Police Post DUI Arrest Pics on Facebook

This thread really seems to be splitting into 2 different and distinct arguments that kind of incorporate the whole.

I'll go back to my original question and ask it in a more legal sense because of the supreme court mentions:

What's the legal precedent for saying a public record can't be placed in the public eye?

The other side ,and completely valid, discussion here seems to be whether or not a persons arrest record should even be public record BEFORE they've been convicted.
 
Kargatane said:
This thread really seems to be splitting into 2 different and distinct arguments that kind of incorporate the whole.

I'll go back to my original question and ask it in a more legal sense because of the supreme court mentions:

What's the legal precedent for saying a public record can't be placed in the public eye?

The other side ,and completely valid, discussion here seems to be whether or not a persons arrest record should even be public record BEFORE they've been convicted.
Click to expand...

The issue of public record documents comes down to a matter of accessibility. For less contentious documents, say home sale and title information, they are a matter of public record, but should those records be something that someone can easily peruse online for their own idle curiosity or should they have to go to the courthouse to put in a request for that "public record" to get that information? I'd rather that real estate professionals have access to home sale information so that they can find comparable rates and do their job effectively, but I don't feel that it is proper for the idle curious be able to look up celebrities or public officials or their neighbors to see where they live and how much they paid for their homes.

As far as the criminal records go it is a potentially sticky subject. Being arrested for a crime is in no way the same as a conviction for a crime, but few people may see the differentiation. Their take may be that the person would not have been arrested if they weren't engaging in illegal behavior. That may be true in some cases, but not in all. Look at how damaging allegations of sex-related offenses are. Generally, even if charges are proven to be completely false or without merit the accused has their life and career irreparably damaged.

If it were a posting of court findings with convictions for crimes and the accompanying mugshots to go along with the court rulings it would be a much less debatable issue.
 
Not to mention police blotters of arrests is just another way of saying "let the record show that we made the arrest on this day for this reason". It promotes accountability of both the police and the person being arrested.
 
anytime the police department got caught doing bad or whatnot

i'd post that on Facebook too, if they wanna ruin people's reputations, then they should be ok with people trashing the PD's too
 
Anyone else think someones going to get a healthy paycheck courtesy of the Evesham Township over these photos being posted without consent...?
 
It's not the police ruining the reputations of people. It's the people themselves who go out and do stupid shit that ruins their reputations. Things such as driving while intoxicated or committing a robbery.

Fail said:
anytime the police department got caught doing bad or whatnot

i'd post that on Facebook too, if they wanna ruin people's reputations, then they should be ok with people trashing the PD's too
Click to expand...
 
AceGoober said:
It's not the police ruining the reputations of people. It's the people themselves who go out and do stupid shit that ruins their reputations. Things such as driving while intoxicated or committing a robbery.
Click to expand...

They are not posting these on news, newspaper or even their own websites. They are posting on Facebook which is a social networking website. While I agree that the ones getting arrested are most likely guilty its not right.
 
If the police caught you for any reason and they take you a mugshot then that is a public record that can anyone can have access to. I mean this make it a lot easier to going to different state/town websites to find some info about an specific person.
 
It's a bad idea until convicted and even then the internet could be considered "permanent" once posted so it still might be a bad idea.
 
Kargatane said:
If it's already a matter of public record, why would it be wrong for those PUBLIC records to be attached onto a PUBLIC place like facebook?
Click to expand...

Ding ding ding. However, it would be interesting to see if in a case that goes to trial and the party is found innocent, if there is a further posting to explain that the person was found innocent.

Though on a personal note, I did enjoy checking it out.
 
Fail said:
anytime the police department got caught doing bad or whatnot

i'd post that on Facebook too, if they wanna ruin people's reputations, then they should be ok with people trashing the PD's too
Click to expand...

And herein lies the problem. There are numerous police departments that threaten and actually will arrest you, if you try to record your interactions with them. Remember the article that was headline news not too long ago?

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2008566,00.html

It doesn't sound like much. But Graber is not the only person being slapped down by the long arm of the law for the simple act of videotaping the police in a public place.

