Skip to main content

How can I remove my photo & keep it removed from mugshots.com if I was never charged & they only allow lawyers to contact them?

Denver, CO |

I do not have a lawyer nor do I want to pay a lawyer $200 - $500 to send an email explaining my situation to these people. They claim on their site they will remove the photo if charges were dismissed. No charges were ever filed and I spent a few hours in jail. However, I was booked just the same as if charges were filed. On the site it states the records were recently procured and they will no longer take requests to remove after the 12th of this month, 2012. The incident occurred over 10 years ago. The site's "public record" shows no date of charge, no bond posted, and the release was next day. I was arrested at 11pm and released around 5am, so I was there less than 6 hours. This could be a problem with my current career and I need help ASAP!

+ Read More

Attorney answers 4

Posted

You say that you want to remove the photo and that the company only allows attorneys to contact them to remove the photos. However, you are unwilling to pay an attorney a couple of hundred dollars (if it would even be that expensive, which is doubtful) in order to save your current career? What options can we give you? Serious? The internet company is saying that they will no longer take requests after the 12th and it is already the 3rd. Time is ticking. So, it is YOUR choice as to whether you want to leave things as they are with you mug shot on this website or whether you want to come up a couple of hundred dollars max to have an attorney contact them and have it removed. It definitely seems like a "no-brainer" to me and I expect any other attorney on this site. We respond to these posts not to drum up business, but to offer free pro bono service (charity) to members of the public. However, although you are willing to ask attorneys for "free" advice, you are not willing to pay an attorney a small sum of money to possibly save your current career and your future career? That simply does not make sense. I expect that most, if not all, of my colleagues would agree.

Asker

Posted

As for the time issue, I just learned of this today and posted after I was unable to find any other alternatives to removing it. Obviously you didn't see that I'm asking how a layman can go about resolving the issue without having to pay a lot of money in legal fees. To the average working person $200-500 an hour is not a small amount. I'm glad you're prosperous enough in your career to believe that it is. Also please don't assume that a person is not willing to pay such a "small sum of money" when you have no clue as to their current finances. I am willing to pay this if there is no way around it, but based on your "advice" I definitely know where I will not be spending my money. Clearly, pro bono (charity) work is a waste of time to you. So please do not waste your time nor mine in replying again. ***Update*** I contacted the jail that booked me and they stated once an individual is released there record/mugshot is no longer public record. Also, I prefer to hear from legal counsel in Salt Lake County.

Christopher Daniel Leroi

Christopher Daniel Leroi

Posted

Then you should post this in UT then. And additionally I started my career as an attorney in Salt Lake City. I do pro bono work every single day for clients. I also answer approximately 25 questions a day pro bono on Avvo as well. Furthermore, I charge my clients 1/2 of the going rate in the Denver metro area because I believe in a client's cause over getting rich. Contrary to your generalizations, most attorneys struggle to pay their rent and their bills just the same as anyone else. So, your claim that you know my finances is just as erroneous as your claim that I know your finances. I charge $150/hour after 23 years of practice (3 in Salt Lake City, UT), which is less than half of the going rate in the Denver metro area, which is currently $300-$375. So, instead of insulting people who are giving you "free legal advice", next time you should do your legal research. Avvo had our profiles with our experience and our fees on it. To be quite frank, I am very selective in who I choose as clients, so your comment that you would not use me does not hurt or bother me in the slightest. Your "knock" on wasting money for an attorney to do your work for you is bothersome. People constantly whine and complain about attorneys. However, here we are on our weekends taking time from our wives and children responding to your posts. Do you see doctors do that? Do you do that on your spare time? So, please spare all of us the sanctimonious drivel. You posted a question wanting "free" legal advice on a weekend and you received it from both Mr. Murillo and I. I do not see any other attorneys wanting to waste their time in responding to your answer. At $150/hour, it would take an attorney at most an hour to resolve your issue. YOU were the one that claimed that such was too heavy of a price to pay, but yet claimed that this mugshots posting of you was going to ruin your "career." So, do not "kill the messenger" for attorneys giving you accurate and correct advice. Post this in Utah. I have no idea whatsoever why you posted it in CO if this is for Salt Lake County attorneys. To be honest, although I have numerous ties to attorneys in SLC area, because my step-brother is a UT Supreme Court judge and could have given you a referral for someone to do this for your for free/pro bono, your decision to insult me has caused me to not want to assist you further.

