HB 677 Florida- Websites Containing Information Concerning Persons Charged with Crimes

Keep contacting your State Representatives in Florida!

HB 677 Original Version

Florida bill calls for websites to delete some arrest mugs (Tampa Bay Online)


This entry was posted in State Bills and Acts and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

10 Responses to HB 677 Florida- Websites Containing Information Concerning Persons Charged with Crimes

  1. skjoldur says:

    I’m having a bit of difficulty finding the ebb and flow of the forum. Dialogue would be great, but there doesn’t seem to be a place for that?

    Are we any closer to knowing who exactly the various commercial operators are, and who really owns the websites?

    I’d love to see a discussion on public records law. I’ve been researching public records regulation for different states. So far, there’s not one bit that addresses state law enforcement departments putting arrest records on the internet, and global dissemination. How did law enforcement records get there in the first place?

    • Bordeos2000 says:

      You have some really good ideas, especially about public records.
      I think we’re beginning to see more effort from our government regarding passé open records laws and regulations.
      Maybe it’s about time the courts give us a blanket decision on exemption 7 because recent rulings have been divergent to say the least.
      Will work on an open discussion page too. Thanks!

  2. polkadot says:

    Is this true? In Florida they will allow us to demand removal for dismissed cases? If so, I would be EXTREMELY happy. It’s been bs having to deal with my mugshot over something as stupid as a revengeful ex.

  3. bubbagump says:

    It means that the FL legislature is not doing its job.

    Mugshots.com is extortion. The so-called “attorney” in charge of this site, Marc Epstein of Hallandale, FL is an extortionist. I went personally to his office to demand that my (expunged) record be immediately removed from his site, and he was watching what appeared to be child pornography.

    There is no justice in this godforsaken state. “Attorneys” like this can do as they please, whether it be soliciting little kids to have sex on camera, or extorting the general public for $400 at a time to have their names, addresses and other information that can be used to commit identity theft (if not worse) against them published on the Internet.

    This disgrace needs to be addressed by the halfwits in this state’s legislature – immediately. It is a crime against the taxpayers of this state to perpetuate extortion any further.

  4. Millin says:

    A few issues have come to my attention pertaining to the First Amendment and court proceedings. Due to developments in communications technology, a jury’s decision can be influenced by a prejudicial public opinion in highly publicized trials, which conflicts with the “impartial jury” clause of the Sixth Amendment. Another problem that developments in communications technology has presented regards to the public display of arrest records, since an arrest record can now perpetually deprive an innocent citizen of their reputation and career, which deviates from the intended values of the Fifth Amendment. I personally feel that the error lies in how we apply the Sixth Amendment. The following is my proposal to amend these conflicts within our constitution without disregarding it’s wisdom.

    Arrest Records:

    Public arrest records should be inclusive of the ethnicity, gender, and age of the accused, the general area in which the arrest was made, and the charges bestowed on the accused.

    Public arrest records should be exclusive of the name, image, and identifying numbers of the accused, which are to be kept sealed until after a verdict is reached.

    If an inquirer has the full name of the accused, they are only to be informed that the accused is detained and how to contact them.

    Court Proceedings and Records:

    It is the defendant’s decision if the hearing and trial are to be held publicly. If the defendant chooses a non-public trial: the trial will include an impartial jury and will be witnessed by a small impartial assemblage of the people, which are required to not speak of the trial until after a verdict is reached, and the defendant’s name and identifying numbers are to be kept sealed from the public release of all court records, yet the defendant maintains the right to make the information public whenever they so choose.

    If the defendant is found innocent: all personal information remains sealed from the public records, yet the defendant maintains the right to make the information public whenever they so choose.

    If the defendant is found guilty: a public conviction record is established, which is inclusive of the convict’s name, image, and charges which they are convicted of.

  5. Pingback: Pie Coaltrain

  6. Pingback: A Step in the Right Direction: NJ bill banning mug shot release prior to conviction | Class Action Against Mugshot Websites.com

Leave a Reply