Are mugshots soon to be gone with the wind?

No more mugshots? Louisiana could soon be one of a few states to ban the release of photos prior to conviction.

House Bill 729, sponsored by State Representative Royce Duplessis (Dist. 93, New Orleans) still needs the approval of both the state Senate and the governor. The house voted 75-21 in favor of the bill this week.

In a state that has always been proud of its Public Records Law, this bill places itself at the forefront of what most are calling more criminal justice reform and less about the feelings of those arrested.

Duplessis, who himself is a criminal defense attorney and owner of a private law firm, says mugshots (prior to conviction) are prejudicial, and they undermine our right to be deemed innocent until proven guilty.

He claims many people are falsely arrested and/or found not guilty. However, they still have a mugshot. If so, this would then call into question the accountability of the police department and their responsibility to arrest the right person.

Same could be said of a good attorney: Just because you are found not guilty does not necessarily mean you did not participate or should not have been arrested.

Duplessis calls the release prior to conviction more of an invasion of privacy. But in an age of technological advances and where someone can find a picture of us in a matter of seconds, is trying not to release one more image really that important? The names and addresses of those arrested would still be released, so what purpose does removing the photo really serve?

The bill simply stipulates that law enforcement agencies would not release mugshots going forward. This would have no impact on the use of prior images already out there or any images that may be obtained through other public access — aka social media. But where do someone’s feelings and the public’s

But where do someone’s feelings and the public’s right to know cross the line?

The Inquisitor has been in business for over 20 years, and in doing so, published the photos of those arrested in the area. And our slogan well sums it up: “If you don’t want it printed, don’t let it happen.”

In saying that people’s reputations are on the line in the use of mugshots, one could simply argue, well, shouldn’t they be? The lack of repercussions is certainly not the direction we need to go in trying to deter more crime. One should be worried about their picture being shown if a crime is committed. Has that not been the practice for hundreds of years? Just imagine Billy the Kid or Jesse James never having their faces strewn across a wanted poster or in a newspaper.

It’s stated the public benefit of publishing a mugshot is minimal in comparison to the harm that could be caused. However, the parent living down the street from a child predator or the single woman who works with the man arrested for sexual assault may disagree. Many use these photos to stay in the know. Also what about the use of photos to correctly identify someone? There could be 25 James Smiths in Shreveport. Suddenly, every one of them could come under scrutiny.

Of course, under the legislation, police would have some discretion to release mugshots of arrestees or suspects if they are fugitives or present an “imminent threat” to the public. A court could also order the release of a mugshot photo.

Also, nothing has been said of camera footage or other obtained photos of suspects.

What are your thoughts?

You can also write to your local senator in reference to this bill:

Robert Mills: sen36@legis.la.gov

Barrow Peacock: peacockb@legis.la.gov

Greg Tarver: tarverg@legis.la.gov

Barry Milligan: sen38@legis.la.gov