Complaint Review: mugshots.com - Internet

For the Record:
www.mugshots.com continues to remain a mistery. Each Public agency (From NY to FL, to washington, to Arizona, to california, to Asburn Virgina) continues to state that "they many not, do not have many reports about these companies to establish a pattern of complaints. My understanding is that most people that are affected by these websites DO NOT know that they have a right to file a reoprt and complaint to Government agencies and request information about the complaint, regarding these websites, that are coming into the government agencies.
.
The New York State Attorney General's Office states they only have one complaint..regarding this company and operation of companies (ET. AL.)   IF you have a problem with this company or others like it and need to contact:
 Eric Schneiderman's Office in New York : 212-416-8433; www.AG.NY.GOV ..

Florida Attorney General's Office, 9850)414-3990 ; www.floridalegal.com Florida Department of Agriculture and consumer Services : (850)-488-2221, www.800helpfla.com/  Florida Division of legislative Information Services (850)488-4371, -(800)342-1827

These internet websites are posing as News publishing Companies and law Enforcement, but to no produce the documentation to support their statements. These companies, from the reviewing of  many complaints, continue to abuse the prevelige of having public information. These companies continue to evade contact with Government Agencies. These companies do not even  comply with their own privacy and take down OPT/OUT Rules (TOS)-Terms of Service Agreements. This company and website have inconsistant  recission rules. This business entity lacks it's own authentic transparency about who they are. This business/ website forces and inducess a needy population to use "their Vendors", in Canada and else where. The website evades customer contact. They are data hoarding.

This business is impostering as law Enforcement. This business entity continues to miss use public information on the internet via a website (wire transmission).
.
..To gain more information about your rights in Florida:
http://www.bbb.org/west-florida/business-reviews/recorded-information/mugshotscom-in-clearwater-fl-90106193

Contact us by Phone:
Phone: (727) 535-5522 (24 Hours)
Phone: (239) 334-4648 (24 Hours)

BBB has received complaints from consumers stating that Mugshots.com is posting mugshots of people on their website, giving information that is incorrect and incomplete. The business will not remove the information unless the consumers pay $399.99. In many complaints, the consumers stated that they were asked to pay the fee even though the criminal charges against them were either dismissed, or they were found not guilty. BBB has been unable to locate the address of the business. Complaints that BBB submitted using the company's website were unanswered.

Complaint Details | Definitions | BBB Complaint Process | File a Complaint

Reason for Rating
BBB rating is based on 16 factors. Get the details about the factors considered.
Factors that lowered Mugshots.com's rating include:

27 complaints filed against business
BBB does not have sufficient information to determine how long this business has been operating.
BBB does not have sufficient background information on this business. BBB made one or more requests for background information from the business. BBB has not received a response from this business and/or has not been able to verify information received from this business.
Factors that raised Mugshots.com's rating include:

Response to 2 complaint(s) filed against business.
Resolution of complaint(s) filed against business.
BBB Accreditation
Mugshots.com is not BBB Accredited.
Businesses are under no obligation to seek BBB accreditation, and some businesses are not accredited because they have not sought BBB accreditation.
To be accredited by BBB, a business must apply for accreditation and BBB must determine that the business meets BBB accreditation standards, which include a commitment to make a good faith effort to resolve any consumer complaints. BBB Accredited Businesses must pay a fee for accreditation review/monitoring and for support of BBB services to the public.
 _________________________________________________________
http://myfloridalegal.com/webfiles.nsf/WF/KGRG-8RAQUF/$file/2012-SunshineManual.pdf

p.8...However, although private entities are generally not subject to the Sunshine Law simply because they do business with public agencies, the Sunshine Law can apply if a public entity has delegated the performance of its public purpose to a private entity. Memorial Hospital-West Volusia, Inc. v. News-Journal Corporation, 729 So. 2d 373, 382-383 (Fla. 1999).p.8.. (SO who is www.mugshots.com? Where are they located/ How do they deal with their assets? how do they get their funding?...This site states that it has a PUBLIC PURPOSE......

p.59. d. Facebook
The Attorney Generals Office has stated that the placement of material on a citys Facebook page presumably would be in connection with the transaction of official business and thus subject to Ch. 119, F.S., although in any given instance, the determination would have to be made based upon the definition of public record contained in s. 119.011(12), F.S. AGO 09-19. To the extent that the information on the citys Facebook page constitutes a public record, the city is under an obligation to follow the public records retention schedules established in accordance with s. 237.36(6), F.S. Id.. (So how can this website place a booking photo on anyones elses facebook, especially if they did not request that?

