being branded racist because he once joined a Facebook group called ‘I shouldn’t have to press one for English. We are in the United States. Learn the language.’” Knowing if a potential employee or tenant has been previously arrested would seem at least as useful as knowing if you have made a fool of yourself by saying something sensible on the Internet.
Still, lots of people get arrested by mistake. Sometimes the police or prosecutor realizes this, and charges are dropped. Sometimes the person is found innocent at trial. There is probably a good argument that in such situations, the arrest record should not be considered a public record. But once posted on a sheriff’s department web site, it is impossible to pull it back.
Now, here’s what sticks in my craw. You were arrested by mistake — perhaps for something mildly embarrassing, like drunk driving, perhaps for something really horrifying, such as possession of child pornography. Your mug shot and what you were arrested for go up on whosarrested.com where it will follow you around for the rest of your life. If you are a career criminal, of course, your arrest record won’t be a problem at all. It may even give you bragging rights: “Hey, I’m up on the web!” But for middle class people who have never done anything wrong, this arrest record is going to be a major problem.
Potential employers will find it — and may not even give you a chance to explain that it was a mistake and all charges were dropped. Potential landlords will find it — and decide that they don’t want someone like you renting from them. Someone you just started dating finds it, and decides that you are a monster — even though that one arrest was a big mistake, and you did nothing wrong at all. What can you do about it?
Anyone who keeps my mug from showing up on the internet is performing a valuable service for all humanity.
Mr. Cramer your article is astonishingly ignorant of the U.S. Constitution.
Have you heard of the First Amendment and the right to free speech? When you were in high school did you skip class the day your teacher taught about the Bill of Rights?
And you claim to be a historian?
The right to free speech does not merely extend to speech you agree with, Mr. Cramer.
Arrests are public records. As Americans we have a free speech right to discuss and publish those records.
Your claim that discussion of public records is extortion indicates you do not have the faintest idea what you are talking about.
I’m not defending whosarrested.com’s business model. It is unseemly to charge for removal of the information. Unseemly, but legal. “Extortion” does not apply to discussion of public records.
You should be careful what you wish for. A government that can prosecute http://www.whosarrested.com for your so-called “extortion” is a government that would prosecute conservatives for discussing Tim Geithner’s tax cheating.
Americans who protest Obama’s Fast and Furious gun scandal would soon find themselves prosecuted.
Try re-reading the article, and see what is actually said, rather than what you think is said.
What Dianna said. “Dumb Article” has the reading comprehension of an average six-year-old, unfortunately without the critical thinking skills of many six-year-olds I know. :/ The article is exactly on target. What these scumballs are doing is legal — just barely — and probably should remain legal because any effort to make it not legal might interfere with legitimate freedom of speech. It is NOT ethical, moral, or right, however. Clayton Cramer’s comments were 100% apropos.
Cramer argues the speech on the website borders on a crime.
Cramer claims the speech on the website is “barely legal”
He cites a California criminal statute and states the speech is “very close to being a criminal offense”
Cramer fails to mention free speech or the First Amendment. Free speech is a basic right all Americans should be aware of. Clearly Cramer is uniformed and did not do his homework.
He reminds me of those loony liberals who want to lock up conservatives for “hate speech”
Moron, the First Amendment applies only to infringment of free speech by the government. Whosarrested.com is a private entity and the 1st Amendment has no application whatsoever to that website and its business model. The law in question, is the law of extortion. That is the basis for Mr. Cramer’s claim that what they are doing is “barley legal” and he is correct. Extortion occurs when a person threatens to do something, that is otherwise legal (i.e. go public with emabrassing information) unless you give them something of value. Whoarrested could probably escape criminal sanction by virtue of the fact that the information they are publishing is already on the public record. They are organizing that information, aiding the search for that information and marketing their service so that more people will have an easier time accessing the information, but they aren’t making it public, it already is. Nonetheless, Mr. Cramer is correct. This is absoulutely scummy.
It’s extortion. Absolutely. this guy should be prosecuted who runs it. It’s immoral and highly unethical to “out” people for crimes that they might have already paid for and then force them to pay money to not have it splattered everywhere. I completely agree with Cramer. It’s evil and it’s blackmail of the worse kind! I hope the guy who runs it gets his and gets sued for everything he has.
Dumb Article is most uneducated and definitely can not have attended basic law classes. Free speech has its limits. Slander and libel are among them as is intentional revelation of a private fact and other variants of that, varying from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. None of these fit the harm here at the time of post, but after acquittal they come quite close.
Dumb Article needs to take first quarter Torts (in law school, as Torts are not normally found in cooking school) and learn the wide variety of harm caused by her version of “free speech” and the damages paid as to some of it.
You’re the one who needs to take basic law classes. Then you will learn speech is not slander if it’s true.
Publishing public arrest records is not slander or libel. The information is already published on Sheriffs’s websites, etc.
You might want to read a bit more about freedom of speech as the courts have interpreted it. Extortion is an example of a crime at common law and by statute which certainly involves freedom of speech–but the courts have never found that extortion statutes are contrary to the First Amendment. This is no different from slander or libel statutes which also involve freedom of speech and which (with the remarkable exception of New York Times v. Sullivan and some of its progeny) are also not contrary to the First Amendment.
You must not have read the article. I specifically state that having these records publicly available is probably a good thing. The objection that I have is to the method of trying to get money from people to make it go away.
