WhoIs Mugshots.com ~ BustedMugshots.com

Join The Class Action Lawsuit Against Mugshot Websites Operators

First Amendment Extortion Scheme

It appears like Mugshots.com is the same folks as Potential Predators or they are using the same play book.~  Potential Predators.com which have since shut donw operation. These predators prey on the very weak of our society so as to profit.

These are the same folks that created such nonsense as “work at home and GET RICH,” “Online College Education,” Buy Medication Online Without A Doctor’s  Prescriptions,” “Breast Enhancement Pills, Work at Home Without Any Efforts, HYIP ~ High Yield Investment Programs  etc. etc. etc.

1 800 858 1511

THEY MUST BE STOP

It has been reported that Mugsshot.com aka Busted Mugshots.com aka Citizens Information Associates, LLC is own by one Sahar Sarid. However the the Secretary of State office shows that Citizen Information Associates to be own by Ryan Russell.

WEBSITES POSTING MUG SHOTS AND EXTORTION

The IC3 has received hundreds of complaints from individuals IC3claiming they located their mug shots on 20 different websites, all of which allegedly use similar business practices. Some victims reported they were juveniles at the time of the arrests and their records were sealed. Therefore, their information should not be available to the public. Others stated the information posted on the sites was either incorrect or blatantly false.

Complainants who requested to have their mug shot removed, had to provide a copy of their driver’s license, court record and other personal identifying information. However, providing such information puts those at risk for identify theft.

Complainants were also subject to paying a fee to have their mug shot removed. Although they paid the fee, some of the mug shots were not removed. If they were removed, the mug shots appeared on similar websites.

If the victim threatened to report the websites for unlawful practice, the websites’ owners threatened to escalate the damaging information against the victim.

File A Complaint

CITIZENS INFORMATION ASSOCIATES LLC
P.O. BOX 171
AUSTIN, TX 78767
(512) 851-7054

Citizens Information Associates LLC
Star Nine Ventures
KGP Media
Kyle Prall ~ CEO/President

  • Ryan Russell converts public records to his use (18 USC § 641), criminally infringes name and likeness
  • copyrights (18 USC § 2319 and 17 USC § 506), stalks (18 USC § 2261A), blackmails (18 USC § 873) and extorts (18 USC § 880) money from people.

Mr. Russell other companies and domains are listed below:

  1. Star Nine Ventures
  2. KGP Media
  3. Ganetorg LLC
  4. gwinnettarrests.com
  5. Ryan Russell Racing
  6. Public Web Grouup LLC
  7. Busted.com
  8. Mugshots.com
  9. BustedMogshots.com
  10. comcuffed
  11. mugly
  12. mugshotsonline.com

Alternate Business Names

  • Bustedgrid.com
  • BustedMaps.com
  • Bustedmugshots.com
  • BustedOffenders.com

Address Lookup
canonical name mugshots.com.aliases
addresses 184.72.221.63
Domain Whois record

Queried whois.internic.net with “dom mugshots.com

Domain Name: MUGSHOTS.COM
Registrar: FABULOUS.COM PTY LTD.
Whois Server: whois.fabulous.com
Referral URL: http://www.fabulous.com
Name Server: NS-1462.AWSDNS-54.ORG
Name Server: NS-1864.AWSDNS-41.CO.UK
Name Server: NS-20.AWSDNS-02.COM
Name Server: NS-744.AWSDNS-29.NET
Status: clientTransferProhibited
Updated Date: 18-jun-2012
Creation Date: 12-apr-1996
Expiration Date: 13-apr-2014

Last update of whois database: Sun, 07 Oct 2012 07:08:34 UTC
Queried whois.fabulous.com with “mugshots.com”…

Domain mugshots.com:
International Whois Privacy Services Limited
35 New Road, P O Box: 2391
Belize City, Belize City 00000 BZ

Administrative contact:
Technical contact:
Billing contact:
International Whois Privacy Services Limited
Domain Administrator
intlwhoisprivacy@gmail.com
35 New Road, P O Box: 2391
Belize City, Belize City 00000 BZ
Phone: +501.223-1253
Fax: +501.223-3918

Record dates:
Record created on: 1996-04-12 04:00:00 UTC
Record modified on: 2012-06-25 15:58:02 UTC
Record expires on: 2014-04-13 UTC

Nameservers:
ns-1462.awsdns-54.org
ns-1864.awsdns-41.co.uk
ns-20.awsdns-02.com
ns-744.awsdns-29.net

Note: Automated collection of data from this database is strictly prohibited.

Network Whois record

Queried whois.arin.net with “n 184.72.221.63

NetRange: 184.72.0.0 – 184.73.255.255
CIDR: 184.72.0.0/15
OriginAS:
NetName: AMAZON-EC2-7
NetHandle: NET-184-72-0-0-1
Parent: NET-184-0-0-0-0
NetType: Direct Assignment
Comment: The activity you have detected originates from a
Comment: dynamic hosting environment.
Comment: For fastest response, please submit abuse reports at
Comment: http://aws-portal.amazon.com/gp/aws/html-forms-controller/contactus/AWSAbuse
Comment: For more information regarding EC2 see:
Comment: http://ec2.amazonaws.com/
Comment: All reports MUST include:
Comment: * src IP
Comment: * dest IP (your IP)
Comment: * dest port
Comment: * Accurate date/timestamp and timezone of activity
Comment: * Intensity/frequency (short log extracts)
Comment: * Your contact details (phone and email)
Comment: Without these we will be unable to identify
Comment: the correct owner of the IP address at that
Comment: point in time.
RegDate: 2010-01-26
Updated: 2012-03-02
Ref: http://whois.arin.net/rest/net/NET-184-72-0-0-1

OrgName: Amazon.com, Inc.
OrgId: AMAZO-4
Address: Amazon Web Services, Elastic Compute Cloud, EC2
Address: 1200 12th Avenue South
City: Seattle
StateProv: WA
PostalCode: 98144
Country: US
RegDate: 2005-09-29
Updated: 2009-06-02
Comment: For details of this service please see
Comment: http://ec2.amazonaws.com/
Ref: http://whois.arin.net/rest/org/AMAZO-4

OrgTechHandle: ANO24-ARIN
OrgTechName: Amazon EC2 Network Operations
OrgTechPhone: +1-206-266-4064
OrgTechEmail: aes-noc@amazon.com
OrgTechRef: http://whois.arin.net/rest/poc/ANO24-ARIN

OrgAbuseHandle: AEA8-ARIN
OrgAbuseName: Amazon EC2 Abuse
OrgAbusePhone: +1-206-266-4064
OrgAbuseEmail: ec2-abuse@amazon.com
OrgAbuseRef: http://whois.arin.net/rest/poc/AEA8-ARIN

RTechHandle: ANO24-ARIN
RTechName: Amazon EC2 Network Operations
RTechPhone: +1-206-266-4064
RTechEmail: aes-noc@amazon.com
RTechRef: http://whois.arin.net/rest/poc/ANO24-ARIN

RAbuseHandle: AEA8-ARIN
RAbuseName: Amazon EC2 Abuse
RAbusePhone: +1-206-266-4064
RAbuseEmail: ec2-abuse@amazon.com
RAbuseRef: http://whois.arin.net/rest/poc/AEA8-ARIN

RNOCHandle: ANO24-ARIN
RNOCName: Amazon EC2 Network Operations
RNOCPhone: +1-206-266-4064
RNOCEmail: aes-noc@amazon.com
RNOCRef: http://whois.arin.net/rest/poc/ANO24-ARIN
DNS records

name class type data time to live
mugshots.com IN A 184.72.221.63 60s (00:01:00)
mugshots.com IN NS ns-20.awsdns-02.com 172800s (2.00:00:00)
mugshots.com IN NS ns-744.awsdns-29.net 172800s (2.00:00:00)
mugshots.com IN NS ns-1462.awsdns-54.org 172800s (2.00:00:00)
mugshots.com IN NS ns-1864.awsdns-41.co.uk 172800s (2.00:00:00)
mugshots.com IN SOA
server: ns-744.awsdns-29.net
email: awsdns-hostmaster@amazon.com
serial: 1
refresh: 7200
retry: 900
expire: 1209600
minimum ttl: 86400
900s (00:15:00)
mugshots.com IN TXT v=spf1 include:amazonses.com -all 300s (00:05:00)
63.221.72.184.in-addr.arpa IN PTR ec2-184-72-221-63.compute-1.amazonaws.com 300s (00:05:00)
221.72.184.in-addr.arpa IN NS pdns3.ultradns.org 900s (00:15:00)
221.72.184.in-addr.arpa IN NS pdns4.ultradns.org 900s (00:15:00)
221.72.184.in-addr.arpa IN NS pdns6.ultradns.co.uk 900s (00:15:00)
221.72.184.in-addr.arpa IN NS pdns5.ultradns.info 900s (00:15:00)
221.72.184.in-addr.arpa IN NS pdns2.ultradns.net 900s (00:15:00)
221.72.184.in-addr.arpa IN NS pdns1.ultradns.net 900s (00:15:00)
221.72.184.in-addr.arpa IN SOA
server: dns-external-master.amazon.com
email: root@amazon.com
serial: 34
refresh: 3600
retry: 900
expire: 604800
minimum ttl: 900
900s (00:15:00)
— end –