Christopher Daniel Leroi

Christopher Daniel Leroi

Posted

If this is true, this should be reported to the US Attorney's Office in that area of Florida. It is a federal criminal case.

Asker

Posted

ANONYMOUS.. whomever posted this... THANK YOU. THANK YOU . THANK YOU. I have tears in my eyes. Christopher Daniel Leroi, so many of you have no idea how hard this mugshot industry has hit our family, our friends, our careers, and our checkbook... No idea.

Posted

This has been answered here a half dozen times. The information is public. If you were arrested and they took your picture, that is public and anyone can get it. I have never heard that mugshots will remove the information from the site if no charges were filed.

Ultimately, there is little you can do unless you pay. You can keep contacting them and see, but the usual routine is that they will want hundreds to remove the information. Unfortunately for you, there are various other sites that do this and you will have to deal with them. I agree this business model is awful and these companies are vultures, but you are likely stuck and unless you pay and pay all of them your information is always available and can be posted. If you want to change the law, speak with your legislators.

This answer is for informational purposes only and is not legal advice regarding your question and does not establish an attorney-client relationship.

Robert John Murillo

Robert John Murillo

Posted

Here is one question and the dozen of comments by some person. You will get an idea of the issues (if you parse the rants in many of the comments) http://www.avvo.com/legal-answers/can-mugshots-com-legally-ask-for-money-to-remove-i-625298.html?answer_id=1006897&ref=notification_menu#answer_1006897. Good luck.

Alex James Fawell

Alex James Fawell

Posted

I understand the legality of disseminating a public record that anyone can find. However, pictures are displayed on arresting departments' websites for a period of time - 30 days in the instance I am familiar with. Once the 30-day period expires, the photograph can no longer be found on the government agency website. Thus, it ceases to be public and not "anyone" can get it. How can it continue to be a public record if no member of the public has access to it other than through a privately-owned website? If you have a different understanding of this, I would love to hear it, but I do not understand how a mugshot can be considered public record when it cannot be found on the site of the arresting agency.

Asker

Posted

I was arrested 2008, Mugshots.com retrieved/scraped the information 3+years later in 2011. Even after expungement in 2012, information & image were still on arresting agency's website. It took a telephone call to said agency under threat of legal action for violating a court order to finally remove the information 12 hours later. So there was no 30 day period here, there was a 4 year period even after expungement that specifically instructed the arresting agency to remove & destroy said information.

Posted

I deplore the site's business model, you appear to have set restrictions on yourself the preclude you accepting their offer on how to remove your information. It is not as if the information is not public or not true, but I agree that it is old. Perhaps some young / new attorney in your area needs some work and will do this for less money.

We do not have a client/attorney relationship until you make an appointment, we discuss your case face to face, I accept a retainer, and we explictly agree to enter into representation.

Posted

Recent complaints about this "service" and others with similar business models are about the fact that the photo and info sometimes are published on another site (removable for another separate fee) shortly after a paid removal from the original publishing site. Lots of accumulated info and experience here on Avvo.com. Use the "browse" feature of Avvo.com and, if you decide to do business with any of these firms, be very clear about what is and is not promised to you in exchange for your payment, and about the limits of your procedural rights to enforce in the event of disputes about the sufficiency of the performance after payment.

My responses to questions on Avvo are never intended as legal advice and must not be relied upon as legal advice. I give legal advice only in the course of an attorney-client relationship. Exchange of information through Avvo's Questions forum does not establish an attorney-client relationship with me. That relationship is established only by individual consultation and execution of a written agreement for legal services.