Prosecutors across the U.S. claim the videotaping violates wiretap laws a stretch, to put it mildly.
 
precariousgray said:
Note that these are suspects, not convicts. What if someone had erroneously accused you of downloading and/or possessing child pornography, and put your photograph on a police department's Facebook page, pending anything resembling due process?

At least you got the "Goober" part of your name right.
Click to expand...

agreed. while the sites amusing, parading people around the internet can hurt their case unfairly if they are innocent.
 
Regardless if the asshole DUI suspect is guilty or not, it's not the police's job to ostracize people who have genuine problems with addiction.
Click to expand...

I thought it was the police's job to protect the public? Quite frankly I do not give a shit if drunk person XYZ has been battling with addiction for the last decade, I do not want them on the road with myself and kid. Whatever it take to get that to happen, I support.

Most of the information is publicly available anyway. A few people at work look at online arrest reports every single day and send the funny ones around the office. People are just getting their panties in a bunch now because it is on Facebook now (O.M.G.). Newsflash to everyone: If someone gets arrested (especially multiple times), you can usually find them with a Google search already. Also the website makes not implication of guilt for any of the incidents, it merely notes police activity that happened.
 
Kueller said:
I know "Innocent until proven guilty" is a kind of old fashioned concept, but it is on the books and all...Might be nice to at least wait for people to be convicted.
Click to expand...

Arrests are public information. Least around here people who are arrested, ie during the weekend, show up in a list in the paper and what they were arrested for.
 
Hamish Campbell said:
This undeniably should be considered cruel and unusual punishment considering these photos can't easily be removed from the internet after a suspect serves his time for whatever crime he may or may not have committed. We used to value things like "innocent until proven guilty" or "burden of proof" in this country. Regardless if the asshole DUI suspect is guilty or not, it's not the police's job to ostracize people who have genuine problems with addiction.
Click to expand...

Bull.

First of all, this police department has not tagged the photos with the names of the defendants. A search of Facebook by the suspect's names won't link back to the PD's page. Go try it.

Second, arrest records and mugshots are public records. It means the public is entitled to know the name of everyone arrested and charged for a crime. The alternative, where the police could grab you up and not be obligated to tell anyone, would be a hell of a lot worse.

Third, what the police are reporting on this page is factually correct. They're not saying that someone has been convicted because they were arrested. It's not the responsibility of the police department to hide their actions because some mouth breather might not be able to tell the difference between arrested and convicted.

And last, it's not the job of law enforcement to protect the reputation of addicts, either. It would be ostracizing if they reported that someone arrested for DUI shit themselves in the back of the squad car, or the drunken rant they made to the arresting officer when the cuffs went on. None of that is in the facebook information, or the daily arrest reports sent out to local media. Just the facts on who was arrested, for what charge, and maybe something about their bail status.
 
BaldHeadedDork said:
And last, it's not the job of law enforcement to protect the reputation of addicts, either. It would be ostracizing if they reported that someone arrested for DUI shit themselves in the back of the squad car, or the drunken rant they made to the arresting officer when the cuffs went on. None of that is in the facebook information, or the daily arrest reports sent out to local media. Just the facts on who was arrested, for what charge, and maybe something about their bail status.
Click to expand...

This is true, but posting something on Facebook seems unprofessional and unnecessarily prominent compared to having it on their own website where people honestly searching for information and not just to ridicule someone can find it.

It's the difference between posting something in the lobby of the police station and posting something at every bus stop in town. There is a difference there in terms of the intention it portrays.
 
This might not work as intended for all people. Stupid college kids might start a contest on who can get the best Mug Shots. I mean most cases of young drunk driving is them trying too cool.
 
AceGoober said:
I'm all for what the Evesham Township Police are doing and hope more towns adopt the practice.
Click to expand...



This is complete and utter bullshit...its a cheap tactic that is doing more harm than good by portraying to each and every person that your privacy is gone...you should be FORCED into filing a FOIL request to get this type of information.. thats how the whole system was set up...