Dear General Public:

The information that I came upon when reading  Florida “Sunshine Manual”. People booked in Florida may want to read this and them start questioning who is www.mugshots.com. this is reprint from the manual to provide information to the general public.

http://myfloridalegal.com/webfiles.nsf/WF/KGRG-8RAQUF/$file/2012-SunshineManual.pdf
government-in-the-sunshine-manual
p.145

2. What individuals are authorized to inspect and receive copies of public records?


Section 119.01, F.S., provides that “[i]t is the policy of this state that all state, county, and municipal records are open for personal inspection and copying by any person.” (e.s.) A state citizenship requirement was deleted from the law in 1975. A public employee is a person within the meaning of Ch. 119, F.S. and, as such, possesses the same right of inspection as any other person. AGO 75-175. Likewise, a county is “any person” who is allowed to seek public records under Ch. 119, F.S. Hillsborough County, Florida v. Buccaneers Stadium Limited Partnership, No. 99-0321 (Fla. 13th Cir. Ct. February 5, 1999), affirmed per curiam, 758 So. 2d 676 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000).

Thus, “the law provides any member of the public access to public records, whether he or she be the most outstanding civic citizen or the most heinous criminal.” Church of Scientology Flag Service Org., Inc. v. Wood, No. 97-688CI-07 (Fla. 6th Cir. Ct. February 27, 1997).

“[A]s long as the citizens of this state desire and insist upon ‘open government’ and liberal public records disclosure, as a cost of that freedom public officials have to put up with demanding citizens even when they are obnoxious as long as they violate no laws.” State v. Colby, No. MM96-317A-XX (Fla. Highlands Co. Ct. May 23, 1996). “Even though a public agency may believe that a person or group are fanatics, harassers or are extremely annoying, the public records are available to all of the citizens of the State of Florida.” Salvadore v. City of Stuart, No. 91-812 CA (Fla. 19th Cir. Ct. December 17, 1991).

And see Curry v. State, 811 So. 2d 736, 741 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) (defendant’s conduct in making over 40 public records requests concerning victim constituted a “legitimate purpose,” and thus cannot violate the stalking law “because the right to obtain the records is established by statute and acknowledged in the state constitution”). Cf. James v. Loxahatchee Groves Water Control District, 820 So. 2d 988 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002), concluding that a trial court erred when it failed to hold a hearing before denying a request to require a district to permit inspection at the district offices, rather than at an off-premises location.

The agency argued that it would be “disruptive” to require that the records inspection be conducted at its offices. Id. However, the appeals court ruled that a hearing should have been held to determine
whether the requestor, who was in litigation with the district, should be allowed to view the records at the district offices, and if so, under what conditions. Id.

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 person’s 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 person’s 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) (petitioner’s 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 newspaper’s motives [for seeking the documents], as well as the hospital’s financial harm and public harm defenses, are irrelevant in an action to compel compliance with the Public Records Act”). (Si these sites seem like they have a “right” to do business as they are…

BUT>>->
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.

These sites are harassing, terrorizing and intimidating a whole population of people. The site www.mugshots.com is seeking financial gain by requesting that they be able to use public record as their own and ask that  a person who would like to opt/out of their data base pay a third party (not them directly-as they want to keep their identity a secret). for improper use and 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)http://myfloridalegal.com/webfiles.nsf/WF/KGRG-RAQUF/$file/2012-SunshineManual.pdf…………

If you have a problem with any “mugshot” website” or www.mugshots.com Call and file your complaints :

FLAGO:  850-242-0140
FLAGO: 850-414-3990
FTC: 877-382-4357
BBBFL: 727-535-5522

File a report and request copies of all public records, that FOIA will allow, write your congressman or woman and the Attorney general’s office.

Just because you were arrested, doesn’t mean you don’t have rights..

Source: Ripoffreport.com

  1. montelwilliamsloan.us
  2. paydayloanpersonalloan.us
  3. instantcheckmate.com
  4. mugshots.com
  5. B2sit.com
  6. montelwilliamsloan.us
  7. paydayloanpersonalloan.us
  8. checkcreditscore888.us
  9. searscareers.us
  10. pinellascountypublicrecords.us
  11. corporatebackgroundchecks.us
  12. collincountycourtrecords.us
  13. hcsoarrestinquiry.us
  14. cookcountyjailinmatesearch.us
  15. miamidadeinmatesearch.us
  16. miamidadecriminalrecords.us
  17. bestloan1500now.us
  18. freeonlinecriminalbackgroundrecordcheck.us
  19. criminalrecordssearch.in
  20. jeffrey.farina.countypublicrecords.us
  21. instantcheckmate.com
  22. instantbgcheck.com
  23. PENISSTRETCHES.ORG
  24. ondemandcourtrecords.us
  25. Newpaydayloans247.com
  26. jobsincharlottenc.us
  27. ctinmatesearch.us
  28. cheaprollerblades1.info
  29. bestmattressforsidesleepers.info
  30. checkyourcreditscore.us
  31. CANNINGJARSFORSALE.INFO
  32. http://www.cashquickloans.info
  33. Bestspincastreel.info
  34. Bestlongboardtrucks.info
  35. winerackscheaps.info
  36. goolike.com
  37. Fast4diet.com
  38. blackfridaycybermondaysaleprices.info
  39. blackfridaycamcorders1.us
  40. jobservicend.us
  41. nco.info
  42. puppyobediencetraining101.com
  43. 11370.info
  44. truthaboutsixpackabsreviewed.com
  45. parisgraves.com
  46. caulking.biz
  47. puppyobediencetraining101.com
  48. searscareers.us
  49. parisgraves.com
  50. caulking.biz
  51. truthaboutsixpackabsreviewed.com
About these ads

22 thoughts on “WhoIs Mugshots.com ~ BustedMugshots.com

  1. SFA Reporter October 7, 2012 at 1:15 am Reply

    Internet Crime Complaint Center (IC3)
    http://www.ic3.gov/default.aspx

    18 USC § 1030 – Fraud and related activity in connection with computers
    (2) intentionally accesses a computer without authorization or exceeds authorized access, and thereby obtains—
    (C) information from any protected computer;

    18 USC § 641 – Public money, property or records
    Whoever embezzles, steals, purloins, or knowingly converts to his use or the use of another, or without authority, sells, conveys or disposes of any record, voucher, money, or thing of value of the United States or of any department or agency thereof, or any property made or being made under contract for the United States or any department or agency thereof;

    Whoever receives, conceals, or retains the same with intent to convert it to his use or gain, knowing it to have been embezzled, stolen, purloined or converted—

    18 USC § 2319 – Criminal infringement of a copyright
    17 USC § 506 – Criminal Offenses: “For purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain.”

    abc News: “Thousands of people are being criminalized by mug-shot websites that collect ad revenue at their expense!”
    Susanna, Kim “Businesses Charge Hundreds To Remove Mug Shots Online.” abc NEWS April 2012.

    18 USC § 873 – Blackmail
    Whoever, under a threat of informing, or as a consideration for not informing, against any violation of any law of the United States, demands or receives any money or other valuable thing, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

    Sahar Sarid: Sahar Sarid’s mugshot from his arrest is noticeably absent from his website mugshots.com.

    18 USC § 880 – Receiving the proceeds of extortion
    A person who receives, possesses, conceals, or disposes of any money or other property which was obtained from the commission of any offense under this chapter that is punishable by imprisonment for more than 1 year, knowing the same to have been unlawfully obtained, shall be imprisoned not more than 3 years, fined under this title, or both.