Asker

Posted

I am totally upset about some lawyer's comments. CREATE NEW LAW GUYS!. There are hundreds of thousands of victims here. If they use this FOIA as a defense, then they HAVE TO FOLLOW UP AND REMOVE ERRONEOUS INFORMATION. THIS IS BS. THE JAILS ARE GETTING PAID FOR THIS, THE COUNTIES ARE GETTING PAID FOR THIS, THESE COMPANIES THAT POST GET PAID FOR THIS AND THE COMPANIES THEY MADE TO REMOVE THEIR SISTER COMPANIES WHO CREATED THE WEBSITES IS ILLEGAL. WHAT, YOU ALL ARE AFRAID TO CONFRONT THIS? YOU THINK SIMPLY GET A LAWYER TO EXPUNGE AND ALL THAT, OR PAY REMOVAL COSTS TO A COMPANY THAT WILL NEVER DO SO IS SUFFICIENT? YOU ARE LAWYERS? WHAT A SHAME. I AM IN THE LEGAL FIELD TOO, AND NEVER HAVE SEEN SO MANY INCOMPETENT ANSWERS TO THESE QUESTIONS. YOU MAKE NEW LAW, THAT WHAT IS WHAT THIS COUNTRY IS ALL ABOUT. THE INNOCENT SHOULD BE PROTECTED, NOT SLANDERED, LIVES RUINED, ETC. BECAUSE OF THESE WEBSITE. DO YOUR RESEARCH THEN YOU CAN MAKE YOUR MONEY.

Asker

Posted

Google just as guilty as sleazy mugshots. Falsely accused, file no-info, I WAS an upstanding member of the community - a teacher. Would you hire an INNOCENT teacher if their mugshot readily appeared on page one of Google out of 700,000 hits? Google is guilty too. HOW IS THIS? Mugshots.com prevents re-hiring.May 10, 2011. Restaurant security video captured an inebriated, disorderly Pam ela K. Geldart smashing a laptop and DSLR cameras (worth thousands) then punching Barton Christner three times to the left side of his head while he sat calmly on a bench. Deputy Roberts refused to arrest Ms. Geldart for striking Mr. Christner, but did charge Ms. Geldart with Criminal Mischief (Putnam County Case#: 11-3499). Two days later, on May 12, 2011 Ms. Geldart drunk, retaliated by dialing 911, first lying to the dispatcher, "a couple nights ago he charged me…. he says I hit him, when really he hits me" stating on the 911 call she had "no injury", was "not in a fight", and sold her lie further, stating "I want an officer here to see I'm 94 pounds, he's 220… I couldn't possibly hit him…. he hits me" and when asked by the dispatcher, why there was an argument, she slurred, "quite frankly I cannot recollect". She further exaggerated her lies to the dispatcher, stating windows were broken, her car was keyed, she was thrown, pushed, hit, and "had filed 5-6 previous charges" against Mr. Christner. Arriving officers refused to give her a breathalyzer despite Mr. Christner's request. Officers found NONE of her false allegations to be true, yet cited "zero tolerance" Domestic Battery laws, and arrested Mr. Christner simply in their words, "because she called 911" (Volusia Court Case: 110-821MMAES). Six weeks later, State's Attorney Diaz finally scheduled his first review of Ms. Geldart's 911 transcripts, the restaurant video, and immediately assigned "NO INFO" and DISMISSED EVERYTHING. Within those 6 weeks, awaiting the system to review the case, Mr. Christner had wrongfully spent 24 hours in jail, had received a 30 days "no contact" order on his public record, spent $5000 in defense fees, was required due this type of charge to undertake weekly drug testing on-site at a county detention center, meet for humiliating weekly "check-ins" with a probation officer, discovered dozens "mugshot industry" websites can post any false arrest 3am mugshot and each LEGALLY can extort $400 per site to remove the photo? A once stellar career, previous Partner in an international firm, and terminally degreed Digital Media and Photography, Professor Christner's last day of employment as Professor at Daytona State, not coincidentally was May 13th, 2011. It was later learned, her prior husband, Mr. James Geldart had filed a restraining order against her, but later found himself arrested for Domestic Battery July 8, 2009. Ms. Geldart has more than once, with numerous men, maliciously and vindictively used retaliatory lies, yet with each false accusation, she knows her name and her legal file (by law) remain sealed, she receives free "battered woman" victim services, yet NO FURTHER legal consequence or reprimand? The "Domestic Violence Industry" permits Ms. Geldart to repeatedly engage in a "MODERN DAY WITCH HUNT", to manipulate and falsely accusing any man, any time, based on NO evidence, and a false accusation alone.

Christopher Daniel Leroi

Christopher Daniel Leroi

Posted

This anonymous individual continues to abuse this pro bono site in order to attack attorneys attempting to provide legitimate responses to questions. Both the initial questioner and this anonymous individual have been now "flagged" from posting anything additional on Avvo.