Dont get me started on the whole sex offender registration shit either... there are two reasons they do this..
1) So they have an excuse to release them and save money
2) After they release them you cannot sue the shit out of them once your 8 yr old gets boned and buried...or your wife gets raped into oblivion...and you cannot do shit about it.. its now YOUR responsibility to pay your taxes AND guard against sex offenders..

Yea fine system in place... let people out who are the most prone to do it again... to save money while saying fuck you to the rest of us...

Give me a break...
 
So law enforcement is now an entertainment service?

When do the gladiator matches start?
 
Going with that path of logic then America's most wanted can't display mugshots of people who are suspected murderers, rapists, child molesters and such on their website?

That form of logic is complete and utter bullshit.

I, and many other people, want to know who the pedophiles, rapists, muggers, thieves, drug dealers and other unscrupulous people are and if they are behind bars or are still being hunted by the law enforcement.

Regarding the suspects privacy, they tossed that right out of the fucking window by breaking the law and getting caught or identified in the first place. And, I wholly believe the police should use whatever form of media to communicate to the citizens that the subject person has broke the law and is either in custody or being sought for the crime.

I'll repeat what was said earlier....if people don't want their mugs showing up on police or catalyst sites police use to portray people as suspects or being arrested for a crime, don't do the crime. Very simple logic.

SS_Wehrwolf said:
This is complete and utter bullshit...its a cheap tactic that is doing more harm than good by portraying to each and every person that your privacy is gone...you should be FORCED into filing a FOIL request to get this type of information.. thats how the whole system was set up...

Dont get me started on the whole sex offender registration shit either... there are two reasons they do this..
1) So they have an excuse to release them and save money
2) After they release them you cannot sue the shit out of them once your 8 yr old gets boned and buried...or your wife gets raped into oblivion...and you cannot do shit about it.. its now YOUR responsibility to pay your taxes AND guard against sex offenders..

Yea fine system in place... let people out who are the most prone to do it again... to save money while saying fuck you to the rest of us...

Give me a break...
Click to expand...
 
AceGoober said:
Going with that path of logic then America's most wanted can't display mugshots of people who are suspected murderers, rapists, child molesters and such on their website?

That form of logic is complete and utter bullshit.

I, and many other people, want to know who the pedophiles, rapists, muggers, thieves, drug dealers and other unscrupulous people are and if they are behind bars or are still being hunted by the law enforcement.

Regarding the suspects privacy, they tossed that right out of the fucking window by breaking the law and getting caught or identified in the first place. And, I wholly believe the police should use whatever form of media to communicate to the citizens that the subject person has broke the law and is either in custody or being sought for the crime.

I'll repeat what was said earlier....if people don't want their mugs showing up on police or catalyst sites police use to portray people as suspects or being arrested for a crime, don't do the crime. Very simple logic.
Click to expand...


Uh you don't know that they actually are any of those things or if they actually committed any crime until they see their day in court. You understand this right? Or is it cool if someone just decided that you did something awful and puts your picture up without actually proving that you did it?
 
Yes, certainly understand innocent until proven guilty. That doesn't mean the police can't use FaceBook or other sites as catalysts to find those suspected of a crime. But, don't you think it's rather strange that the suspects of a crime would run away from the police instead of turning themselves in if they have nothing to hide and didn't do the crime for which they are accused of? Makes a person wonder if they are innocent or not...

MattyC said:
Uh you don't know that they actually are any of those things or if they actually committed any crime until they see their day in court. You understand this right? Or is it cool if someone just decided that you did something awful and puts your picture up without actually proving that you did it?
Click to expand...
 
BaldHeadedDork said:
Third, what the police are reporting on this page is factually correct. They're not saying that someone has been convicted because they were arrested. It's not the responsibility of the police department to hide their actions because some mouth breather might not be able to tell the difference between arrested and convicted.