P106(2) Sealed and expunged records
Access to criminal history records sealed or expunged by court order in accordance with s. 943.059 or s. 943.0585, F.S., is strictly limited. See, e.g., Alvarez v. Reno, 587 So. 2d 664 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991) (Goderich, J., specially concurring) (state attorney report and any other information revealing the existence or contents of sealed records is not a public record and cannot, under any circumstances, be disclosed to the public).

A law enforcement agency that has been ordered to expunge criminal history information or records should physically destroy or obliterate information consisting of identifiable descriptions and notations of arrest, detentions, indictments, informations, or other formal criminal charges and the disposition of those charges. AGO 02-68. However, criminal intelligence information and criminal investigative information do not fall within the purview of s. 943.0585, F.S. Id. And see AGO 00-16 (only those records maintained to formalize the petitioners arrest, detention, indictment, information, or other formal criminal charge and the disposition thereof would be subject to expungement under s. 943.0585).

There are exceptions allowing disclosure of information relating to the existence of an expunged criminal history record to specified entities for their respective licensing and employment purposes, and to criminal justice agencies for their respective criminal justice purposes. Section 943.0585(4), F.S. Similar provisions exist relative to disclosure of sealed criminal history records. Section 943.059(4), F.S. A records custodian who has received information relating to the existence of an expunged or sealed criminal history record is prohibited from disclosing the existence of such record. AGO 94-49.

p.137.....e) Booking photographs (as per Official Employees) The Attorney Generals Office has advised that s. 119.071(4)(d)1., F.S., does not exempt from disclosure booking photographs of law enforcement and correctional officers who have
been arrested and who are not undercover personnel whose identity would otherwise be protected by s. 119.071(4)(c), F.S. AGO 94-90. However, if the officer has filed a written request for confidentiality as provided in former s. 119.07(3)(i)2., F.S. [see now s. 119.071(4)(d)2., F.S.], the booking photograph may not be released. Fraternal Order of Police, Consolidated Lodge 5-30, Inc. v. The Consolidated City of Jacksonville, No. 2000-4718-CA (Fla. 4th Cir. Ct. December 21, 2001). And see Sarasota Herald-Tribune Co. v. Sarasota County Sheriffs Office, No. 96-1026-CA-01 (Fla. 12th Cir. Ct. March 13, 1996) (denying newspapers request for booking photograph of sheriffs deputy who had filed a written request for confidentiality). Thus, in cases where s. 119.071(4) (d)2., F.S., applies and the officer has filed a written request to maintain the information as exempt, it may be advisable in light of the cases cited above to obtain the officers permission before the release of the photograph. AGO 07-21

p.145 3. Must an individual show a legitimate interest or noncommercial interest in public records before being allowed to inspect or copy same? No. The requestor is not required to explain the purpose or reason for a public records request. The motivation of the person seeking the records does not impact the persons right to see them under the Public Records Act. Curry v. State, 811 So. 2d 736, 742 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002). See also Timoney v. City of Miami Civilian Investigative Panel, 917 So. 2d 885, 886n.3 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005) (generally, a persons motive in seeking access to public records is irrelevant); Staton v. McMillan, 597 So. 2d 940, 941 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992), review dismissed sub nom., Staton v. Austin, 605 So. 2d 1266 (Fla. 1992) (petitioners reasons for seeking access to public records are immaterial); Lorei v. Smith, 464 So. 2d 1330, 1332 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985), review denied, 475 So. 2d 695 (Fla. 1985) (legislative objective underlying the creation of Ch. 119 was to insure to the people of Florida the right freely to gain access to governmental records; the purpose of such inquiry is immaterial); and News-Press Publishing Company, Inc. v. Gadd, 388 So. 2d 276, 278 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980) (the newspapers motives [for seeking the documents], as well as the hospitals financial harm and public harm defenses, are irrelevant in an action to compel compliance with the Public Records Act).