And yes, I know a bit about the Bill of Rights. My list of scholarly journal articles is here. Read through the list, and you will see that the U.S. Supreme Court has cited some of those articles.
Yet you didn’t address free speech in this article at all.
We need to protect free speech, even for speakers we disagree with.
Otherwise, we’ll all end up in jail for being “global warming deniers”
Nor did I address the roundness of the Earth.
Mr. Cramer you do not know what you are talking about.
For a criminal to commit extortion or blackmail, he must threaten to reveal damaging information that is not generally known.
A website that re-publishes PUBLIC arrest records cannot be guilty of extortion or blackmail.
“A website that re-publishes PUBLIC arrest records cannot be guilty of extortion or blackmail.” and that is why the author said it was barely legal.
How can you say the author doesn’t know what he is talking about when you summarize him so well?
Oddly enough, the definition of extortion does not require that the information be a secret. It simply may not be known to the people who the extortionist is threatening to tell. For example, if Mr. A was arrested in Philly for soliciting an act of prostitution, and it is public record, but Mrs. A doesn’t know about this back home in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, and Mr. J of Philly threatens to send a copy of the police report to Mrs. A if Mr. A doesn’t pay him off, that’s extortion.
But as I said, this example doesn’t quite fit the exact requirements for extortion.
GENERALLY known. Do you know what THAT means?
I suspect a couple thugs here are connected to whosarrested.com or the sleezebag in Vegas (is that redundant)?
“Florida recognizes an independent common law right protecting economic interests in a person’s likeness. Florida has also codified this right in Florida Statute 540.08:
Unauthorized publication of name or likeness.–
(1) No person shall publish, print, display or otherwise publicly use for purposes of trade or for any commercial or advertising purpose the name, portrait, photograph, or other likeness of any natural person without the express written or oral consent to such use …
Thus, Florida’s publicity law enables individuals to protect themselves from unauthorized commercial appropriation of their personas. Of course, the statute does provide exceptions for news organizations and other such reasons. But it is important to note that the right of publicity is generally regarded as a property right. Damages in publicity cases are measured by the commercial injury to the business value of personal identity. J. Thomas McCarthy says: “The right of publicity is not . . . just another kind of privacy right. It . . . is a wholly different and separate legal right.” 19 COLUM.-VLA J.L. & ARTS 129. Infringement damages, therefore, are determined by the fair market value of the plaintiff’s identity, the infringer’s profits, and damage to the licensing opportunities for the plaintiff’s identity.
In the case of the mugshot sites mentioned above, the sites are generating revenue using other’s photographs. So it is clearly a commercial activity or for commercial purposes, as defined in the Florida statute above. But is it also a news organization providing newsworthy subject matter? Many would say not. But the state of the law on blogs, tweets and other new media is in a state of flux and will not be settled for quite some time. With regard to damages, web search results can certainly cause damage, especially in cases where the subject of a mugshot is looking for employment or seeking admission to a school. A mugshot could kill such prospects for a job-seeker or prospective student. So these mugshot sites are operating at their own peril.
If someone in Florida has been damaged or will be damaged by a mugshot on one of these web sites, they should hire an attorney that is familiar with the Florida right of publicity.”
They’ve already revealed the damaging information that’s not generally known. Playing on people’s fears that “everyone might now find out” about it is sickening. They demand money to remove it because they know people are afraid of losing their jobs and losing their reputations. What’s even more sickening is that there’s a percentage that are falsely arrested or where the charges have been dropped or who have changed and become good people who are now being destroyed by this “outing” of their private lives. It’s not freedom of speech, it’s greed and something that criminals would do (like the mafia who demand you pay them or they’ll destroy your storefront). It’s exactly the same, only these criminals demand that you pay them or they’ll destroy your livelihood and reputation!!
Speaking of dumb, Dumb, is there any particular reason you replied to Dave Surls comment?
I’m asking because there doesn’t seem to be any connection between what you wrote and what Mr. Surls said. Rather, it seems to be a response to Mr. Cranmer’s article. Of course, there’s nothing wrong with responding to Mr. Cranmer, but I’m just wondering why you didn’t just do that, instead of replying to Mr. Surls.
“Florida recognizes an independent common law right protecting economic interests in a person’s likeness. Florida has also codified this right in FLORIDA STATUTE 540.08:
Unauthorized publication of name or likeness.–
No person shall publish, print, display or otherwise publicly use for purposes of trade or for ANY COMMERCIAL or advertising purpose the name, portrait, photograph, or other likeness of any natural person without the express written or oral consent to such use …
Thus, Florida’s publicity law enables individuals to protect themselves from unauthorized commercial appropriation of their personas. Of course, the statute does provide exceptions for news organizations and other such reasons. But it is important to note that the right of publicity is generally regarded as a property right. Damages in publicity cases are measured by the commercial injury to the business value of personal identity. J. Thomas McCarthy says: “The right of publicity is not . . . just another kind of privacy right.
It . . . is a wholly different and separate legal right.” 19 COLUM.-VLA J.L. & ARTS 129. Infringement damages, therefore, are determined by the fair market value of the plaintiff’s identity, the infringer’s profits, and damage to the licensing opportunities for the plaintiff’s identity.
In the case of the mugshot sites mentioned above, THE SITES ARE GENERATING REVENUE USING OTHER’S PHOTOGRAPHS. So it is clearly a COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY or for commercial purposes, as defined in the Florida statute above. But is it also a news organization providing newsworthy subject matter? Many would say not. But the state of the law on blogs, tweets and other new media is in a state of flux and will not be settled for quite some time. With regard to damages, web search results can certainly cause damage, especially in cases where the subject of a mugshot is looking for employment or seeking admission to a school. A mugshot could kill such prospects for a job-seeker or prospective student.
