[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.

[dragonwriter]

> These two situations seem a bit too close for such disparate legal outcomes.

Well, other than the fact that pretty much everything else the government does relating to criminal law enforcement and the penal system is also very illegal for private parties, your description oversimplifies the expungement process to make it more similar to what MugShots.com does outside of the “by the government” part.

[jpeg_hero]

Fantastic point!

"Chasing down people, binding them and holding them against their will for large periods of time (imprisonment)"

State has exclusive monopoly on violence.

[rootw0rm]

and that's why I'm an anarchist

[GavinMcG]

There's a significant difference between a fee being a necessary condition and a fee being sufficient. A court system where paying a fee is truly sufficient is a corrupt one, just like the website.

Equating them only works if courts are all corrupt. While corruption is obviously a possibility in court systems, we expect the decision to expunge to be based on justice concerns, even if we do also require a fee for the process.

[komali2]

Functionally, they are nearly identical.

The key word is the one you already said - "legal."

We "trust" the government and justice system, and that's why they are allowed (empowered) to charge us as needed. Sideline - we consider many of these charges to be "non-profit," i.e. the fee you pay the court isn't calculated to generate profit for somebody, it's calculated to reduce costs so that the process can be possible at all. Also, generally there are assistance programs for this sort of thing.

Fuck the system fuck the man, eventually I'm convinced we'll all go Walkaway, but right now government seems to be the only safe way to navigate the next couple decades.

[jacquesm]

Those situations are not at all close. It's pretty simple: MugShots has inserted itself into the legal system, making what is already public still public is fine, levying a fee to remove the data is not because they have not been sanctioned to do so. If they were part of the government it would be a different matter but they have no business determining what the fee should be. That being the case the only reasonable fee they could arrive at is $0.

Keep in mind that in America lots of people are arrested at least once during their lifetime and that even if the charges are dropped or not substantiated that your mugshot remains.

This should not be a source of further cost to the subjects of the mugshots. After all, what would stop a few thousand of these sites from doing the same? The only party that should be allowed to levy a fee is the same party that maintains the original register.

Finally, I don't think there should even be such a thing as a public mugshot database.

[emodendroket]

If I issue a warrant against someone, and then kick down their door and point a gun at them and handcuff them, that too would not be allowed, even though the government can do it.

[kkielhofner]

Practically speaking they are very different.

In the age of "Google everyone you meet" Mugshots.com and similar sites have pretty effective SEO that immediately taint (or at least question) a Google search for anyone who's ever been arrested and either isn't willing or able to pay their "removal" (read: extortion) fee. Complete with mugshot, obviously, which has the extra impact of providing visual confirmation of the identity. Bonus points in that a mugshot is rarely flattering and often documents someone at their absolute worst.

While various governmental agencies provide access to much of the same information to the public they are very scattered. For example, in the state of Wisconsin you'd have to know that it's called "Wisconsin Circuit Court Access", navigate to the page, click "I Agree", and then search. For one state. No SEO and in fact hidden behind a page that requires agreement to terms. Repeat x50 for each individual state (or those that even offer such a service), PACER for federal courts, etc. Some counties and municipalities offer their own versions as well.

Very different from the first page of results in a Google search.

[PeanutNore]

The solution to being Googled by everyone you meet is obviously to have a name that's common as mud, or alternatively to share the same name as someone famous.

[s73v3r_]

Or to pull the Lorenzo von Matterhorn, wherein you litter the web with SEO optimized pages describing your exploits and showing how good of a person you are and so on.

[ams6110]

"Google everyone you meet"

Is this generational? I have never googled anyone other than the occasional celebrity.

[Andre_Wanglin]

We don't want secret court proceedings. People who have just been arrested have not been formally indicted for any crime. Nothing makes it to PACER until it has been through the oversight of a grand jury.

[knodi123]

> but for minor crimes will expunge the record for a small fee.

Wait, seriously? I'd never heard of this. Is it really true?

[hibikir]

If you prefer, look at the classic traffic ticket example: In court, prior to talking to the judge, you can have a conversation with the prosecutor to change your moving violation to a non-moving violation that is a little bit more expensive. Then the insurance company doesn't get to raise your rates for the next X years.

