A bill moving through the West Virginia Legislature would prevent state corrections officials from releasing to the public mugshots of individuals who have been arrested.
The House Judiciary committee has approved and sent the full House HB 4621 which says, “photographs of a person for identification purposes taken by the Division of Corrections and Rehabilitation or any other county or state jail facility upon booking into the facility are not public records and shall not be disclosed to the public.”
Bill supporters argue the permanency of an Internet image means the individual is subject to lifetime of potential embarrassment, even if the charge is dropped or they are found innocent.
In addition, there has been a proliferation of for-profit mugshot websites in recent years which charge individuals to have their images taken down. That is an unseemly business, and a legitimate concern. However, the bill as it is currently written, broadly covers all publications and that includes the news media.
These images are public documents, just like arrest records, and therefore the public has a right to see them, which typically occurs through the news media. They do the work for the public, obtaining the images from state corrections websites and posting them with their stories.
The pictures provide a more complete story of the individuals who have been arrested, often on very serious charges. Crime and arrests are newsworthy, and it is not the role of the government to decide what is and what is not news. Those images also provide further identification of the suspect. A John Doe accused of night time burglary, as opposed to John Doe accused of pedophilia, is only clarified by a picture.
The images also help hold authorities accountable. If a mugshot shows obvious signs of being roughed up, the media will legitimately ask questions about the arrest and whether the officers used excessive force.
So, what if the charges are dropped or the individual is acquitted?
Leslie Rubin, the veteran news reporter for WCHS TV told me on Talkline Wednesday that she has taken a number of calls from individuals who have been cleared and she has willingly taken down their pictures. That is just one example, but I believe it is representative of other news organizations in the state. I know MetroNews honors those requests.
Frankly, it may be difficult to revise the bill so it only excludes for-profit websites from publishing the mugshots. A public document or image is public for all, not just a few. So that may complicate the issue for lawmakers.
But the overriding issue here is the public’s access to arrest records and images that do not harm an investigation. Any attempt to limit the public’s access to that information is government overreach.