And last, it's not the job of law enforcement to protect the reputation of addicts, either. It would be ostracizing if they reported that someone arrested for DUI shit themselves in the back of the squad car, or the drunken rant they made to the arresting officer when the cuffs went on. None of that is in the facebook information, or the daily arrest reports sent out to local media. Just the facts on who was arrested, for what charge, and maybe something about their bail status.
Click to expand...

You're glossing over the fact that the intention of posting arrest records on facebook isn't just an attempt to get them into the public record (they already are as you say). This is a plainly transparent attempt to ridicule a suspect in the most widespread manner possible and to convict them in the "court of public opinion". I have no sympathy for DUI suspects, but is it too much to ask to hold off the public witch hunt until at least they've been convicted in an actual court of law?
 
MattyC said:
Uh you don't know that they actually are any of those things or if they actually committed any crime until they see their day in court. You understand this right? Or is it cool if someone just decided that you did something awful and puts your picture up without actually proving that you did it?
Click to expand...

So using your logic when a suspect is arrested for whatever crime, burglary, arson, DUI, rape whatever, the Police should let them go on their own cognizance until their court date? I mean they have not been found guilty in a court of law why should they have to stay in jail? I'm sure they are all honest enough to show to their assigned court date, right?

Regardless whether or not someone will be found guilty, there was enough reasonable suspicion to arrest the subject; if you are arrested at the very least you get booked, finger printed and photographed, if not spend 8-72 hrs in jail, (unless you are in California and a a celebrity of course) You and the supposed actions that brought you to the Jail are now public record. Frankly 99% of time you should be ridiculed for being jackasses, maybe it will keep them from being criminals in the future.

On a side note here is a random selection of news papers and jails that post mugshots, you know because the Eversham Police Department is the only one doing this.

http://www.marionso.com/mostwanted.php

http://www.mugshotsocala.com/

http://www.mugshots.com/index.php

http://www.dekalbmugs.com/

http://chathamsheriff.org/Corrections/Operations/Bookings24hrs.aspx

http://www.orlandosentinel2.com/data/arrests/mug_shots/index.php

And yes if a Police Officer gets arrested his mugshot gets the same treatment.

http://www.wishtv.com/dpp/news/local/east_central/hancock-county-sheriff-a-wanted-man
 
Hamish Campbell said:
You're glossing over the fact that the intention of posting arrest records on facebook isn't just an attempt to get them into the public record (they already are as you say). This is a plainly transparent attempt to ridicule a suspect in the most widespread manner possible and to convict them in the "court of public opinion". I have no sympathy for DUI suspects, but is it too much to ask to hold off the public witch hunt until at least they've been convicted in an actual court of law?
Click to expand...

So you are implying a suspension of Freedom of Press in regards to criminal activity? All news agencies, to include online blogs, social sites et cetera should not be allowed to report on criminal activity, mention the suspects or victims until after the court has come to a verdict?

I mean if you are going to stifle First amendment rights why bother with fourth?
 
zacrobmer said:
So you are implying a suspension of Freedom of Press in regards to criminal activity? All news agencies, to include online blogs, social sites et cetera should not be allowed to report on criminal activity, mention the suspects or victims until after the court has come to a verdict?

I mean if you are going to stifle First amendment rights why bother with fourth?
Click to expand...

Absolutely not. What I'm implying is the arresting organization shouldn't take it upon itself to demonize (deservedly or not doesn't matter) a suspect in the most far reaching, irreversible manner possible before the suspect has had his day in court. We don't even do this with sex offenders as they only have to register on a public list after actually being convicted. Having a list of DUI suspects on facebook is nearly the same thing. At least let a jury of peers decide if the suspect should ever be able to get a decent job, a loan, or credit for the rest of their life.

A major problem facing the modern world is the new phenomenon of society literally not being able to forget a persons past wrongs no matter how trivial. There is a point where a person should be given a second chance and plastering a persons details and photos all over facebook will never let that happen.
 
Hamish Campbell said:
Absolutely not. What I'm implying is the arresting organization shouldn't take it upon itself to demonize (deservedly or not doesn't matter) a suspect in the most far reaching, irreversible manner possible before the suspect has had his day in court. We don't even do this with sex offenders as they only have to register on a public list after actually being convicted. Having a list of DUI suspects on facebook is nearly the same thing. At least let a jury of peers decide if the suspect should ever be able to get a decent job, a loan, or credit for the rest of their life.