Thus, an agency is not authorized to impose conditions or limit access to public records based on a suspicion that the request may be for an improper purpose. Inf. Op. to Cook, May 27, 2011. However, as noted in that opinion, Florida Statutes impose criminal penalties for the unauthorized use of personal identification information for fraudulent or harassment purposes and for the criminal use of a public record or public records information. See ss. 817.568 and 817.569, F.S.  p145

Additionally, s. 69.081(8), F.S., part of the Sunshine in Litigation Act, provides, subject to limited exceptions, that any portion of an agreement which has the purpose or effect of concealing information relating to the settlement or resolution of any claim or action against an agency is void, contrary to public policy, and may not be enforced. Settlement records must be maintained in compliance with Ch. 119, F.S. See Inf. Op. to Barry, June 24, 2008 (agency not authorized to enter into a settlement agreement authorizing the concealment of information relating to an adverse personnel decision from the remainder of a personnel file). Cf. s. 215.425(5), F.S. (any agreement or contract, executed on or after July 1, 2011, which involves extra compensation between a unit of government and an officer, agent, employee, or contractor may not include provisions that limit the ability of any party to the agreement or contract to discuss the agreement or contract) p.153

oh, by the way...

H. WHAT FEES MAY LAWFULLY BE IMPOSED FOR INSPECTING AND COPYING PUBLIC RECORDS?
1. When may an agency charge a fee for the mere inspection of public records? Providing access to public records is a statutory duty imposed by the Legislature upon all record custodians and should not be considered a profit-making or revenue-generating operation. AGO 85-03. Thus, public information must be open for inspection without charge unless otherwise expressly provided by law. See State ex rel. Davis v. McMillan, 38 So. 666 (Fla. 1905). See also AGO s 84-03 and 76-34 (only those fees or charges which are authorized by statute may be imposed upon an individual seeking access to public records). Cf. AGO 75-50 (the fact that the record sought to be inspected is a tape recording as opposed to a written document is of no import insofar as the imposition of a fee for inspection is concerned).

Section 119.07(4)(d), F.S., however, authorizes the imposition of a special service charge when the nature or volume of public records to be inspected is such as to require extensive use of information technology resources, or extensive clerical or supervisory assistance, or both. The charge must be reasonable and based on the labor or computer costs actually incurred by the agency. See Board of County Commissioners of Highlands County v. Colby, 976 So. 2d 31 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (special service charge applies to requests for both inspection and copies of public records when extensive clerical assistance is required).

For example, if the volume of records to be inspected requires an agency to use extensive clerical labor to redact confidential material from the records prior to their inspection, s. 119.07(4)(d) authorizes the agency to impose a reasonable charge for the actual labor cost for the labor cost for the  P 163...

clerical personnel who are required to perform this task. Similarly, if the agency is required to make copies of the public records in order to redact confidential material prior to inspection, the agency may charge the actual cost of the extensive labor required to copy the records. However, the agency may not also charge the statutory fee of 15 cents per page for the copies, unless the requestor chooses to obtain copies of records, in addition to inspecting them.

In addition, an agency may adopt a policy imposing a reasonable special service charge based on the actual labor cost for clerical personnel who are required, due to the nature or volume of a public records request, to safeguard such records from loss or destruction during their inspection. AGO 00-11. In doing so, however, the countys policy should reflect no more than the actual cost of the personnels time and be sensitive to accommodating the request in such a way as to ensure unfettered access while safeguarding the records. Id. Moreover, it would be difficult to justify the imposition of a fee for extensive clerical or supervisory assistance if the personnel providing such assistance were simultaneously performing regular duties. Id.

2. What are the statutory fees to obtain copies of public records? If no fee is prescribed elsewhere in the statutes, s. 119.07(4)(a)1., F.S., authorizes the custodian to charge a fee of up to 15 cents per one-sided copy for copies that are 14 inches by 81/2 inches or less. An agency may charge no more than an additional 5 cents for each twosided duplicated copy. Section 119.07(4)(a)2., F.S. And see s. 119.011(7), F.S., defining the term duplicated copies to mean new copies produced by duplicating, as defined in s. 283.30, F.S. Duplicating means the process of reproducing an image or images from an original to a final substrate through the electrophotographic, xerographic, laser, or offset process or any combination of these processes, by which an operator can make more than one copy without rehandling the original. Section 283.30(3), F.S.