  2. SFA Reporter October 7, 2012 at 1:22 am Reply

    Listings of Mugshot Companies

    The other actors in this now using public records for extortions are Kyle Ritter and Adam Young:

    Kyle Ritter
    5915 NE Mason
    Portland, Oregon 97218
    (503) 957-6237

    Kyle Ritter owns
    – albanymugshots.com
    – ashevillemugshots.com
    – augustamugshots.com
    – bendmugshots.com
    – bentonmugshots.com
    – blountmugshots.com
    – boisemugshots.com
    – boonemugshots.com
    – bowlinggreenmugshots.com
    – catawbamugshots.com
    – chitownmugshots.com
    – christianmugshots.com
    – clarksvillemugshots.com
    – clearlakemugshots.com
    – corvallismugshots.com
    – davenportmugshots.com
    – davismugshots.com
    – daytonmugshots.com
    – eugenemugshots.com
    – franklinmugshots.com
    – grandrapidsmugshots.com
    – kckmugshots.com
    – knoxmugshots.com
    – lacrossemugshots.com
    – lafayettemugshots.com
    – lagrandemugshots.com
    – maderamugshots.com
    – mbmugshots.com
    – medfordmugshots.com
    – memphismugs.com
    – mendocinomugshots.com
    – montgomerymugshots.com
    – mugbuddy.com
    – mugshotsatlanta.com
    – mugshotsdallas.com
    – mugshotstulsa.com
    – napervillemugshots.com
    – nolamugshots.com
    – ocarrests.com
    – oddcrime.com
    – ogdenmugshots.com
    – ottawamugshots.com
    – pdxmugshots.com
    – phoenixmugs.com
    – provomugshots.com
    – pueblomugshots.com
    – queencitymugshots.com
    – roanemugshots.com
    – rockfordmugshots.com
    – roseburgmugshots.com
    – salemmugshots.com
    – santafemugshots.com
    – savannahmugs.com
    – shastamugshots.com
    – slcmugshots.com
    – sparklecitymugshots.com
    – springfieldmugshots.com

    Adam Young
    3165 Glengrove Dr.,
    Rochester Hills, MI 48309 –
    (248) 321-6319

    Crunchline LLC
    Arrest.org
    Florida.Arrests.Org
    RemoveSlander.com
    RemoveItNow.com
    Fortmyermugshots.com
    RemoveArrest.com
    Florida.Arrests.org
    InternetReputation.com
    floridamugshots.us –
    – atlantamugshots.org
    – browardcriminals.com
    – cincycriminals.com
    – collincriminals.com
    – cookmugshots.com
    – dupagemugshots.com
    – fortmyermugshots.com
    – knoxvillecriminals.com
    – lakemugshots.com
    – minneapolismugshots.org
    – mississippimugshots.org
    – orlandocriminals.com
    – phoenixcriminals.com
    – portlandcriminals.com
    – saltlakemugshots.com
    – tampacriminals.com
    – tulsacriminals.com

    Behind the Grand Scheme of Florida.Arrests.Org is a Company named Crunchline LLC involving Craig R Wiggen / Robert Wiggen, his son James Cody Wiggen, his wife Alice Wiggen, and their daughter Tiffany A Wiggen and his son James Cody Wiggen. Father and Son!

    Crunchline LLC
    Arrest.org
    Florida.Arrests.Org
    RemoveSlander.com
    RemoveItNow.com
    Fortmyermugshots.com
    RemoveArrest.com
    Florida.Arrests.org
    InternetReputation.com
    floridamugshots.us

  3. Reb October 7, 2012 at 3:47 am Reply

    The problem is they aren’t breaking ANY law. Many attorneys have commented on this already. Unless we change the laws there’s nothing we can do. All complaints are useless unless the law is first changed!

    • SFA Reporter October 7, 2012 at 7:33 am Reply

      We agreed with you. They aren’t any laws broken. But they are making people personal information available worldwide aiding criminals organization worldwide and proliferating cybercrime. We at SFA frown on the SALE of personal data.

  4. Reb October 7, 2012 at 10:21 am Reply

    The police makes it available, not them. I hate that site and all these sites but if we ever gonna solve it, it’s not by chasing sites but changing laws.

    • SFA Reporter October 7, 2012 at 10:31 am Reply

      Agreed. However public outrage and awareness can help change the bad laws into good laws. Doing nothing is worse.

      These people are parasites. They want to sell medication worldwide without any check and balances or assurances that the medication is safe and meets all health standards.

      They want to sell your personal information to criminals or whoever wants to buy it putting you at risk and all sort of nonsense. We have to stop these guys. There are just a handful of them.

  5. SFA Reporter October 9, 2012 at 12:48 am Reply

    Robert Wiggens owns
    minneapolismugshots.org
    tampacriminals.com
    volusiafloridamugshots.com

    I have talked with people who have been ripped off by both of these sites. They answer emails claiming to be “Rapesh from Bangladesh”. These are lies.

    “Rapesh D’Souza” IS “Robert Wiggen” or his wife “Tiffany A Wiggen”.

    Rapesh D’Souza is an avatar hiding the identity of the extortionist behind many sites.

    LET THE COMMUNITY BE WARNED:
    COOKMUGSHOTS.COM
    CINCYCRIMINALS.COM
    DUPAGEMUGSHOTS.COM
    FORTMYERMUGSHOTS.COM
    KNOXVILLECRIMINALS.COM
    MINNEAPOLISMUGSHOTS.COM
    ORLANDOCRIMINALS.COM
    PHOENIXCRIMINALS.COM
    PORTLANDCRIMINALS.COM
    SALTLAKEMUGSHOTS.COM
    TAMPACRIMINALS.COM
    LAKEMUGSHOTS.COM
    COLLINCRIMINALS.COM
    ATLANTAMUGSHOTS.ORG
    BROWARDCRIMINALS.COM
    removenamefrom.com
    Arrestreport.org
    mugshot.cc
    normanhaga.com
    densonhudgens.com
    clean-search.com
    secure4sales.com
    cleanmy.name
    removearrestrecords.com
    removearrest.com
    RemoveInternet.com
    removerecord.com
    removerecord.org
    removelisting.com
    movemyname.com
    remove.name
    removemyname.biz
    GotBusted.net
    BustedMugshots.com
    MugshotsOnline.com
    Lookwhogotbusted.com
    WhosArrested.com
    arre.st
    aljails.info
    azjails.info
    arjails.info
    arjails.info
    cajails.info
    shastacountyjail.info
    tehamacountyjail.info
    fljails.info
    gajails.info
    kyjails.info
    mnjails.info
    msjails.info
    ncjails.info
    hamiltoncountyjails.info
    miamivalleyjails.info
    ohjails.info
    orjails.info
    pajails.info
    tnjails.info
    txjails.info
    north​centralregion​aljail.info
    centralregionaljail.info
    easternregionaljail.info
    potomachighlandsregionaljail.info
    southcentralregionaljail.info
    south​westernregionaljail.info
    tygartvalleyregionaljail.info
    westernregionaljail.info
    wvjails.info
    Tyronne Jacques owns RemoveSlander.com
    Arrestreport.org is own by Mark S Forbes
    mugshot.cc is own by Mark S Forbes
    RemoveSlander.com
    RemoveItNow.com
    Remove-Mugshot.com
    ImageMaxPR.com
    normanhaga.com
    densonhudgens.com
    clean-search.com
    secure4sales.com
    cleanmy.name
    removearrestrecords.com
    removearrest.com
    RemoveInternet.com
    removerecord.com
    removerecord.org
    removelistin
    movemyname.com
    remove.name
    removemyname.biz
    removenamefrom.com
    Florida.Arrests.org
    arrests.org Craig Wiggen,Robert Wiggen, Tiffany A Wiggen, James Cody Wiggen, Alice Wiggen
    lookwhogotbusted.com
    Steven A. Gibson owns WhosArrested.com
    Jason Watson
    aljails.info
    zjails.info
    arjails.info
    arjails?.info
    cajails.info
    shastacoun?tyjail.info
    tehamacountyjail.info
    fljails.info
    gajails.info
    kyjails.info
    mnjails.info
    msjails.info
    ncjails.info
    hamiltoncountyjails.info
    miamivalleyjails.info
    ohjails.info
    orjails.info
    pajails.info
    tnjails.info
    txjails.info
    northcentralregionaljail.info
    centralre?gionaljail.info
    asternregionaljail.info
    potomachighlandsregionaljail.info
    southcentralregionaljail.info
    southwesternregionaljail.info
    tygartvalleyregionaljail.info
    westernregionaljail.info
    wvjails.info
    MugshotsOnline.com is own by Ryan Russell
    BustedMugshots.com is own by Ryan Russell
    GotBusted.net is own by Jeffrey Ray Butler
    arrestcourtinfo.com

    and MANY MORE UNETHICAL, IMMORAL, EVIL SITES.

  6. Sheila Collins October 19, 2012 at 12:49 pm Reply

    Attorney Joel Stempler 561-635-5096 and I Mark Daniel Friedland are bringing a class action against Google and mugshots within the month.