A major problem facing the modern world is the new phenomenon of society literally not being able to forget a persons past wrongs no matter how trivial. There is a point where a person should be given a second chance and plastering a persons details and photos all over facebook will never let that happen.
Click to expand...

Since you mentioned it, how many people that get arrested for DUI do you think are actually innocent? Do you think cops have nothing better to do than fake Breathalyzer tests and make people stumble out of their car while being filmed?
 
ocellaris said:
Since you mentioned it, how many people that get arrested for DUI do you think are actually innocent? Do you think cops have nothing better to do than fake Breathalyzer tests and make people stumble out of their car while being filmed?
Click to expand...

Doesn't matter, cops don't ultimately get to decide innocence or guilt.
 
Hamish Campbell said:
Absolutely not. What I'm implying is the arresting organization shouldn't take it upon itself to demonize (deservedly or not doesn't matter) a suspect in the most far reaching, irreversible manner possible before the suspect has had his day in court. We don't even do this with sex offenders as they only have to register on a public list after actually being convicted. Having a list of DUI suspects on facebook is nearly the same thing. At least let a jury of peers decide if the suspect should ever be able to get a decent job, a loan, or credit for the rest of their life.

A major problem facing the modern world is the new phenomenon of society literally not being able to forget a persons past wrongs no matter how trivial. There is a point where a person should be given a second chance and plastering a persons details and photos all over facebook will never let that happen.
Click to expand...

But what is the difference between a mugshot on face book or the Jails website? Or the persons name being listed in the next day’s news paper? The mugshots and narratives all state "suspect", or "being charged with", not a single one states "arrested for being guilty of". You have to to go that departments FB page to see the mugshots they do not show up in Fb search. Where exactly is the line? The page also seems to show all arrested suspects not just DUI.

The sex offender argument is a moot point, if they are arrested for rape, molestation etc. their mugshot and arrest record is typically immediately available for public access, they will probably be in the next days blotter page of their local newspaper. Like the Dui suspects they have been charged with a crime, not convicted.

I agree wholeheartedly with your statement about your personal information and history being a permanent fixture to be scrutinized, but frankly that is the way it will be from here on out. We live in an informational society, the good and the bad, you can not have access to pretty much all of the information about pretty much everything and expect to have 100% privacy, it is an impossibility. We could probably delete the internet and go back to sending letters to find information....
 
Die facebook Die!

Seriously, tho, most this stuff ends up in the local newspapers, now it ends up facebook. Which is probably a 100x worse.

Mind your own damn business people.

And seriously,
Die Facebook Die!!!
 
zacrobmer said:
But what is the difference between a mugshot on face book or the Jails website?
Click to expand...

There is a big difference. It's equivalent to a police department posting a mug shot on the bulletin board at the front entrance of the station and a police department posting a mug shot on every light post, billboard, post office, storefront, street corner, and bathroom stall in their entire town.
 
Hamish Campbell said:
There is a big difference. It's equivalent to a police department posting a mug shot on the bulletin board at the front entrance of the station and a police department posting a mug shot on every light post, billboard, post office, storefront, street corner, and bathroom stall in their entire town.
Click to expand...

Actually it would be the exact opposiste as you describe, given that the department website is fully accessable website whereas Facebook you have to have an account, log in and navigate to the departments page, etc. If anything the Facebook posting of the charges makes it harder to find an idiots mugshot. If I search for your mugshot on face book, it will not navigate to that departments FB page.
 
During the county fair every year, my dad (police chief back home) has an LCD TV hanging in the department's booth on the square, cycling mugshots of all those with outstanding warrants.

Plenty of people stop and look for a while, but what I enjoy is watching those that nervously stand near the TV or near the entrance of the booth, waiting to see if they come up. As though the three officers working the booth or standing nearby wouldn't notice them first (it's a small town).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top