ILLINOIS - Much hysteria developed over the summer when our ever-increasingly-ridiculous state legislators managed to get a statute to go through that limits the ability of certain for-profit websites to extort money from people accused of crimes and who have been mug shot.
The statute, called "Booking Photograph Limitation (SB 2560/PA 100-0927)," was developed this year and will become effective here in a couple of weeks, January 1, 2019. It joins a host of over 200 statutes that the Illinois Legislature got passed this year without doing away with even ONE unnecessary "law" (a statute, by the way, isn't a "law." Look it up.)
The hysteria took hold when it was announced over the summer and certain mainstream media outlets, probably not understanding the actual basis and meaning of the statute, stopped running mugshots of people charged with crimes. In limited cases, they even stopped reporting crimes altogether...which was great for us, as 95 percent of what we report IS crime and corruption in southern Illinois. But not reporting crime, or just giving mere lip service to criminal happenings in downstate communities in a kind of a "blotter" fashion, is what prompted us to start the paper to begin with. Folks can't know the things that are dragging down their communities and keeping them from thriving if you don't know who the crims are, both public (corruption) and private (criminals). Plus, the cost of crime and corruption is also something that's keeping downstate communities from thriving and growing...and people can't know that until they understand the depth and breadth of the criminal justice system.
Mugshots are part of that criminal justice system. Mugshots are generated by the county, either jail or sheriff's department, or at a police station if there's a separate city facility for such, and taxpayers' dollars are used to fund it all: Camera, digital storage, payroll for someone to manage it, etc. WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO KNOW HOW OUR TAX DOLLARS ARE SPENT. As such, we, as media, and you, as a taxpayer, have the right to obtain and view mugshots if you so desire.
Mugshots are very nearly always taken of those charged with felonies (unless you're Rick White). They are rarely taken of people who are charged with misdemeanors and basic DUIs. They are taken for identification purposes, for the most part, in case the alleged perp fails to appear and other departments might need to use the pic to make positive identification. They can - and should - be used as part of a media outlet's coverage of crime and corruption. But what happened was that outlets like Mugshota.com developed, and abused the Freedom of Information Act and other like acts in the various states, obtaining mugshots and then when people were exonerated of their crimes, the mugshots remained...and because employers stupidly don't rely on a person's resume but instead troll their names online, they found the mugs and held it against the prospective employee (criminal background checks are different, btw). These people would then contact Mugshots.com and ask them to remove the mug, and the site would tell them they would...but for a price, which is basically extortion, which itself is a crime. But instead of going after that, our Illinois legislators, in their infinite wisdom, went another direction that causes a lot more grief and consternation for those who use the mugshots for real purposes.
And while we're at it, it happens to be against employment law for a prospective employer to ask a former employer about a prospective hire and that former employer to give a negative response (Example: "Could you tell me if there were any problems with this guy who used to work for you?" "Yeah, he was a thief and a jerk and hit on all the ladies and ..." is not allowed. The only real question that can be asked is "Would you hire this person back?" and a yes or no response is all the former employer can give. That's employment law.) A lot of people don't know that. So instead of addressing the actual problem, which lies with the employers trolling the internet for their prospective hire and could be handled quite easily with a prohibition on that just like a prohibition on negative responses, this is where the legislation went. Because Illinois legislators are nothing if not ineffective.
So this statute got everybody all worked up this past summer, and they're going to stay that way until folks come to comprehend that yes, we as media CAN run mugshots of "low-level offenders" if they exist and we obtain them. Because here's the actual statute:
And for the mobile-y challenged, here's the text:
Booking Photograph Limitation (SB 2560/PA 100-0927): Limits the publishing of booking photographs, “mugshots,” on social media with respect to civil offenses and offenses less than a Class A misdemeanor, unless the photo has been posted in order to assist in the search of a missing person or fugitive, person of interest, or in relation to a more serious crime. Also provides for the correction of errors by entities that publish criminal record information for profit.
Note that it says "social media," NOT "media websites." WE are media on a website. We've been established as such online since 2008 and in print since 2003. This is all we do. We have social media pages, and mugshots go on there, but they go accompanying the articles, not for the singular purpose just showing a mugshot, which is what the statute is targeting. Mugshots.com is NOT a news outlet website. It doesn't appear to be a social media website, either, but this is probably the only way the legislature could get this ridiculous statute through.
Note also that it specifies "with respect to civil offenses and offenses less than a Class A misdemeanor." Folks...mugshots aren't TAKEN of people involved in civil "offenses" and offenses less than a Class A misdemeanor (Class B, C and D, as well as civil marijuana citations). It'd be a waste of taxpayer resources to do so. I guess the legislators thought most people didn't know that. They're right; they don't. We do. That's why we're railing against this idiocy. It's redundant, not necessary, and is a back-door way to stop Mugshots.com from extortion of payment-for-removal. Why the state couldn't just go after Mugshots.com with laws that exist on the books is beyond us here at Disclosure. But apparently the legislators have to find and continue to develop reasons for their existence and their burdensome-on-the-taxpayer paychecks.
Anyway, don't have a complete highspeedcomeapart when you see us post mugs of people. We're going to continue to do so, because it's not prohibited for us. We don't charge someone for removal, and we wouldn't, because we're not dishonest and because we don't remove mugs. You paid for them. They're yours to do what you wish with them, same as they're ours and everyone else's. And I can't wait until the first person posts one on their social media sites as part of a news story, the person in the mugshot makes a complaint, the person who posted gets an attorney and challenges the ridiculous "law." Because I'm betting someone at a higher-up level is going to jump at the chance to get this statute clarified; otherwise, we as media are going to once again be on that slippery slope hill that's getting watered by the powers-that-be so we'll continue to fall...until NONE of you are allowed to know what's going on, for real, in your communities.