Court: Gov't posting of arrestees' mugshots is illegal pretrial punishment

The posting of arrested people’s mugshots on government websites amounts to illegal pretrial punishment, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Thursday.

In a unanimous ruling, the three-judge panel gave the go-ahead for plaintiff Brian Houston to sue Maricopa County over its sheriff’s department’s practice of routinely posting pictures of anyone processed through its jail on the internet. Judge Marsha Berzon, writing for the panel, rejected the department’s arguments that the posting serves a legitimate public purpose.

Thursday’s ruling does not just affect Houston’s ability to seek compensation, however. He filed suit on behalf of others who have found themselves in this situation. Now, with a formal court opinion, they, too, can file claims.

There was no immediate response from the sheriff’s department.

According to court records, Houston was arrested by Phoenix police in January 2022 and charged with assault. As part of the booking process, his photo was taken and posted, along with many others, on the county’s publicly accessible website.

Next to his photo were his full name, date of birth, and a listing of the “crime type.”

The site also has a “more details” button revealing his sex, height, weight, hair color, eye color, and the specific charges on which he was arrested.

Pursuant to department policy, the post remained online for about three days. Houston was never prosecuted on the charges listed on the post, which were later dropped.

That didn’t end the issue.

Houston said third-party websites “scrape” such information and post it on their own sites.

He specifically cited mugshots.com which, according to its own records, has mugshots of about 909,000 Arizonans, the vast majority from Maricopa County.

Houston said that caused him emotional distress and public humiliation and permanently damaged his business and personal reputation.

Berzon said it is clear governmental actions that harm people who have been arrested, before they are ever tried, can violate their due process rights if they are “impermissibly punitive.”

Back to homepage

Subscriber Login

Keep reading with a digital access subscription.

Subscribe now

In this case, she said, the county put forward only one nonpunitive reason for posting Houston’s mugshot and personal information: transparency. But the court was not persuaded.

“That word is not a talisman that dispels the specter of government punishment,” Berzon said, calling it “quite a vague concept.” And, she said, something more is needed to prove a legitimate governmental interest.

The information is posted in a form available across the world, she noted.

“Nowhere does the county explain how posting specific, highly personal information about individual arrestees online — including here, Houston’s image, birthdate, full name, appearance details and charges — furthers any transparency interest,” she wrote.

The judges were unimpressed by the county’s argument that putting this information online helps educate Maricopa County residents about how the government and the legal system operate.

If there were an actual educational component, she said, the information would not be taken down after three days.

Berzon pointed to the decision to post personal information unrelated to the crime, such as date of birth, height, eye color and hair color.

“The county nowhere purports to show, much less succeeds in showing, why this level of granular detail about Houston’s body and personal identity rationally furthers an interest in government transparency,” the judge said.

Moreover, Berzon said what the county does not post also shows this isn’t about transparency.

“Houston’s published arrest record left out a range of pertinent details, including the names of the officers who arrested Houston, the location of his arrest, the arresting agency (in this case, the Phoenix Police Department, not county officials), the jail in which Houston was held, and whether charges were ultimately pursued,” the judge said.

“The county provides no rationale for excluding from Houston’s post information about government conduct that would have provided insight into the county’s criminal legal system while including significant personal information about Houston wholly irrelevant to that goal,” Berzon said.