Mugshots will no longer be available to the public in most circumstances if a bill passed narrowly by the West Virginia House of Delegates on Tuesday becomes law.
HB 4621, passed the lower chamber 54-46, with both Republicans and Democrats on either side of the vote. Under the bill, mugshots would not be released by the Division of Corrections and Rehabilitation and would be exempt from public records requests.
Proponents of the bill said it will maintain a defendant’s right to a fair trial and keep them from suffering from the shame of having a mugshot floating around on the internet, even if their charges are later dropped or they’re found not guilty.
Del. Tom Fast, R-Fayette, said the consequences of a mugshot can follow people around long after the case has been resolved. He recalled a case where a person shot a pitbull in self-defense and was arrested for animal cruelty.
“That mugshot hit the media,” Fast said. “The man was branded for life. Branded for life. It’s a horrible situation — it’s still a horrible situation, because of that mugshot.”
When a defendant is released, the state takes down their mugshot. But supporters of the bill said third-party websites will keep a mugshot up until someone coughs up the money to have it taken down.
This legislation would allow people to request a third-party site remove their mugshot and sue if they do not.
While the bill is intended to crack down on third-party mugshot websites, it also makes it so that the public and the media can’t access the pictures. While finding other photographs of a defendant are “fair game” according to Fast, accessing the actual mugshot is not.
Del. Michael Hornby, a Republican who owns a regional magazine in Berkeley County called “Around the Panhandle,” spoke out against the bill.
“I rise against this bill primarily because of the freedom of the press,” Hornby said. “As the owner of a news organization, I believe we should publish the news and publish photographs, so I’ll be voting against it.”
Over the last month and a half, lawmakers sent the bill to the floor from the Judiciary Committee, shelved it on the House’s inactive calendar and then sent it back to the committee for more discussion.
After sitting in committee for nearly a full month, lawmakers breathed life back into the bill and sent it through the House once again, just days prior to the deadline for a bill to make it out of its originating chamber.
The bill will now advance to the Senate.