So these mugshot sites are operating at their own peril.
If someone in Florida has been damaged or will be damaged by a mugshot on one of these web sites, they should hire an attorney that is familiar with the FLORIDA RIGHT OF PUBLICITY.”
Dave, we’ll just have to agree to agree on that point.
“Florida recognizes an independent common law right protecting economic interests in a person’s likeness. Florida has also codified this right in FLORIDA STATUTE 540.08:
Unauthorized publication of name or likeness.–
No person shall publish, print, display or otherwise publicly use for purposes of trade or for ANY COMMERCIAL or advertising purpose the name, portrait, photograph, or other likeness of any natural person without the express written or oral consent to such use …
Thus, Florida’s publicity law enables individuals to protect themselves from unauthorized commercial appropriation of their personas. Of course, the statute does provide exceptions for news organizations and other such reasons. But it is important to note that the right of publicity is generally regarded as a property right. Damages in publicity cases are measured by the commercial injury to the business value of personal identity. J. Thomas McCarthy says: “The right of publicity is not . . . just another kind of privacy right.
It . . . is a wholly different and separate legal right.” 19 COLUM.-VLA J.L. & ARTS 129. Infringement damages, therefore, are determined by the fair market value of the plaintiff’s identity, the infringer’s profits, and damage to the licensing opportunities for the plaintiff’s identity.
In the case of the mugshot sites mentioned above, THE SITES ARE GENERATING REVENUE USING OTHER’S PHOTOGRAPHS. So it is clearly a COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY or for commercial purposes, as defined in the Florida statute above. But is it also a news organization providing newsworthy subject matter? Many would say not. But the state of the law on blogs, tweets and other new media is in a state of flux and will not be settled for quite some time. With regard to damages, web search results can certainly cause damage, especially in cases where the subject of a mugshot is looking for employment or seeking admission to a school. A mugshot could kill such prospects for a job-seeker or prospective student.
So these mugshot sites are operating at their own peril.
If someone in Florida has been damaged or will be damaged by a mugshot on one of these web sites, they should hire an attorney that is familiar with the FLORIDA RIGHT OF PUBLICITY.”
INTERNET CRIME COMPLAINT CENTER (IC3) COMPLAINT ID: I1202151610385131
18 USC § 873 – BLACKMAIL
Whoever, under a threat of informing, or as a consideration for not informing, against any violation of any law of the United States, demands or receives any money or other valuable thing, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.
18 USC § 880 – EXTORTION
A person who receives, possesses, conceals, or disposes of any money or other property which was obtained from the commission of any offense under this chapter that is punishable by imprisonment for more than 1 year, knowing the same to have been unlawfully obtained, shall be imprisoned not more than 3 years, fined under this title, or both.
CALIFORNIA: CAL. PEN. CODE § 518-527: EXTORTION AND BLACKMAIL LAW
519. Fear, such as will constitute extortion, may be induced by a threat, either:
3. To expose, or to impute to him or them any deformity, disgrace or crime; or,
4. To expose any secret affecting him or them.
523. Every person who, with intent to extort any money or other property from another, sends or delivers to any person any letter or other writing, whether subscribed or not, expressing or implying, or adapted to imply, any threat such as is specified in Section 519, is punishable in the same manner as if such money or property were actually obtained by means of such threat.
FLORIDA: F.S Ch. 836.05 THREATS; EXTORTION
Whoever, either verbally or by a written or printed communication, maliciously threatens to accuse another of any crime or offense, or by such communication maliciously threatens an injury to the person, property or reputation of another, or maliciously threatens to expose another to disgrace, or to expose any secret affecting another, or to impute any deformity or lack of chastity to another, with intent thereby to extort money or any pecuniary advantage whatsoever, or with intent to compel the person so threatened, or any other person, to do any act or refrain from doing any act against his or her will, shall be guilty of a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
GEORGIA: O.C.G.A. § 16-8-16. THEFT BY EXTORTION
(a) A person commits the offense of theft by extortion when he unlawfully obtains property of or from another person by threatening to:
(3) Disseminate any information tending to subject any person to hatred, contempt, or ridicule or to impair his credit or business repute;
(6) Testify or provide information or withhold testimony or information with respect to another’s legal claim or defense.
(b) In a prosecution under this Code section, the crime shall be considered as having been committed in the county in which the threat was made or received or in the county in which the property was unlawfully obtained.
(d) A person convicted of the offense of theft by extortion shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one nor more than ten years.
WEBSITES:
Mugshots.com
seminolemugshots.com
International Whois Privacy Services Limited
35 New Road, P O Box: 2391
Belize City, Belize City 00000 BZ
mugme.org
Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 0128480463
96 Mowat Ave.
Toronto, ON M6K3M1
HOSTING:
Amazon.com, Inc.
605 5th Ave S
Seattle WA 98104
PayPal Inc.
2211 North First Street
San Jose CA 95131
WINHOST.COM
1308 E. Colorado Blvd # 280
Pasadena, CA 91106
ADVERTISING, MARKETING & PROMOTIONS:
adBrite, Inc.
731 Market St., Suite 500
San Francisco, CA 94103
Facebook, Inc.