    Call if you want to join in. 337-893-4388 or 239-348 5943 (cell)
    kjuntale66@yahoo.com

  7. SFA Reporter November 3, 2012 at 3:36 pm Reply

    Examining the listing given out, I see many of the scam sites operated by Kelly Joe Ellis who owns clean-search.com.

    Clean-search.com is a fraudulent online reputation management firm. Kelly Joe Ellis has been named as one of the worlds top 200 spammers by spamhaus at http://www.danhatesspam.com/cases/TropicInks_P_Appeal_RJN2.pdf

    Kelly Joe Ellis of Jupiter,Florida owns
    – escambiamugshots.com
    – seminolemugshots.com
    – suwanneemugshots.com
    – volusiamugshots.com

    CAPITAL RECOVERY SERVICES INC.
    CLEANSEARCH, LLC,
    – CLEAN-SEARCH.COM
    – nor​man​haga​.com.
    – HITDETECTIVE.COM
    – REMOVEARREST.COM
    – WebMark inc.
    – Marketforce inc.
    – Google123Biz
    – searchenginejet.com

    Kelly Joe Ellis –
    17380 Jupiter Farms Rd,
    Jupiter, Florida 33478 –
    (561) 746-8577

    Kelly Joe Ellis – 17380 Jupiter Farms Road, Jupiter, Florida 33478 – (561) 746-8577
    Kelly Joe Ellis owns escambiamugshots.com – seminolemugshots.com – suwanneemugshots.com – volusiamugshots.com

    Blake Gratton – 954 La Costa Circle, #3, Sarasota, Florida 34237 – (941) 812-1544
    Blake Gratton owns – arrestcentral.com – mugme.org

    Sahar Sarid – 3213 Dover Rd, Pompano Beach, FL 33062 – (954) 782-9292
    Sahar Sarid owns – mugshots.com

    UNITED STATES CODE GOVERNING THE USE OF PUBLIC RECORDS

    Federal Lanham Act, 15 USC § 1125(a)
    5 U.S.C. § 552
    17 USC § 506
    18 USC § 641 *****
    18 USC § 873
    18 USC § 880
    18 USC § 1030
    18 USC § 1584
    18 USC § 2261A
    18 USC § 2319
    18 USC § 2319

  8. [...] WhoIs Mugshots.com ~ BustedMugshots.com (scamfraudalert.org) [...]

  9. Michael Roper December 21, 2012 at 9:06 pm Reply

    Hi,

    I am looking for several people who would like to launch an all out criminally and civil complaint against http://Bustedmugshots.com owners.

    They might have a corporation but the corporate vail is easily pierced in court. Everyone can go after the owners of the website and all the other sites.

    Please email me and let’s get started with getting the owners assets. Just because they have a corporation they have to be licensed in every state to be able to conduct business and they are not. This leaves them open to the owners going to jail and paying fines etc.

    I have the money to stop them from making fools out everyone because of a simple arrest.

    These companies prey on everyone and also Go Daddy is helping them with committing a crime by letting them use there Internet site this includes several other shell companies.

    Please email names and addresses of every owner anyone knows of these companies.

    Also who they bank with etc. this will help by basically doing a family tree of all the owners and assets.

    The IRS and the Ificci fbi. Is part of bringing down companies like this through the justice department.

    These owners are slandering and defaming innocent people and are not able to hide behind a LLC or corp. there are thousands of ways to make them go away and never use a picture of someone to make them look bad because of there greed.

    Please join me and email me because I love suing people who like to scam others.

    Class action suit is one thing but criminal complaint is another.

    Thanks for your help and I am going to start a website that will go indiago to start getting money from people who have been caught up in these companies and individuals criminal doings.

    They are hidding behind a curtain of lies and extortion etc..

    Let us all help by taking these thugs down !

    Thanks
    Michael Roper
    Contact:Michaelroper55@hotmail.com

    http://Bustedmugshots.com

  10. [...] WhoIs Mugshots.com ~ BustedMugshots.com (scamfraudalert.org) [...]

  11. SFA Reporter December 29, 2012 at 1:36 pm Reply

    OAH 3-0305-22638-DP
    STATE OF MINNESOTA
    OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

