The laws and the court holdings in some jurisdiction are examined and interpreted from a personal view. Nothing in this section should be considered legal advice.    If you have questions, the best advice we can give you is to go see an attorney.

The online mugshot extortion racket often uses the Sixth US District Court of Appeals holding in Detroit Free Press v. The United States as justification for publishing booking photographs online.  In this article we look at whether the the decision in Detroit Free Press allows a blanket release of booking mugshots, or whether Detroit Free Press is more restrictive in its ruling.

Theodore Karantsalis, a freelance reporter for Tulsa World sought the mugshot of Luis Giro.  The US Marshalls Service denied Karantsalis FOIA request.  Karantsalis sought remedy in the Southern US District Court for Florida.  The US Marshals service filed a motion for summary judgement and district court granted court granted the motion for summary judgement.  Karantsalis appealed to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeal.  This appeal was denied.  In the article “Court, Eleventh Circuit” we look at the holding and the reasons why the Appeal was denied.

Karantsalis was dissatisfied with the ruling of the Eleventh District Court of Appeals and petitioned the United States Supreme Court for certiorari.  The Supreme Court denied Karantsalis petition without comment leaving the ruling of the Court of Appeals as the law in the Eleventh circuit.  The Supreme Court denies far more matters than they hear.  Normally denial of certiorari is nothing to comment on.  In the matter of mug shots, it is not the denial of certiorari that we will look at.  In this article we will examine the brief in opposition to Karantsalis petition for certiorari filed with the Supreme Court.

There is little to suggest that releasing booking photos would significantly assist the public in detecting or deterring any underlying government misconduct.…For example, a booking photo may indicate just as much about pre-​​arrest conduct of a detainee as post-​​arrest conduct by law enforcement. There is also little to indicate that the release of booking photos would allow the public to detect racial or ethnic profiling without more information, and profiling has not been alleged here. In the article “Mugshots and the Tenth Court of Appeals” we look at the decision more closely.

After the Sixth US Court of Appeals handed down its ruling in Detroit Free Press but before the Theodore Karantsailis filed suit in the Eleventh US District Court, The Times Picayune filed for the release of mugshots in the Eastern District of Louisiana.  The analysis and many elements of the ruling are found in the holdings of Karantsalis and Tulsa World.  Times Picayune Pub. Corp. v. U.S. Dept. of Jus­tice,” 37 F.Supp.2d 472 (1999) is an important case in the mugshot industry because it has been repeated by other courts.

 Is the display of mugshots online, when accompanied by a demand disguised as an offer to remove the mugshot for a fee?  What exceptions to free speech prohibit extortion like activity.  Is invasion of privacy exempted from freedom of speech?  Is incitement to commit crime, conspiracy to commit crime, or the commission of crime exempted from freedom of speech.  These are some of the issues that are examined in “Freedom of speech and mugshots.”

A Chicago attorney, Meanith Huon filed a negative content lawsuit for defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, civil conspiracy, invasion of privacy, and cyber stalking, and cyber bullying. In the case of online mugshots, one might also consider cyber harassment. Meanith Huon sued a legal blog, a blogger, and the managing editor for 50 million dollars and control of the domain name “Abovethelaw​.com.”  The case is ongoing. Just because a person has been acquitted or never charged does not exonerate the guilt of the arrested in the minds of most people. In Meanith Huon v Breaking Media we examine the elements needed to pierce the corporate veil of secrecy and pursue legal action against the negative content industry for cyberstalking, cyberbullying, cyberharassment, and invasion of privacy.

This practice of using the names and photos of Ohio residents for the commercial gain of the mugshots websites is a direct violation of Ohio’s Right to Publicity per ORC §2741. The status of the booking photos and names as part of the public record does not relieve Defendants of the obligation to obtain consent from the those whose persona they are exploiting for commercial gain.

The first lawsuit in the nation to directly address violations of the Right to Publicity is this Mugshots Lawsuit of Lashaway v. JustMugshots​.com.

FOIA mugshot case law disagrees with what the mugshot websites tell a person about the release of mugshots under the Freedom Of Information Act.  This article is an overview of the FOIA Mugshot caselaw.  A person has the right under federal mugshot case law not to have their information released on privacy and police records exemptions. Looking at the FOIA mugshot case law, sites like Mugshots​.com and BustedMugshots​.com are operating outside of federal law.  Pardon the slow loading; this is a very long post with more than 63,000 words.