1601 Willow Road
Menlo Park CA 94025
Google Inc.
1600 Amphitheatre Parkway
Mountain View CA 94043
Twitter, Inc.
795 Folsom Street
Suite 600
San Francisco, CA 94107
Google “Dzit Nup Cenote”, and you’ll see my photo, presumably purchased at one time from an agency, now on 50 different websites, almost all wallpaper.
I get zip, not even a credit – on some sites they claim copyright. I don’t care if they all got sued or for how much. If I could I’d sue them all and laugh about it.
It’s even on Wikipedia where they claim the right to use it.
“It turns out that this is very close to being a criminal offense. The definition of extortion varies slightly from state to state.”
These bums don’t like the term “extortion.” They prefer blackmail. Gives lawyers a bad name (not that they had much of a good name to begin with). It also shows you how the law can be used as a weapon against people by slimy lawyers. I’m just surprised that John Edwards didn’t think of it first.
He did, but he was too busy shtupping Raeill to take action on it.
“perhaps for something mildly embarrassing, like drunk driving”
Mildly embarrassing?
You’re equating having a few beers with kiddie diddling?
A perfect example of taking a quote out of context.
Yes, mildly embarrassing, at least based on how widespread this seems to be. I was called to jury duty a few months back. During the questioning phase, “Have you ever been convicted of a crime?” came up. I have never even been arrested–but I was startled at what a large percentage (maybe 30%?) of the jury pool had DUI convictions. I was beginning to wonder if I wasn’t qualified to live in this county.
Can a tell a short story? Humor me. 35 years ago, I am a medical student rotating through the ER at Orange County Medical Center. Paramedics wheel an accident victim into a cubicle. The sheet comes off… she is blackened from head to toe. Burned to a crisp. Still moaning, but she dies before we can get her some morphine to ease her pain. Turns out she was a young mother stopped at a red light when a drunk barelled into her from behind and her car exploded. Family arrived… awful scene. Then the drunk who did it arrived, complaining that he needed attention immediately because his cuffs were too tight…
Not a rare thing. If today is average, 30 or so people swill be killed by impaired driving. More than one every fracking hour.
And you think getting caught doing this is “mildly embarrassing”?
I hope no one ever does this. If you do, and you are caught, you deserve a heck of a lot more to happen to you than embarrassment. I won’t tell you what I really think should happen…
If his cuffs were the focus of his complaint – the most pain he was feeling – then he didn’t go “barelling into her from behind, causing her car to explode” implying that a drunk was driving at an unsafe speed through an urban setting. Highly unlikely. Drunk people usually know that they are drunk and slow way down. The main problem being keeping the car between the lines.
The cause, if any part of your story is true, was the defective, unsafe at any speed, car the girl was driving.
Pintos used to explode on contact. I’d put Ford in jail for this one.
Yes there should be questions asked about the safety of the car the young lady was in. Don’t forget, this was a long time ago, when indeed fuel tanks were much more likely to explode on impact.
Oh yes, he hit her from behind. How fast? Fast enough. Maybe in his intoxicated state he didn’t see the red light. Maybe he was reaching down for another beer. Don’t know, don’t care. He killed her.
But that’s just one incident, as I said, a long time ago. It really happened, I was there. But take it as a parable, if you like.
How about 2010? Gas tanks almost never explode. NHTSA says 10,839 deaths due to drunk driving last year. I’m sure you can quibble about this and that. From your prior response, I’m guessing you will. Don’t care about that either. In the name of whatever god you do or don’t believe in, please never drive while intoxicated. If you do and you get caught, the punishment you get will be less than you deserve. If you do and you kill someone innocent, someone’s son or daughter or spouse, are you going to tell me it’s their fault for being stopped there? Or for being in the wrong car? Please don’t do it. If you do, have the decency to kill yourself in a one car accident before you take anyone else with you.
WRONG, papertiger!
The drunk driver who hit us [me, my sister and my daughter] with a truck while we were sitting at a stop light behind a another truck was barreling towards us at over 50 mph. The guy had 3 other DUI convictions and his license had been revoked so he was borrowing his friend’s huge @ss truck. Luckily, we all had seat-belts on, were sitting in the front (my daughter was belted in the space between us) and we were driving a huge Chevy Caprice classic old boat at the time. This happened in 1992.
Thank heavens we had uninsured motorist insurance to cover our damages and injuries.
The a-hole who hit us got out on bail and left WA state never to be heard from again.
To this day my sister has problems with her knees (she was driving and her knees rammed into the steering) and I have problems with my neck from the whiplash to this day.
Drunk driving is definitely NOT COOL.
My father was sitting in his car waiting at a red light when another car being going 60 MPH / driven by a repeat drunk driver slammed into the rear of my father’s vehicle, the collision killing my father moments later.
THERE ARE OVER 15,000 / year killed by drunk drivers in the USA, and anyone who minimalizes the problem of drunk driving is a SELF-ABSORBED ASSHOLE.
If you need to have your cocktails at a restaurant THEN EITHER TAKE A FREAKING CAB HOME OR DESIGNATE A SOBER DRIVER, otherwise you are NO BETTER than a blindfolded jackass with his finger on the trigger pointing a loaded weapon into a crowd going “Oh, I am sure I won’t stumble”.
You don’t know much about this subject.