    Kyle Prall and Citizens Information
    Associates,
    Complainants,
    v.
    Hennepin County Sheriff’s Office and the
    Hennepin County Board of
    Commissioners,
    Respondents.
    NOTICE OF DETERMINATION
    OF PROBABLE CAUSE
    AND
    ORDER FOR PREHEARING
    CONFERENCE AND
    EVIDENTIARY HEARING
    TO: The Parties
    On February 21, 2012, Kyle Prall and Citizens Information Associates
    (Complainants) filed an Expedited Data Practices Complaint with the Office of
    Administrative Hearings. The Complainants alleged that the Hennepin County Sheriff’s
    Office and the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners violated the Minnesota
    Government Data Practices Act by failing to provide copies of booking photos at a
    reasonable cost in response to data practices requests, failing to produce
    documentation supporting the County’s $5/photo charge, and failing to establish
    procedures to ensure that data requests are complied with in an appropriate and prompt
    manner. The Respondents filed an initial response to the Complaint on March 20,
    2012.
    Patricia E. Kuderer, Kuderer Law Group, PLLC, of Seattle, Washington,
    represented the Complainants Kyle Prall and Citizens Information Association. Toni A.
    Beitz, Senior Assistant Hennepin County Attorney, represented the Hennepin County
    Sheriff’s Office and Hennepin County Board of Commissioners.
    After reviewing the Complaint and the County’s Response to the Complaint, the
    Administrative Law Judge has determined that the Complaint presents sufficient facts to
    believe that violations of Chapter 13 have occurred. Specifically, the Administrative Law
    Judge concludes that there is probable cause to believe that the County violated
    Minnesota Statutes § 13.03, subd. 2, and subd. 3 (c) & (e), by failing to provide copies
    of booking photos at a reasonable cost and failing to have procedures in place to
    ensure that requests for government data are received and complied with in a prompt
    manner.
    Page 2
    2
    Based upon the record and all of the proceedings in this matter, including the
    Memorandum incorporated herein, the Administrative Law Judge makes the following:
    ORDER
    IT IS HEREBY ORDERED and NOTICE IS GIVEN THAT:
    1.
    This matter has been assigned to Administrative Law Judge Kathleen D.
    Sheehy for an evidentiary hearing. The address of the Administrative Law Judge is 600
    North Robert Street, P.O. Box 64620, St. Paul, Minnesota 55164-0620. The
    Administrative Law Judge may be reached at telephone number 651-361-7848 and the
    Office’s fax number is 651-361-7936.
    2.
    This matter will be scheduled for a prehearing conference to be held by
    telephone conference call and a later evidentiary hearing to be held at the Office of
    Administrative Hearings at 600 North Robert Street in St. Paul. The dates and times of
    the Pre-Hearing Conference and the evidentiary hearing will be sent to the parties under
    a separate cover.
    Dated: March 26, 2012
    s/Kathleen D. Sheehy
    _____________________________________
    KATHLEEN D. SHEEHY
    Administrative Law Judge
    MEMORANDUM
    Factual Background
    Based on the information in the Complaint and the Response thereto, it appears
    that on March 29, 2011, Complainant Kyle Prall on behalf of Citizens Information
    Associates sent an email to the Hennepin County Sheriff’s Office (HCSO) general
    information website requesting booking photos/mug shots on every individual booked
    into the Hennepin County Jail (formerly known as the Adult Detention Center or ADC)
    between January 1, 2011, and March 29, 2011. He specifically requested that the
    photos be prepared in “electronic format (e.g. JPEG).” He also requested information
    contained on the “jail/arrest log” for each individual booked into the jail for the same time
    period, including date of birth, gender, race, city and zip code. Mr. Prall requested that
    this data be provided in “CSV or Excel format.”1
    The HCSO website contains a notice as follows:
    Note: Please do NOT email us if your concern is urgent. Emails are
    viewed once a week or less frequently. For issues that need immediate
    1 Complaint Ex. 1.
    Page 3
    3
    attention, please call the Sheriff’s Office at the telephone number
    provided.2
    When Mr. Prall did not receive a response to his email request, he called the
    HCSO and was instructed to submit a written request for the data via U.S. mail. Mr.
    Prall submitted a written request for the data to the Hennepin County Sheriff by letter
    dated May 1, 2011.
    On May 12, 2011, Lynda Kochevar, an employee at the ADC, called Mr. Prall
    and informed him that the County would provide the jail log in the requested Excel
    format, but that the booking photos would only be provided in paper form and not
    electronically. When Mr. Prall questioned why he could not receive the booking photos
    electronically, Ms. Kochevar referred him to Assistant Hennepin County Attorney Toni
    Beitz. Mr. Prall received the jail/arrest log data on May 16, 2011.
    On or about May 25, 2011, Mr. Prall spoke with Ms. Beitz on the telephone
    regarding his request for the booking photos. Mr. Prall objected to receiving the photos
    in paper, rather than electronic, form. Ms. Beitz indicated that she would review the
    matter with staff of the Sheriff’s Office.3
    In an email dated June 16, 2011, Ms. Beitz notified Mr. Prall that the Sheriff’s
    Office would provide the mugshots in electronic format at a cost of $5 per mugshot. Ms.
    Beitz stated further that there are approximately 11,160 mugshots within the time frame
    of Mr. Prall’s data request and that upon receipt of $55,800 from him, the Sheriff’s Office
    would begin the processes necessary to transmit the photos electronically.4
    In response emails sent in June and August 2011, Mr. Prall requested that Ms.
    Beitz provide documentation to support the $5 per photo charge.5 Mr. Prall also sent an
    email to the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners, as the body establishing
    County fees, requesting any documents that support or explain why the fee for copies of
    booking photos was raised from $1 to $5 per photo.6
    Mr. Prall did not receive a
    response from the County Board of Commissioners.
    By letter dated December 14, 2011, Complainants’ counsel asked Ms. Beitz to
    provide her with the actual cost for providing booking photos in electronic format, the
    computer medium in which the County currently stores the data and size of the
    requested data, and the justification for the cost to provide the requested data.7
    Ms. Beitz did not respond to Complainants’ December 14th letter. The
    Complainants’ counsel called Ms. Beitz on January 9, 2012. Ms. Beitz indicated that
    2 HCSO Response Ex. A (emphasis in original).
    3 Complaint Ex. 4.
    4 Complaint Ex. 5.
    5 Complaint Exs. 6-9.
    6 Complaint Ex. 10.
    7 Complaint Ex. 11.
    Page 4
    4
    she had referred the December 14th letter to the Sheriff’s Office and that she would
    follow up with staff there and get back to Ms. Kuderer. Ms. Kuderer sent another letter
    to Ms. Beitz on January 24, 2012.8 When no response was received, this Complaint
    followed.
    Probable Cause Standard
    The purpose of a probable cause determination is to determine whether, given
    the facts disclosed by the record, it is fair and reasonable to hear the matter on the
    merits.9 If the judge is satisfied that the facts appearing in the record, including reliable
    hearsay, would preclude the granting of a motion for a directed verdict, a motion to
    dismiss for lack of probable cause should be denied.10 A judge’s function in a probable
    cause determination does not extend to an assessment of the credibility of conflicting
    testimony; the task is simply to determine whether the facts available establish a
    reasonable belief that the County committed a violation.
    Analysis
    All government data collected, created, or maintained by a government entity
    shall be public unless classified by statute or federal law as nonpublic or protected
    nonpublic, or with respect to data on individuals, as private or confidential. The
    responsible authority in every government entity shall keep records containing
    government data in such an arrangement and condition as to make them easily
    accessible for convenient use. Photographic records shall be considered as accessible
    for convenient use regardless of the size of such records.11
    Under Minnesota law, an individual’s booking photograph is public unless a law
    enforcement agency has temporarily withheld access based on a determination that
    access “will adversely affect an active investigation.”12
    When a governmental agency stores data electronically it must provide data
    electronically to any person making a request for a copy of the data if it reasonably can
    make a copy or have a copy made. This does not require a governmental entity to
    provide the data in an electronic format or program that is different from the format or
    program in which the data are maintained.13
    8 Complaint Ex. 12.
    9 State v. Florence, 239 N.W.2d 892, 902 (Minn. 1976).
    10 Id. at 903. In civil cases, a motion for a directed verdict presents a question of law regarding the
    sufficiency of the evidence to raise a fact question. The judge must view all the evidence presented in the
    light most favorable to the adverse party and resolve all issues of credibility in the adverse party’s favor.
    See, e.g., Minn. R. Civ. P. 50.01; LeBeau v. Buchanan, 236 N.W.2d 789, 791 (Minn. 1975); Midland
    National Bank v. Perranoski, 299 N.W.2d 404, 409 (Minn. 1980). The standard for a directed verdict in
    civil cases is not significantly different from the test for summary judgment. Howie v. Thomas, 514
    N.W.2d 822 (Minn. App. 1994).
    11 Minn. Stat. § 13.03, subd. 1.
    12 Id.; Minn. Stat. § 13.82, subd. 26(b).
    13 Minn. Stat. § 13.03, subd. 3(e).
    Page 5
    5
    If a person requests copies or electronic transmittal of data, the governmental
    entity may require the requesting person pay the “actual costs of searching for and
    retrieving government data, including the cost of employee time, and for making,
    certifying, and electronically transmitting the copies of the data, but may not charge for
    separating public from not public data.”14
    In determining the amount of the reasonable fee, the responsible authority for the
    government data shall be guided by the cost of materials, cost of labor, “any schedule of
    standard copying charges as established by the agency in the normal course of
    operations,” any special costs necessary to produce such copies from machine based
    recording keeping systems, and mailing costs.15 “Special costs” might include writing or
    modifying a computer program to format data.16
    The responsible authority shall establish procedures to ensure that requests for
    government data are received and complied with in an appropriate and prompt
    manner.17
    Until March 2011, the fee for providing copies of booking photos was $1 per
    photo. The County asserts that after reviewing the costs associated with providing
    these copies, it raised the fee to $5 per photo. According to the County, the fee covers
    the cost of ADC personnel time processing requests. Specifically, the County maintains
    that it takes ADC staff between 15-20 minutes to process and provide photos. Between
    10-15 minutes is performed by a clerk at an average cost of $20.26 per hour, and
    approximately 6 minutes is expended by an ADC accountant at an average rate of pay
    of $30.74 per hour. The County argues that the average actual cost of completing
    these processes ranges from $8.14 per photo to $9.83 per photo. Based on these
    costs, and after a public hearing, the Hennepin County Board raised the fee to be
    charged for booking photos from $1 to $5 per photo in March 2011.18
    The ADC stores all booking photographs in an imaging system called
    “PictureLink,” which was developed and is maintained by a third party vendor, Dynamic
    Imaging System, Inc. The County asserts that personnel at the ADC have the ability to
    select individual photographs to be copied and emailed to requestors, but that they
    cannot extract photos “in the manner and format requested by Mr. Prall.” The County
    has not identified the format in which the photos are stored or how that differs from the
    format requested by Mr. Prall. To retrieve the data in the fashion requested by Mr. Prall,
    the County maintains it would have had to contract with its third-party vendor either for a
    14 Minn. Stat. § 13.03, subd. 3(c).
    15 Minn. R. 1205.0300, subp. 4.
    16 Cf. Minnesota Department of Administration Advisory Opinion 97-013 (Secretary of State did not justify
    schedule fee of $2,000 for a copy of the Minnesota voter registration database); Advisory Opinion 04—
    072 (Minnesota Department of Corrections did not establish the reasonableness of its fee for providing an
    electronic copy of ten months of statewide jail bookings); Advisory Opinion 01-030 (Minnesota
    Department of Public Safety did not establish the reasonableness of its fee for providing a copy of the
    criminal history database).
    17 Minn. R. 1205.0300, subp. 3.
    18 HCSO Response at 4-5 & Ex. B.
    Page 6
    6
    one time “data dump” or request that the vendor create a special program capable of
    extracting photos based on time parameters.19
    The County has provided no specific
    information about the cost of obtaining the photos in this manner, but it indicated in
    correspondence to counsel for Mr. Prall that the cost for a “data dump” would be
    approximately $800, with additional costs for removing not public information and
    updating the files of inmates to reflect that the photo was copied and sent in response to
    a request.20
    The County also argues that it did not believe it was obligated to create a “unique
    method of access” for Mr. Prall because he apparently intends to use the photographs
    for commercial purposes. The County attached information to its response suggesting
    that Mr. Prall’s company, Citizen Information Services, posts the mug shots online, and
    then it or an affiliated company charges fees to individuals who want the photographs
    removed.21 The Administrative Law Judge understands the County’s reluctance to have
    the data used in this manner, but under the law the responsible authority is obligated to
    provide access to public data without regard to the nature of the person’s interest in the
    data.22
    The Administrative Law Judge concludes that there is probable cause to believe
    that the County violated Minn. Stat. § 13.03, subd. 3(c) and (e), by failing to provide
    copies of booking photos at a reasonable cost in response to Mr. Prall’s data practices
    request, at least after May 2011. Specifically, there is probable cause to believe that
    the standard fee of $5 was not intended to and does not reasonably approximate the
    actual cost of providing large volumes of photographs in the electronic format requested
    by the Complainant.
    There is also probable cause to believe the County violated Minn. Stat. § 13.03,
    subd. 2, by failing to have procedures in place to ensure that requests for government
    data are received and complied with in an appropriate and prompt manner.
    There is not probable cause to believe that the County failed to inform the
    Complainant in writing of the basis for a denial of access, as required by Minn. Stat.
    § 13.03, subd. 3(f). The County did not deny access to the photographs based on their
    classification; it offered to provide them for a fee that the Complainant asserts is
    unreasonable.
    An Order scheduling this matter for a prehearing conference and evidentiary
    hearing will be issued shortly.
    K.D.S.
    19 HCSO Response at 5-6.
    20 HCSO Response Ex. C.
    21 HCSO Response Exs. D & E.
    22 Minn. R. 1205.0300, subp. 2.
    Page 7
    7
    PREHEARING CONFERENCE AND HEARING PROCEDURES
    At the prehearing conference, preliminary matters will be addressed such as
    identifying the issues to be resolved, the number of potential witnesses and exhibits, the
    dates for filing exhibits and witness lists, and determining whether the matter may be
    disposed of without an evidentiary hearing.
    The evidentiary hearing has been ordered and will be conducted pursuant to the
    authority granted to the Administrative Law Judge by Minn. Stat. § 13.085. Information
    about the evidentiary hearing and copies of governing state statutes and rules may be
    obtained online at http://www.oah.state.mn.us and at http://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us. The
    Office of Administrative Hearings conducts proceedings in accordance with the
    Minnesota Rules of Professional Conduct and the Professionalism Aspirations adopted
    by the Minnesota Supreme Court.
    At the evidentiary hearing, all parties have the right to be represented by legal
    counsel, by themselves, or by a person of their choice if not otherwise prohibited as the
    unauthorized practice of law. In addition, the parties have the right to submit evidence,
    affidavits, documentation and argument for consideration by the Administrative Law
    Judge. The Administrative Law Judge must consider any evidence and argument
    submitted until a hearing record is closed, or may continue a hearing to enable the
    parties to submit additional testimony.
    All hearings must be open to the public, except that the Administrative Law
    Judge may inspect in camera any government data in dispute. The Administrative Law
    Judge may conduct a closed hearing to consider information that is not public data, and
    may issue necessary protective orders and seal all or part of the hearing record, as
    provided in Minn. Stat. § 13.085, sub. 4 (c). The Administrative Law Judge may close
    any portion of the hearing as necessary to prevent disclosure of not public data which
    could be disclosed while a party is presenting its arguments.
    COSTS AND FEES
    The Complainant has paid a filing fee of $1,000.00. If the Complainant
    substantially prevails in this matter, the Office of Administrative Hearings will retain
    $50.00 of the filing fee, refund the balance to the Complainant and charge the Hennepin
    County Sheriff’s Department and the Hennepin County Board with the actual costs
    incurred by the Office of Administrative Hearings in conducting this matter, up to a
    maximum of $1,000.00. In addition, if a Complainant substantially prevails, a rebuttable
    presumption exists that the complainant is entitled to an award of reasonable attorney
    fees, not to exceed $5,000. This award may be denied if the Administrative Law Judge
    determines that the violation is merely technical or that there is a genuine uncertainty
    about the meaning of the governing law.
    Page 8
    8
    If the Complainant does not substantially prevail in this matter, the Complainant
    will receive a refund of the filing fee, less any costs incurred by the Office of
    Administrative Hearings in conducting this matter.
    If the Administrative Law Judge determines that the complaint was frivolous or
    brought for the purposes of harassment, the Administrative Law Judge must order that
    the Complainant pay the Respondent’s reasonable attorney fees, not to exceed $5,000.
    The Complainant shall not be entitled to a refund of the filing fee.
    BURDEN OF PROOF
    The burden of proving the allegations in the complaint is on the Complainants.
    The standard of proof of a violation of chapter 13 is a preponderance of the evidence.
    DISPOSITION OF COMPLAINT
    At the conclusion of the evidentiary hearing, the Administrative Law Judge must
    determine whether the violation alleged in the complaint occurred and must make at
    least one of the following dispositions:
    (1) The Administrative Law Judge may dismiss the complaint.
    (2) The Administrative Law Judge may find that an act or failure to act
    constituted a violation of this chapter.
    (3) The Administrative Law Judge may issue a civil penalty against the
    Respondent of up to $300.
    (4) The Administrative Law Judge may issue an order compelling the
    Respondent to comply with a provision of law that has been violated; and
    may establish a deadline for production of data, if necessary.
    (5) The Administrative Law Judge may refer the complaint to the appropriate
    prosecuting attorney for consideration of criminal charges.
    The Administrative Law Judge must render a decision on the Complaint within
    ten business days after the hearing record closes. The Chief Administrative Law Judge
    shall provide for public dissemination of orders issued following a hearing. If the
    Administrative Law Judge determines that Respondent has violated a provision of law
    and issues an order to compel compliance, the Office of Administrative Hearings shall
    forward a copy of the order to the Commissioner of Administration. Any order issued
    pursuant to this process is enforceable through the district court for the district in which
    Respondent is located.
    Page 9
    9
    JUDICIAL REVIEW
    A party aggrieved by a final decision on a complaint filed under section 13.085 is
    entitled to judicial review of the decision as provided in Minn. Stat. งง 14.63 to 14.69.
    REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION
    Any party who needs an accommodation for a disability in order to participate in this
    hearing process may request one. Examples of reasonable accommodations include
    wheelchair accessibility, an interpreter, or Braille or large-print materials. If any party
    requires an interpreter, the Office of Administrative Hearings must be promptly notified.
    To arrange an accommodation, contact the Office of Administrative Hearings at 600
    North Robert Street, P.O. Box 64620, St. Paul, Minnesota 55164-0620, or call 651-361-
    7900 (voice) or 651-361-7878 (TTY)