It's ultimately the very same thing, and you will find examples of it in an overwhelming majority of US traffic courts.

[gnopgnip]

This is not the case in CA. No plea bargains in traffic court in all of the large counties.

[emodendroket]

In my experience you take a day off of work to get a long lecture and still end up with the same ticket. Guess some of us are luckier than others.

[jbob2000]

Hire a paralegal. $500 and they show up for you. Usually they are ex-cops who have good relationships with the judiciary and will do a better job of presenting your case.

Sometimes they will ask you to show up to the court house with them (if it's a tough case), but they hold your hand through the whole thing and heavily coach you on every interaction in the court room. Things like "don't look towards the officer who gave you a ticket" and "only respond with yes, no, or I don't know when questioned".

Yes, I unfortunately have some experience with this...

[volkl48]

Depends on where you are I suppose. Where I got a ticket once (Upstate NY) and it was an official policy.

If you have not had more than X tickets in Y years and choose to contest it, they would knock down minor moving violations to no-points non-moving violations, and they will knock down moderately serious (ex: tailgating, 20mph over the limit on the highway) ones to minor. You didn't need a lawyer and you didn't need any justification/evidence if you wanted to take that deal.

[emodendroket]

I live in Massachusetts and after the experience I did some reading. It seems that magistrates have a job for life with little scrutiny and frequently dole out favors to people they know. So in this respect a lawyer might have been a wiser decision.

[GavinMcG]

Or a less expensive one, in my experience.

[dragonwriter]

The description is an oversimplification; it's not simply a “pay a fee” thing, and there may be assistance available for the fee portion.

See, e.g., this description (from a law firm which represents people in the process):

https://www.shouselaw.com/expunge-criminal-records.html

[raverbashing]

One of them has the prerogative of posing judicial proceedings, the other doesn't.

[empath75]

It's also not legal for a random citizen to execute or arrest people.

[jMyles]

It's not legal for a citizen to arrest people? In what state?

If that's true, that's as full-blown an abandonment of Peelian principles as I've ever heard.

[JackCh]

IANAL but as I understand it, the circumstances under which a 'private citizen' is permitted to arrest people are more restrictive than the circumstances under which a police officer is allowed to arrest people. Namely that a 'private citizen' is only allowed to arrest people for crimes that are committed in the presence of the person performing the arrest, whereas police are allowed to arrest people for crimes that were not committed in their presence.

(Police officers are (almost?) always citizens, despite that term sometimes being used in a way that excludes police)

[dragonwriter]

In most states, citizens arrest is allowed, but in much more limited circumstances, much stricter limits on use of force to effect an arrest, and with much more civil and criminal liability risk then arrest by police.

A fairly typical rule is that citizens arrest is only for felonies that occur either in your presence or with a certain degree of justified belief but also that the arrested person must be factually guilty of the felony. (Some states also allow it for some misdemeanors, but are even more restrictive there.)

[jMyles]

> much stricter limits on use of force to effect an arrest

I have never heard of this. Can you show me such a law? Excessive force is illegal no matter whom is effecting the arrest.

[s73v3r_]

The definition of "excessive" changes based on whether you're a cop or not.

[jMyles]

Can you show me such a definition?

[chipperyman573]

In the US, you can make a citizen's arrest if you are in the presence of a crime being committed (or if a felony was committed not in the citizen's presence), but you can't use too much force (varies by state). Also, if you're wrong, you can face charges. For example, if you lock someone in a room to arrest them while the police are coming, and the person wasn't doing anything wrong, you could face wrongful imprisonment charges.

[jMyles]

Show me a state law that says that police are authorized to use greater force than other citizens.

edit: Why the downvotes? Come on now, HN. Just post a link. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. But at least give a source.

[stevenwoo]

There is a controversy right now in California that the bar for police to use deadly force is too low - currently the police officer needs to claim fear in a situation to justify use of deadly force. http://www.sacbee.com/latest-news/article207741689.html There was a Supreme Court case recently that gives law enforcement a pretty wide latitude to justify deadly force - the police officer in this case disobeyed a superior's order and also was not trained in the situation for which he decided to shoot. http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-supreme-court-police-sho...