Sure drunk driving is bad, but I have seen drunk driving convictions (and obviously, arrests) that involved neither drinking nor driving. DD laws are so broad that merely being in the driver seat (with the engine off) while an open container is in the car (held by someone else) will lead to a summary conviction and stiff fines. So yes, a DD arrest is merely an embarassment because brazen corruption (as currently applied) has diluted its moral force.
If state and local governments really cared about drunk driving fatalities, they would loosen zoning requirements that put miles between bars and people’s homes, reform sclerotic public transit into something people can actually use, repeal excessive licensing requirements for taxis, etc.
I have a worse story than that. In the early 1980s, there was a guy in Bakersfield, California, who ran from the police when they tried to pull him over for speeding. He ran a red light, and successfully T-boned a Monte Carlo so well that his 240Z actually went out the other side. He got out of the car, and was sufficiently uninjured to run from the police. On his way through the Monte Carlo, he killed a woman and her three children. Why did this scum run from the police? Because he had already lost his license for drunk driving.
The police threw the book at him: four murder charges; speeding; reckless driving; driving without a license; drunk driving; resisting arrest; running a red light. His response, after conviction, was that it was unfair how he was being treated like a monster: “This could have happened to anyone.” Yeah, right.
I drink perhaps a glass of wine a year. I have no sympathy for drunk drivers. But I also know that for a lot of Americans, drunk driving is a mild embarrassment. That’s a shame, but it is also true.
Bless your heart, Clay.
I can’t suffer people who would drink and drive. If I had put my daughter in the back seat that day…
Our huge boat of a car was crumpled from the back and crumpled into the back of the truck in front of us. That we walked away without being crippled for life was a miracle and I thank GOD.
It’s more than a shame. It should be the end of their driving privileges, at the very least. If someone is killed it should be the end of their life.
@jbfour, re anecdotal DUI digression: for every hideous fatal alcohol-related crash, there are many times that number of complete BS DUI convictions. i know a guy whose brother threw a big party at his house, all the beds and couches had been called, so he drove his RV to the party and parked it out front. when the party wound down, he (responsibly) walked out to his RV and crashed in the bed inside. shortly thereafter, the cops pounded on the RV door, asked him to step out, and promptly arrested him for DUI—even tho he was ASLEEP IN A BED.
if you doubt that the revenue-generating potential of DUI arrests are blurring our judicial system’s judgement, consider this: i was convicted for DUI last year, and the court ordered me to see a drug and alc counselor for an assessment to determine if i was a raging drunk in need of treatment. i’m not, i’m educated, articulate, and in control of my life, and the counselor told me as much. however, i’m finishing my college degree and i have very little money to live on while a student. in her report to the court, when my probation officer asked if i needed counseling the counselor lady said “it never hurts”. so i was ordered to go to counseling for twelve weeks at a cost of about $25/wk plus transportation costs, plus the 2 hrs/wk of my time i could be studying or whatever. but here’s the best part: the person who gets that money, who is contracted to administer said counseling? the counselor herself who made the assessment. a flagrant conflict of interest. i pointed this out in writing to the court, and i honestly don’t think they could have given less of a damn.
The reason drunk driving is embarrasing is that we’ve over-defined it and equated perfectly normal behavior with criminally negligent behavior. Yes, it’s horribly dangerous when a lush, tanked to the gills, gets into his car and slaloms down the road. That’s quite different than someone with a BAC of 0.08 driving carefully home and getting stopped at a DUI checkpoint. It’s like feminists who try to say all sex is rape. It’s expanding the definition of something that really is bad to cover things that are not for the sake of somebody’s ideological crusade.
Anon at 9:33 bravely calls for permanent penalties for DUI. If you really want that to happen, then first you need to redefine what DUI is, because right now you’ll never get public support for harsher penalties when the majority of people cited for DUI are not actually a danger to their fellow citizens. If you want to really crack down on the deadly behavior, you need to change the definition to only apply to people who are obviously, significantly, imparied.
In the meantime, people who were not doing anything anti-social, dangerous, or negligent, end up with an arrest record that is indistinguishable from someone with a serious defect who poses a great danger to society.
Will they simply remove arrest info for anyone who pays? WOuldn’t this limit the utility of this service?
If the utility of the site is to find people who were arrested, yes. If the utility of the site is to make money from people whose arrest records are there, no.
The problem is that nothing is preventing 20 copycat sites like this from popping up. Where you would have to pay 99$ each to remove that information.
Apparently he’s found an even stupider business model than trying to extort money from bloggers. Shaking down every dangerous criminal in the country at once.
They seem to be pretty good at posting data online, including their own office address.
http://www.nvannualreport.com/entities-DLLC-WHOS-ARRESTED-LLC.aspx
Funny enough they registered by proxy to keep them from being found via a whois but LLC filings are pretty easy to find.
I think I’ve provided Mr. Cramer enough info to find the owners for an interview, I can dig a bit deeper if he wishes.
I’m guessing that trying to unravel
Correctional Data Systems Llc
8022 S Rainbow Blvd
Suite #115
Las Vegas, NV 89139
and
Detention Data Systems Llc
8022 S Rainbow Blvd
Suite #115
Las Vegas, NV 89139
is going to lead to a bunch more blind alleys, intentionally. But I am pretty sure that I know where it leads. There sure seem to be a LOT of businesses at that address!
I wondered how long it’d be before someone figured out a way to make the Monty Python skit work:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZgwNutwK0Y
This might be a closer legal call than it seems, at first blush. Let’s play out a few scenarios.
1) “Give me $100 or I will publish your mugshot.”