  12. SFA Reporter December 29, 2012 at 1:39 pm Reply

    STATE OF INDIANA
    PUBLIC ACCESS COUNSELOR
    ANDREW J. KOSSACK
    MITCHELL E. DANIELS, JR., Governor
    Indiana Government Center South
    402 West Washington Street, Room W470
    Indianapolis, Indiana 46204-2745
    Telephone: (317)233-9435
    Fax: (317)233-3091
    1-800-228-6013
    http://www.IN.gov/pac

    July 15, 2011

    Mr. Kyle Prall
    Citizens Information Associates
    1604 Nueces Street
    Austin, TX 78701

    Re: Formal Complaint 11-FC-150; Alleged Violation of the Access to
    Public Records Act by the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police
    Department

    Dear Mr. Prall:

    This advisory opinion is in response to your formal complaint alleging the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department (the “IMPD”) violated the Access to Public Records Act (“APRA”), Ind. Code § 5-14-3-1 et seq. City of Indianapolis (“City”) Chief Deputy Corporation Counsel Andrea Brandes responded on behalf of the IMPD. Her response is enclosed for your reference.

    BACKGROUND

    In your complaint, you allege that IMPD denied you access to “booking photos/mugshots and arrest information” in violation of the APRA. The IMPD denied your request on the basis that it was of a commercial nature and cited to Ind. Code § 5-14-3-3(d) and (e) and Sec. 285-311 of the Revised Code of the Consolidated City and County of Indianapolis and Marion County (the “City Code”). You replied to IMPD and claimed that because your company, Citizens Information Associates (“CIA”) is a media company it is entitled to receive the records. Moreover, you argue that section 3 of the APRA does not permit an agency to deny access to records based on a belief that the information contained therein will be used for commercial purposes; rather, the APRA states that an agency can deny a requester access to additional information if previously-released data is used for commercial purposes.

    In response to your complaint, Ms. Brandes argues that CIA is not a news organization because it operates for-profit websites that outline financial terms and membership fees for users of the sites and make use of third-party advertising. Ms. Brandes also points to your duties with respect to strategic business development as listed on CIA’s website. As a result, IMPD determined that CIA intended to use the requested records for commercial purposes and denied the request.

    ANALYSIS

    The public policy of the APRA states that “(p)roviding persons with information is an essential function of a representative government and an integral part of the routine duties of public officials and employees, whose duty it is to provide the information.”
    I.C. § 5-14-3-1. IMPD is a public agency for the purposes of the APRA. I.C. § 5-14-3-2.

    Accordingly, any person has the right to inspect and copy the IMPD’s public records during regular business hours unless the records are excepted from disclosure as confidential or otherwise nondisclosable under the APRA. I.C. § 5-14-3-3(a).