A charge of up to $1.00 per copy may be assessed for a certified copy of a public record. Section 119.07(4)(c), F.S. For other copies, the charge is limited to the actual cost of duplication of the record. Section 119.07(4)(a)3., F.S. The phrase actual cost of duplication is defined to mean the cost of the material and supplies used to duplicate the public record, but does not include the labor cost and overhead cost associated with such duplication. Section 119.011(1),F.S. An exception, however, exists for copies of county maps or aerial photographs supplied by county constitutional officers which may include a reasonable charge for the labor and overhead associated with their duplication. Section 119.07(4)(b), F.S..

3. When may an agency charge a special service charge for extensive use of clerical or supervisory labor or extensive information technology resources? Section 119.07(4)(d), F.S. [formerly s. 119.07(1)(b), F.S.], states that if the nature or volume of public records to be inspected or copied requires the extensive use of information technology resources or extensive clerical or supervisory assistance, or both, the agency may charge a reasonable service charge based on the cost actually incurred by the agency for such extensive use of information technology resources or personnel. When warranted, the special service charge applies to requests for both inspection and copies of public records. Board of County Commissioners of Highlands County v. Colby, 976 So. 2d 31 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008).

Thus, while an agency may not refuse to allow inspection or copying of public records based upon the amount of records requested or the span of time which is covered by the public records request, if extensive use of information technology resources or clerical or supervisory personnel is needed in order to produce the requested records, the agency may impose a reasonable special service charge that reflects the actual costs incurred for the extensive use of such resources or personnel. See AGO s 92-38 and 90-07.  p164 

P.189.. and does not otherwise excuse or exonerate the custodian of public records from any unauthorized
or unlawful disposition of such record.

(2)(a) As an additional means of inspecting or copying public records, a custodian of public records may provide access to public records by remote electronic means, provided exempt or confidential information is not disclosed.

(b) The custodian of public records shall provide safeguards to protect the contents of public records from unauthorized remote electronic access or alteration and to prevent the disclosure or modification of those portions of public records which are exempt or confidential from subsection (1) or s. 24, Art. I of the State Constitution.

(c) Unless otherwise required by law, the custodian of public records may charge a fee for remote electronic access, granted under a contractual arrangement with a user, which fee may include the direct and indirect costs of providing such access. Fees for remote electronic access provided to the general public shall be in accordance with the provisions of this section.

(3)(a) Any person shall have the right of access to public records for the purpose of making photographs of the record while such record is in the possession, custody, and control of the custodian of public records.

(b) This subsection applies to the making of photographs in the conventional sense by use of a camera device to capture images of public records but excludes the duplication of microfilm in the possession of the clerk of the circuit court where a copy of the microfilm may be made available by the clerk.

(c) Photographing public records shall be done under the supervision of the custodian of public records, who may adopt and enforce reasonable rules governing the photographing of such records.

(d) Photographing of public records shall be done in the room where the public records are kept. If, in the judgment of the custodian of public records, this is impossible or impracticable, photographing shall be done in another room or place, as nearly adjacent as possible to the room where the public records are kept, to be determined by the custodian of public records. Where provision of another room or place for photographing is required, the expense of providing the same shall be paid by the person desiring to photograph the public record pursuant to paragraph (4)(e).

(4) The custodian of public records shall furnish a copy or a certified copy of the record upon payment of the fee prescribed by law. If a fee is not prescribed by law, the following fees are authorized:

(a)1. Up to 15 cents per one-sided copy for duplicated copies of not more than 14 inches by 81/2 inches;
2. No more than an additional 5 cents for each two-sided copy; and
3. For all other copies, the actual cost of duplication of the public record.

(b) The charge for copies of county maps or aerial photographs supplied by county
constitutional officers may also include a reasonable charge for the labor and overhead associated
with their duplication.

(c) An agency may charge up to $1 per copy for a certified copy of a public record

 P.2 Video voyeurism--Photographs, videotapes, or images of victims of video voyeurism are confidential and exempt from public disclosure. Chapter 2011-83, Laws of Florida, amending s. 119.071(2)(h), F.S.