This is classic, prototypical criminal blackmail/extortion.
2) “Give me $100 or I’ll CONTINUE to publish your mugshot.”
I think most prosecutors would agree that this is criminal blackmail/extortion, as the
communicator is threatening to damage the target, in exchange for money. Reason: The
ongoing publication of mugshot causes NEW HARM, or GREATER HARM, than the past
publication, as the past publication would eventually drift downward on Google and Bing
rankings, or otherwise fade – at least somewhat – in Internet prominence.
3) Same as SCENARIO 2, “Give me $100 or I’ll CONTINUE to publish your mugshot.”
However, this time, the putative blackmailer/extorter does not send a unique
communication directed solely at 1 target, but sends this communication via automated,
mass e-mail directed all those with mugshots on whosarrested.com.
Result: If SCENARIO 2 is criminal blackmail/extortion, then so is SCENARIO 3.
The elements of a) communicating the threat of a damaging disclosure,
b) unless the target gives the threatener property —-are satisfied.
The fact that scores of other people are threatened in an identical manner, as part
of a general policy, does not change the analysis (except of course, to multiply the
criminal and possibly civil liability of the blackmailer.)
4) This scenario appears to be the present case.
The threat “Give me $100 or I’ll CONTINUE to publish your mugshot” appears, in essence,
somewhere on the website whosarrested.com, or on some other forum controlled by the
putative blackmailer/extorter, and is INTENDED TO REACH the target who got his mugshot
taken by the police. I have not analyzed the state and federal criminal statutes, and
the statutes or precedents establishing civil liability, but I highly doubt there is any
DIRECTNESS requirement when it comes to the communication of the threat. Highly
likely, any communication CALCULATED TO REACH THE TARGET – on a website, an email, a
communication to press or other 3rd party who will then disseminate it to the target –
will satisfy the threat requirement.
Is this a slam-dunk case? No.
But is there enough of case such that an enterprising prosecutor or class-action plaintiff’s lawyer could create significant problems for these RightHaven guys (if that’s who is behind this effort)?
I think so, yes.
(And remember, the RightHaven guys are not half as smart as they think they are, judging from developments in their copyright cases. I doubt that they have gamed their potential criminal & civil liability adequately.)
Brian makes some good points but fails in his final suggestion that a local prosecutor is going to become involved as to a dozen of his citizens complaining about what is a quasi-legal activity if done with care.
Even a class-action lawyer would run from such a case…no insurance (they are not knights on a charger but rather insurance company leeches) and no likelihood of a deep pocket (many a corporation has been accused of wrong-doing that really was done99+% by a near non-entity of a corporation)!
A new law that makes it a felony (with heavy fines and a per se right to sue for damages) to charge to remove these photos after acquittal is all we need. As the menace is national, a federal law would hit the spot. [Of course a stronger law could be crafted if this were more of the abomination as failing to report one's two year old is dead for 30 days and then only after caught in a web of lies by your querulous, maybe but maybe not considering who her daughter was, mother who does the calling one month late.]
#3 might not get the perpetrators of this site arrested, but would almost certainly guarantee them blacklisting in major anti-spam blocklists, and by ISPs and companies in their private spam filters and blocklists. Non-personal, mass email sent to email addresses that did not request it is the commonly-accepted definition of spam.
1) Don’t they ask you if you’ve ever been arrested on job applications?
2) What if someone with the same name turns up when you apply for a job and they google your name?
3) Where’s the web site that publishes information about police officers who make illegal arrests? When the police break the law there should be consequences – unfortunately there are not. You’re innocent, you get arrested and released. The police bully, intimidate, and coerce you with a groundless arrest and there are no adverse consequence for the police officers.
At least in my experience (entirely in California; laws may be different in other states), the question asked is “Have you ever been convicted of a crime?”. Sometimes, the question specifies to not include traffic infractions (which can be looked up directly), sometimes not, but I’ve never seen “have you been arrested”, only “have you been convicted”. I’ve been arrested, but I’ve only ever been convicted of traffic violation infractions. If an application asked “have you ever been arrested?, I’d lie.
Mugshot would hopefully resolve the question. But yes, the problem of duplicate or similar names bedevils all such systems.
Wow. When I wrote the dissertation length post above – sorry about that – I had no idea the communication threatening to continue publication unless payment is remitted was so explicit.
If you go here – http://www.whosarrested.com/faq – you’ll see somewhat bureaucratic-sounding allusions to the payment for “anonymization,” which, in my opinion, is sufficient to make the case that the alleged blackmailers are in essence communicating the threat: “Give us cash or we’ll continue to publish.”
But check this out. I don’t want to call attention to any unfortunate individual, so plug in any common name into the search engine at http://www.whosarrested.com. Right next to the mugshot, there’s a prominent red oval with the word REMOVE.
Click on REMOVE, and you get to the payment page accepting VISA, Mastercard, Discover, and Amex. It even takes PayPal!
Test
Nauseating. Figures that RightHaven is behind this. Good piece of digging.
But they can’t make it disappear for a fee. Once they post it and make it public, it will be available on Google Cache and Internet Wayback Machine and things like that forever.
Google cache items are from recent views of a then existing page. I recall never seeing a Google cache item as old as a view from more than a year back.
To access the page at the Internet Wayback Machine you need to know that such a page once existed AND its address. Plus those folks will remove it most probably upon rational request as they understand invasion of private matters.
