Arrest mugshots shouldn't be public records, some NC lawmakers say

Under Senate Bill 660, media seeking mugshots would have to fill a sworn affidavit with the head of a law enforcement agency. Then, it would be up to law enforcement whether to release the booking photos, which would be treated more like a criminal investigation record than the readily available photographs they've been.

The bill has been pitched as a crackdown on publications that publish little but mugshots and, in some cases, charge people to have their pictures removed. Much of the bill deals specifically with such websites, prohibiting release to "publish-for-pay" sites and requiring the sites to remove pictures when asked.

But the bill's impact would be broader.

"Senate Bill 660 would further limit the public’s access to basic law enforcement records," Brooks Fuller, head of the North Carolina Open Government Coalition, said via email. "At a time when the public is especially focused on the activities of law enforcement, public servants should be trying as hard as possible to give the public more information and not less. Further modifications to our public records law should not be taken lightly."

The bill, which has been through several revisions this legislative session and may change more, says police can release mugshots only in certain situations, including for "law enforcement purposes," like asking the public to look for a suspect. They'd also be released as part of court cases, via court order and, if police consent, to media that send an affidavit swearing they won't run the photo on a "publish-for-pay" site.

Those publications would face civil fines of at least $100 a day if they don't remove pictures after someone asks and submits documentation that the underlying charge was dismissed or they were acquitted. It would be a crime to charge for this, under the current bill.

Sen. Wiley Nickel, D-Wake, one of several sponsors on the bipartisan bill, said the changes will make a big difference in people's lives. Most employers won't pay for a full background check when they hire new people, but they do run Google searches, Nickel said. And, for some websites, the only goal is to extort people who want their picture removed.

"(The bill will) do more to help people get jobs than a lot of the expungement work we've done," said Nickel.

Nickel said there's no intent to target legitimate journalism. Fuller said the General Assembly needs to "address real harms caused by pay-for-removal mugshot websites without sacrificing the public’s access to information about the criminal process."

At the time, the photos came over via automated data feeds supplied by county jails, and there generally wasn't any follow-up on whether the hundreds of people pictured were convicted.