    The portion of the APRA relevant to this request reads:
    [A] public agency that maintains or contracts for the maintenance of public records in an electronic data storage system shall make
    reasonable efforts to provide to a person making a request a copy of all disclosable data contained in the records on paper, disk, tape, drum or any other method of electronic retrieval if the medium requested is compatible with the agency’s data storage system. I.C. § 5-14-3-3.
    * * *

    A state agency may adopt a rule under IC 4-22-2, and a political
    subdivision may enact an ordinance, prescribing the conditions under which a person who receives information on disk or tape under subsection (d) may or may not use the information for commercial purposes, including to sell, advertise, or solicit the purchase of merchandise, goods, or services, or sell, loan, give away, or otherwise deliver the information obtained by the request to any other person for these purposes. Use of information received under subsection (d) in connection with the preparation or publication of news, for nonprofit activities, or for academic research is not prohibited. A person who uses information in a manner contrary to a rule or ordinance adopted under this subsection may be prohibited by the state agency or political subdivision from obtaining a copy or any further data under subsection (d).
    I.C. งง 5-14-3-3(d), (e). IMPD cites to Indpls. Code § 285-311 as the local ordinance that provides the City the authority to deny CIA’s request.

    Here, the parties dispute whether or not CIA is a commercial entity or a news organization for purposes of the APRA. However, the question is not what kind of entity requests access to electronic information but for what purpose that information is used by the requester. Subsection 3(e) states that agencies may prescribe “conditions under which a person who receives information . . . may or may not use the information for commercial purposes. . . .” The provision later exempts the usage of information “for the publication of news,” but presumably even news organizations could be restricted from using the information for strictly commercial purposes because subsection 3(e) simply applies to “a person who receives [the electronic] information.” For example, if a newspaper received the type of records sought in the request at issue here, it could publish a story about some aspect of the arrest process generally or about the particular arrestees specifically and fall under subsection 3(e)’s exemption for “publication of news.” However, the plain language of the provision suggests that the same newspaper could be restricted from establishing a for-profit, fee-based database on its website that used the information to “sell, advertise, or solicit the purchase of merchandise, goods, or services.” I.C. § 5-14-3-3(e).
    That said, I agree with CIA that the APRA — for better or worse — does not permit agencies to deny requests under subsection 3(e) where the requester has not already used previously-received information for commercial purposes. The only reference to denying a request in subsection 3(e) is the following: “A person who uses information in a manner contrary to a rule or ordinance adopted under this subsection may be prohibited by the state agency or political subdivision from obtaining a copy or any further data under subsection (d)” (emphasis added). The provision does not appear to permit agencies to deny requests based on the expected use of the requester; rather, it is only after a requester has used information for commercial purposes in violation of the conditions prescribed by the public agency that the agency may prohibit the requester from receiving additional information. Thus, while IMPD was not permitted to deny this request on the basis of subsection 3(e) of the APRA, IMPD could deny future requests from CIA if IMPD can prove CIA used information for purposes contrary to Indpls. Code § 285-311.

    CONCLUSION

    For the foregoing reasons, it is my opinion that IMPD did lack the authority to deny your request under Ind. Code § 5-14-3-3(e) if CIA had not already used information received through a previous request for commercial purposes. If CIA receives and uses the information for commercial purposes, however, the APRA permits IMPD to deny future requests from CIA under Ind. Code § 5-14-3-3(e) and Indpls. Code § 285-311.

    Best regards,

    Andrew J. Kossack
    Public Access Counselor

  13. skjoldur February 11, 2013 at 9:11 pm Reply

    Question – why do you believe Mugshots.com and BustedMugshots.com are the same outfit? I sort of think they are not. But wondering…

  14. Generic February 27, 2013 at 9:11 pm Reply

    Yes they are. In fact all of these companies, the Mugshot websites and sister websites are all owned by the same principals. Better yet, they started and own the removal of the mugshot service they advertise for too.

    Great monopolization of a new industry making huge money and profits off the misfortune and sometime innocent victims that add daily to this tremendous scam.

    In 2013 – contrary to very bad postings by some lawyers who specialize in family law (right) or estate and probate law (better yet) who posted their thoughts on this subject — be advised their posts are wrong period. There are many causes of action against the 100 or so Mugshot companies, whether in Florida or other states and causes of action against Google, Yahoo, etc. No one did their homework on this as internet law and legislation is very new.

    Anyway, the bottom line – way too many victims have been hurt, many new victims are added each day to this scam from these fucking criminals. Google, Yahoo and Bing, allow this to happen and am sure they will claim a denial of everything.

    The damages caused by these evil person and colleagues are so big, it is hard to fathom. Damages also continue to incur against future generations or current generation college students who will not be able to obtain employment, etc. amongst many of the destructive, intentional and malicious things these people have done.

    Patience is the key…..Karma is a bitch and she is pissed.

  15. Sheila Friedland March 9, 2013 at 7:21 am Reply

    The only way to stop the proliferation of mugshot sites that extort money from people and ruin lives is to depose the Google executives who perpetuate the scheme through fraud.

    Joel Stempler and I [Sheila Friedland] are bringing an action in Florida to depose these Google execs and strip away the cloak of anonymity from these crooks. Section 230 of the CDA does not give Google absolute immunity under the First Amendment.

    Join the follow-up class action in federal court
    Mark Daniel Friedland Abbeville LA.
    337-893-4388 knuntale@yahoo.com

  16. Concern Citizen March 24, 2013 at 8:17 am Reply

    INTERPOL – http://www.interpol.int/Forms/Contact_INTERPOL

    Criminal Resource Manual 1663 – Protection Of Public Records and
    Documents. “The taking of a public record or document is prohibited by

    18 U.S.C. § 641.”
    DOJ. Retrieved from http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm01663.htm

    18 USC § 1030 – Fraud and related activity in connection with computers
    (2) intentionally accesses a computer without authorization or exceeds authorized access, and thereby obtains—
    (C) information from any protected computer;

    18 USC § 641 — Public money, property or records
    Whoever embezzles, steals, purloins, or knowingly converts to his use or the use of another, or without authority, sells, conveys or disposes of any record, voucher, money, or thing of value of the United States or of any department or agency thereof, or any property made or being made under contract for the United States or any department or agency thereof;

    Whoever receives, conceals, or retains the same with intent to convert it to his use or gain, knowing it to have been embezzled, stolen, purloined or converted—

    18 USC § 1028A – Aggravated identity theft
    Whoever, knowingly transfers (steals), possesses, or uses (website), without lawful authority, a means of identification (mugshots) of another person shall, in addition to the punishment provided for such felony, be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 2 years.

    18 USC § 2319 — Criminal infringement of a copyright & 17 USC § 506 — Criminal offenses
    For the purpose of commercial advantage (website) and private financial gain (money).

    Governmental Prima Facie Evidence of name and likeness copyright: State Certified Birth Certificate, State Driver’s License, Passport and other government documents and records “created” to identify and validate name and likeness.

    18 USC § 2261A — Stalking
    (2) with the intent—
    (A) to kill, injure, harass, or place under surveillance with intent to kill, injure, harass, or intimidate, or cause substantial emotional distress to a person in another State or tribal jurisdiction or within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States; or
    (i) that person;

    18 USC § 1584 – Sale into involuntary servitude
    (a) Whoever knowingly and willfully holds to involuntary servitude or sells into any condition of involuntary servitude, any other person for any term, or brings within the United States any person so held, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.

    Internet Spyware (I-SPY) Prevention Act of 2007
    “Intentionally obtains (steals/screen scraps), or transmits (internet) to another person information with the intent to defraud (unpublish/repair reputation).”

    18 USC § 875 – Interstate communications
    Transmits (internet) communication interstate (world wide web) with the intent to “injure reputation” to extort (unpublish/repair reputation).

    18 USC § 873 — Blackmail

    Whoever, under a threat of informing, or as a consideration for not informing, against any violation of any law of the United States, demands or receives any money or other valuable thing, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

    18 USC § 1962 – Prohibited activities
    (b) It shall be unlawful for any person through a pattern of racketeering activity or through collection of an unlawful debt to acquire or maintain, directly or indirectly, any interest in or control of any enterprise which is engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce.

    18 USC § 880 – Receiving the proceeds of extortion
    A person(s) who receives, possesses, conceals, or disposes of any blackmail (unpublish/repair reputation) money.

    Bizarre Logic and Reasoning
    If kidnappers called the ransom amount the returning person fee would it bedazzle the system again? If the kidnappers rationalized their acts with the same logic would the system be mystified by them? Reasoning, they had to go through the hassle of kidnapping someone hence they are entitled to the returning person fee (Ransom Money).