My recollection is that there are ways to set up your web page so that it isn’t cached or crawled.
1) Don’t they ask you if you’ve ever been arrested on job applications?
No, they ask about convictions.
Are they actually going to these county courthouses and police departments all across the United States, scanning and converting this stuff for use on the web? Or are they simply compiling data that is already digitally available?
If the latter, then it seems arrestees are being only marginally more “revealed” than they already were.
(That’s not a defense of this site’s disgusting business model, which if not illegal is morally sick. It’s predatory and shameful.)
I’m not sure how long arrest records stay visible on government web sites. Probably not forever. Worse, by increasing the number of places that this information is available, it makes it more likely to appear on a Google search.
So, if I am doing a check on potential employee, I might not be getting the complete background. I can’t believe that actual court records can be erased.
To me,this is blackmail, pure and simple.
For $99 here in Africa I can most probably have the ceo of the company arrested for perjury.
Join the world.
Your socialist overlords are watching.
So, why are arrest records being published in the first place? I thought the main reason for Grand Juries was to prevent overzealous prosecutors or police officials from destroying someone’s reputation. If you can’t get (or decide not to seek) an indictment, the arrest record should never be made public. Then this Righthaven extortion racket would be moot.
I’d say start politely, with a law requiring arrests be kept confidential until there is either an indictment or a guilty plea. If the case never gets far enough for either one of those, we have to assume there is no valid reason for tarnishing the reputation of the person arrested.
n regards to the issue of having a common name and that potentially creating a problem with a “service” like this (I put that in quotes for obvious reasons) I know an example that is equally disturbing of so called services where name matching and resultant mistaken identity can create problems. This story is slightly off topic, but as it is an example of an abuse under the law using mistaken identities I’d like to tell it.
I know someone who has a common name like John Smith. He received an official letter summons (via certified mail) from the child support court of Philadelphia notifying him that there was a claim of child support against him and the authorities were seeking back child support from him. First of all he had never been to this state or even that close to it (he lives on the opposite end of US) nor did he recognize the name of the woman in the claim, but he also knew he hadn’t fathered a child out of wedlock or abandoned his responsibility for any child.
When he tried to call the phone number listed on the summons all he got was an automated attended and menu options for child support claims, etc. He did some research online and found that they had a web site listing claims and court cases and he noticed other men had claims against them from this woman and had failed to show up in court resulting in summary judgements against them and wage garnishments. He could see that later on they had been able to appeal in court and get it cleared (viewing case history on their website), but of course probably after hiring lawyers, and having money taken from them in a garnishment. Since he lived thousands of miles away appearing in person obviously wasn’t a trivial option and the court date was in mid to late January—the summons was received a few days before Christmas or shortly afterwards (can’t remember for sure)! He probably should have tried harder to get a hold of an official person to try and challenge this without a lawyer, but instead (in part because it was a certified mailed summons and fear from what he could see happened to others, plus the very short time in which to respond) called the PA bar and got two lawyer referrals. The first lawyers paralegal told him he must be guilty (needless to say he quickly terminated that call) so he called the second one. After an over the phone consultation he paid a retainer for this lawyer to investigate the matter. Since the holidays were fast approaching nothing could be done till after the first of the year.
Eventually he found out from another attorney in the firm who had gone down to the PA court they were looking for a guy of a certain race (my friend was not of this race) and the woman claiming he was the father was of the same race as the guy they were looking for (also my friend had never had intimate relations with a woman of this race either). The only thing he shared was the same name… Clearly it was a case of mistaken identity. After sending copies of his drivers license, passport, etc the attorney filed a motion for dismissal with the court and it was dismissed. However my friend ended up having to pay an attorney about a $1,000 for the time spent (at ~$200 an hour doesn’t take long to get to $1K).
My friend asked the lawyer about filing a complaint about this and the lawyer advised him “the PA courts and authorities can make your life into a hell and you have no legal case anyways.” The lawyer implied this sort of thing was common and apparently the child support people with so many cases and the millions (billions?) being spent on support by the state the authorities were doing anything they could to catch dead beat dads including hiring outside companies (similar to debt collection) to hunt down people. Apparently they would find people with the same name and assume that was the person. I don’t know how they could do this (it was crazy), but they obviously did!
My friend probably should have pursued it further and filed complaints, but then other urgent matters in his life took his time so he dropped it. Perhaps he should still file a complaint even though it was 8 years ago. Perhaps he could have sued the company that was used to track him down (assuming that is actually what happened) and sued this woman (assuming she had somehow wrongly identified him—she had no money though). One is left wondering what the court did, if anything, about the wrong men being wrongly identified as the father of the child. Clearly any statute has now run out assuming he did have a legal case (had been able to prove abuse by this unnamed company carelessly coming up with the addresses of people with the same name as child support defendants).
Beware of misuse of identity and “legal” shenanigans from either unscrupulous people or the “State!”
Perhaps after the “wrong” person is hurt by an outfit like this (or the others run by this outfit) it will stop. By the “wrong” person I mean someone who will get even via…shall we say…”grievous personal injury” to those persons running these evil operations.
Corporatized blackmail.
I’ve had job applications that asked if I were ever arrested. While you’re at it. I was stopped behind a car making a left turn. I was hit by a girl who was busy on her cell-phone. (YOU don’t have to be drunk.) I remember thinking…Why am I flat on my back and why am I moving? Weird!