[jMyles]

Again: that has nothing to do with effecting arrest. I realize that sworn officers have legal protections regarding their actions to protect others, including the use of deadly force.

Can you show me where they have wider latitude to use force to effect an arrest?

[Retric]

The US operates on common law, so much of it is a matter of precedence now simply what's written down. And their are many cases of police but not private citizens being given deference on the use of force.

[jMyles]

Sure, that's true.

But this person claimed that the amount of permissible force varied by state, as if different state statutes allowed for different amounts of force from police vs other citizens, and I don't think that's so. Or at least, I've never seen it.

Some states give police specific latitude in using deadly force to protect others, but not merely to effect an arrest (again, at least that I know of).

Also, it's important to note that to the degree these are common-law distinctions, common-law is much, much older than professional policing, which is fairly new in the western political experience. As it was emerging, of course, the western tradition came to base the professional police role largely on the Peelian principles, one of which is

> To maintain at all times a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and that the public are the police, the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.

...so if indeed the common-law tradition is that police are "members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen" then it's hard to understand how that's compatible with wildly different arrest powers.

[outworlder]

They are not necessarily 'authorized' by the letter of the law. But if they are not prosecuted to the same extent as citizens are, then they are authorized de facto.

[rhacker]

Not sure why you're getting downvoted - it seems that many people fall to the fallacy of what they think is true, must be so.

[s73v3r_]

They're getting downvoted for being deliberately obtuse.

[s73v3r_]

That's probably a good thing, considering the wave of white people calling the police on black people for literally doing nothing but being black. The incidents currently occurring are terrible enough, but I can't imagine how awful it would be if those people felt they didn't need the cops, and carried out the arrests themselves.

[jMyles]

What is probably a good thing?

And what exactly are you projecting will happen in this scenario?

Are you asserting that the addition of professional policing has meant less projecting of racial violence by the state?

[s73v3r_]

"What is probably a good thing?"

That citizen's arrests are difficult to justify or do.

"And what exactly are you projecting will happen in this scenario?"

The racist white people who are calling the cops on black people for simply being around will then switch to trying to do "citizen's arrest" on them.

"Are you asserting that the addition of professional policing has meant less projecting of racial violence by the state?"

No, and I have no idea where you got that from. I'm saying that racists would be even more empowered to be shitty and make things worse than they already are.

[jMyles]

> That citizen's arrests are difficult to justify or do.

They aren't, though. That's the whole point. It's just that they're rarely necessary.

> The racist white people who are calling the cops on black people for simply being around will then switch to trying to do "citizen's arrest" on them.

This seems like unfounded fear to me. If it were a real concern, why isn't it happening now? Conversely, since we do currently have a regime of professional police, why hasn't it proved insulatory against this phenomenon? The criminal justice system is at the core of racism in the USA; it certainly hasn't had the effect of inhibiting "racist white people". Instead, it has been the very mechanism by which racist outcomes are assured.

> I'm saying that racists would be even more empowered to be shitty and make things worse than they already are.

Just to be clear: you are saying that a criminal justice system with a smaller footprint will result in a situation in which "racists would be even more empowered"? That's what you're saying? Because that sounds completely backwards.

[rhacker]

Technically, technically, if that random citizen executes ALL people, it is no longer illegal.

[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.

[49bc]

I don't feel bad for them at all. Clearly it's a racket. My comment was that I don't think the government charging a fee is a similar situation.

[eevilspock]

I think its wrong for the government to the charge for the "cost to execute". It's not equal protection under the law if there's a price on it.

[Clubber]

Some states charge for court costs and public defenders, including California where this motion was filed.

https://www.npr.org/2014/05/19/312455680/state-by-state-cour...

It's corruption and theft everywhere. If I were cynical (which you bet I am), I would say this is more about California not getting their cut.

[2_listerine_pls]

If they are willing to remove them, why bother making them public in the first place?