    If blackmailers called the extortion amount the unpublish/reputation repair fee would it bedazzle the system? Further, if the blackmailers rationalized their acts with the same logic would the system by mystified be them? Reasoning, they had to go through the hassle of stealing government property, identity theft, stalking people, holding people to involuntary servitude, injuring their reputation, collecting an unlawful debt.

    Source(s):

    http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/human-trafficking/contact.html?ref=menuside

  17. SFA Reporter March 24, 2013 at 8:26 am Reply

    IP address: 184.72.221.63
    Host name: mugshots.com
    Alias: mugshots.com
    184.72.221.63 is from United States(US) in region North America

    TraceRoute from Network-Tools.com to 184.72.221.63 [mugshots.com]
    Hop (ms) (ms) (ms) IP Address Host name
    1 1 0 0 8.9.232.73 xe-5-3-0.edge3.dallas1.level3.net
    2 33 33 40 4.69.145.62 vlan60.csw1.dallas1.level3.net
    3 33 33 33 4.69.151.134 ae-63-63.ebr3.dallas1.level3.net
    4 33 33 33 4.69.134.22 ae-7-7.ebr3.atlanta2.level3.net
    5 34 34 34 4.69.132.86 ae-2-2.ebr1.washington1.level3.net
    6 33 33 33 4.69.134.130 ae-61-61.csw1.washington1.level3.net
    7 91 33 33 4.69.149.17 ae-1-60.edge3.washington1.level3.net
    8 40 40 40 4.59.144.174 amazon.com.edge3.washington1.level3.net
    9 40 40 40 72.21.220.133 –
    10 40 40 40 205.251.245.63 –
    11 Timed out Timed out Timed out –
    12 Timed out Timed out Timed out –
    13 Timed out Timed out Timed out –
    14 40 41 41 216.182.224.75 –
    15 Timed out Timed out Timed out –
    16 Timed out Timed out Timed out –
    17 Timed out Timed out Timed out –
    18 Timed out Timed out Timed out –

    Trace aborted.

    Retrieving DNS records for mugshots.com…
    DNS servers
    ns-20.awsdns-02.com [205.251.192.20]
    ns-744.awsdns-29.net
    ns-1462.awsdns-54.org
    ns-1864.awsdns-41.co.uk [205.251.199.72]

    Answer records
    mugshots.com A 184.72.221.63 60s
    mugshots.com NS ns-1462.awsdns-54.org 172800s
    mugshots.com NS ns-1864.awsdns-41.co.uk 172800s
    mugshots.com NS ns-20.awsdns-02.com 172800s
    mugshots.com NS ns-744.awsdns-29.net 172800s
    mugshots.com SOA
    server: ns-744.awsdns-29.net
    email: awsdns-hostmaster@amazon.com
    serial: 1
    refresh: 7200
    retry: 900
    expire: 1209600
    minimum ttl: 86400
    900s
    mugshots.com TXT v=spf1 include:amazonses.com -all 300s

    Authority records
    Additional records
    Whois query for mugshots.com

    Results returned from whois.internic.net:
    Whois Server Version 2.0

    Domain Name: MUGSHOTS.COM
    Registrar: FABULOUS.COM PTY LTD.
    Whois Server: whois.fabulous.com
    Referral URL: http://www.fabulous.com

    Name Server: NS-1462.AWSDNS-54.ORG
    Name Server: NS-1864.AWSDNS-41.CO.UK
    Name Server: NS-20.AWSDNS-02.COM
    Name Server: NS-744.AWSDNS-29.NET

    Status: clientTransferProhibited
    Updated Date: 18-jun-2012
    Creation Date: 12-apr-1996
    Expiration Date: 13-apr-2014

    Last update of whois database: Sun, 24 Mar 2013 15:24:31 UTC
    Results returned from whois.fabulous.com:

    Domain mugshots.com:
    International Whois Privacy Services Limited
    35 New Road, P O Box: 2391
    Belize City, Belize City 00000 BZ

    Administrative contact:
    Technical contact:
    Billing contact:
    International Whois Privacy Services Limited
    Domain Administrator
    intlwhoisprivacy@gmail.com
    35 New Road, P O Box: 2391
    Belize City, Belize City 00000 BZ
    Phone: +1 501-223-1253
    Fax: + 501-223-3918

    Record dates:
    Record created on: 1996-04-12 04:00:00 UTC
    Record modified on: 2013-03-05 22:22:01 UTC
    Record expires on: 2014-04-13 UTC

    Nameservers:
    ns-1462.awsdns-54.org
    ns-1864.awsdns-41.co.uk
    ns-20.awsdns-02.com
    ns-744.awsdns-29.net

    Note: Automated collection of data from this database is strictly prohibited.

    Network IP address lookup:
    Whois query for 184.72.221.63…

    Results returned from whois.arin.net:

    The following results may also be obtained via:

    http://whois.arin.net/rest/nets;q=184.72.221.63?showDetails=true&showARIN=false&ext=netref2

    NetRange: 184.72.0.0 – 184.73.255.255
    CIDR: 184.72.0.0/15
    OriginAS:
    NetName: AMAZON-EC2-7
    NetHandle: NET-184-72-0-0-1
    Parent: NET-184-0-0-0-0
    NetType: Direct Assignment
    Comment: The activity you have detected originates from a
    Comment: dynamic hosting environment.
    Comment: For fastest response, please submit abuse reports at
    Comment: http://aws-portal.amazon.com/gp/aws/html-forms-controller/contactus/AWSAbuse
    Comment: For more information regarding EC2 see:
    Comment: http://ec2.amazonaws.com/
    Comment: All reports MUST include:
    Comment: * src IP
    Comment: * dest IP (your IP)
    Comment: * dest port
    Comment: * Accurate date/timestamp and timezone of activity
    Comment: * Intensity/frequency (short log extracts)
    Comment: * Your contact details (phone and email)
    Comment: Without these we will be unable to identify
    Comment: the correct owner of the IP address at that
    Comment: point in time.
    RegDate: 2010-01-26
    Updated: 2012-03-02
    Ref: http://whois.arin.net/rest/net/NET-184-72-0-0-1

    OrgName: Amazon.com, Inc.
    OrgId: AMAZO-4
    Address: Amazon Web Services, Elastic Compute Cloud, EC2
    Address: 1200 12th Avenue South
    City: Seattle
    StateProv: WA
    PostalCode: 98144
    Country: US
    RegDate: 2005-09-29
    Updated: 2009-06-02
    Comment: For details of this service please see
    Comment: http://ec2.amazonaws.com/
    Ref: http://whois.arin.net/rest/org/AMAZO-4

    OrgAbuseHandle: AEA8-ARIN
    OrgAbuseName: Amazon EC2 Abuse
    OrgAbusePhone: +1-206-266-4064
    OrgAbuseEmail: ec2-abuse@amazon.com
    OrgAbuseRef: http://whois.arin.net/rest/poc/AEA8-ARIN

    OrgTechHandle: ANO24-ARIN
    OrgTechName: Amazon EC2 Network Operations
    OrgTechPhone: +1-206-266-4064
    OrgTechEmail: aes-noc@amazon.com
    OrgTechRef: http://whois.arin.net/rest/poc/ANO24-ARIN

    RTechHandle: ANO24-ARIN
    RTechName: Amazon EC2 Network Operations
    RTechPhone: +1-206-266-4064
    RTechEmail: aes-noc@amazon.com
    RTechRef: http://whois.arin.net/rest/poc/ANO24-ARIN

    RAbuseHandle: AEA8-ARIN
    RAbuseName: Amazon EC2 Abuse
    RAbusePhone: +1-206-266-4064
    RAbuseEmail: ec2-abuse@amazon.com
    RAbuseRef: http://whois.arin.net/rest/poc/AEA8-ARIN

    RNOCHandle: ANO24-ARIN
    RNOCName: Amazon EC2 Network Operations
    RNOCPhone: +1-206-266-4064
    RNOCEmail: aes-noc@amazon.com
    RNOCRef: http://whois.arin.net/rest/poc/ANO24-ARIN

    ARIN WHOIS data and services are subject to the Terms of Use
    available at: https://www.arin.net/whois_tou.html

  18. Twiceblessed21 December 23, 2013 at 1:07 am Reply

    Please help me. I have been trying for months to get my photo off of mugshots.com. The website now states it is no longer taking the $100 removal fee, but directs you to contact Internet Reputation which quoted me $2800 to remove. This is crazy. Contact me please twiceblessed21@gmail.com

  19. Geoff mckay January 20, 2014 at 9:37 pm Reply

    We are a group of volunteers and starting a new scheme in
    our community. Your website provided us with valuable info to work
    on. You have done a formidable job and our whole
    community will be grateful to you.

    http://fatersainat72oo.tumblr.com/

    milo.angulo@freenet.de

Leave A Comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s