I will offer this tidbit which, although from wikipedia, is correct. It explains in Merv Griffin’s own words how the gameshow “Jeopardy” came to be. This may go far in explaining how our friend, Mr. Gibson, came up with his novel approach.
My wife Julann just came up with the idea one day when we were in a plane bringing us back to New York from Duluth. I was mulling over game show ideas, when she noted that there had not been a successful ‘question and answer’ game on the air since the quiz show scandals. Why not do a switch, and give the answers to the contestant and let them come up with the question.
She fired a couple of answers to me: ’5,280′ and the question of course was how many feet in a mile. Another was ’79 Wistful Vista.’ That was Fibber and Mollie McGee’s address. I loved the idea, went straight to NBC with the idea, and they bought it without even looking at a pilot show.
Now,I also remember in one issue of “Mad Magazine” a segment on the Lighter Side Of Advertising. Alfred E. Neuman appears as someone who, for a small fee, will stay out of your ad! Life really does imitate art.
So in other words, I, a nobody, can copy a neighbors mugshot off the sheriff’s website, post it onto my blog with the note, ‘Mugshot removal information: Please contact one of the three “vendors” for removal of this mugshot’ (the three vendors being like-minded hapless “nobodies” like my cousin or brother or another neighbor or my old college buddy – all with varying $7.99 a month .com’s – all trying to look and act all professional like).
The “vendor” arrangement: I remove the mugshot, then I receive 50% of the removal extortion fee from that 3rd party “vendor.” Sounds like a plan. A business model. In this economy every single mugshot has the potential of being a big, fat dollar sign in my pocket! Coolio!
Hey, I can even register several mugshot websites (@ $7.99 each – its’s that easy) with differing names, then once the fools pay the initial extortion fee I’ll wait a few short months before making their mugshots magically appear on the other mugshot websites! Coolio again! On going mugshot extortion!
I’ll even call it a “legal business model,” a “legal redistribution of mugshots” all for my financial benefit. And if they dare email me through my site only to tell me what a monster or predator they think I am or in anyway make be feel bad about myself, why then I’ll just have to contact my other mugshots.com buddies to get them to “redistribute” the mugshots further – blast them all over the place. I won’t even wait! Good times! I’ll make sure their mugshot appears on all my small band of “nobodies” mugshots.com extortion sites (for as little as a $7.99 a month domain fee – a mugshots.com extortion site can be yours too). That way, when the person googles his/her name, google’s 1st page will be littered with their mugshot. Hey, maybe I won’t get any extortion money from them, but, perhaps I’ll have shamed them to the point of self-destruction or insanity and they’ll eventually kill themself – hopefully before they get all psycho on society after I’ve messed with their livelihood and entire life. Who cares, right? Who needs them! The world be rid of them. They shouldn’t have gotten arrested. Now their life and money IS mine! bwwwwwwahhhahahah! Good times!
Aside: Question: Do I have to pay taxes on my extortion “business” model/plan? Hmm?
********FYI: This is not a “mugshot business” or “mugshot industry.”
This so-called “redistribution” of mugshots is no different than me posting anything about anybody (true, factual, modified, incomplete, public record) on the internet then demanding they pay me through another entity to take it down! The demand: Pay up or it stays up.
It’s an extortion CRIME! And I for one will be watching and waiting for mugshots.com domains bubble to burst and their house to come tumbling down.
“Florida recognizes an independent common law right protecting economic interests in a person’s likeness. Florida has also codified this right in FLORIDA STATUTE 540.08:
Unauthorized publication of name or likeness.–
No person shall publish, print, display or otherwise publicly use for purposes of trade or for ANY COMMERCIAL or advertising purpose the name, portrait, photograph, or other likeness of any natural person without the express written or oral consent to such use …
Thus, Florida’s publicity law enables individuals to protect themselves from unauthorized commercial appropriation of their personas. Of course, the statute does provide exceptions for news organizations and other such reasons. But it is important to note that the right of publicity is generally regarded as a property right. Damages in publicity cases are measured by the commercial injury to the business value of personal identity. J. Thomas McCarthy says: “The right of publicity is not . . . just another kind of privacy right.
It . . . is a wholly different and separate legal right.” 19 COLUM.-VLA J.L. & ARTS 129. Infringement damages, therefore, are determined by the fair market value of the plaintiff’s identity, the infringer’s profits, and damage to the licensing opportunities for the plaintiff’s identity.
In the case of the mugshot sites mentioned above, THE SITES ARE GENERATING REVENUE USING OTHER’S PHOTOGRAPHS. So it is clearly a COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY or for commercial purposes, as defined in the Florida statute above. But is it also a news organization providing newsworthy subject matter? Many would say not. But the state of the law on blogs, tweets and other new media is in a state of flux and will not be settled for quite some time. With regard to damages, web search results can certainly cause damage, especially in cases where the subject of a mugshot is looking for employment or seeking admission to a school. A mugshot could kill such prospects for a job-seeker or prospective student.
So these mugshot sites are operating at their own peril.
If someone in Florida has been damaged or will be damaged by a mugshot on one of these web sites, they should hire an attorney that is familiar with the FLORIDA RIGHT OF PUBLICITY.”
If you would like to the owner of Who is arrested .com Contact me ..
anonymous who thinks drunk drivers who cause fatal crashes should be executed: we don’t execute people for accidents in this country. drunk drivers who kill are often locked up for years and years, but they are not executed because they did not commit premeditated murder. before you make flaming statements like that you should consider the logical ramifications of your little tirade.