2 6 [92 O p . A tt’ y A R R EST
C RI MINAL R ECORDS

– P UB L I C I NFOR MAT I ON A CT

– M UG S H O T IN P OSS E SS I ON OF P OLI CE D EPARTMENT I S N OT “C RI MIN AL H I ST ORY R E CORD I NFORMAT I ON ” B U T S HOUL D B E T REATE D AS I NVES T I GAT ORY R E C O RD S UB J E CT T O I NS PE CT I ON U NDER THE P UB L I C I NFOR MAT I ON A CT

J une 14, 2007

T h e H o n o ra b le J

o h n R . L e o

p o ld C ount y Execut i ve, A nne Arundel C ount y

Y o u r pre d ec esso r req u ested o u r o p inion co n ce rnin g d iscl o su re of “mug shot s ” i n t he pos s es s i on of t he A nne A r undel C ount yPol i ce D epar t m ent– i.e

. , booki ng p h o t ogr aphs of i ndi vi dual s w ho have been a r r es t ed by t he pol i ce de par t m ent

. I n par t i cul ar , m us tt he pol i ce depar t m entdi s cl os e a mug shoti n r es pons e t o a r eques tundert he P u b li c In fo rm ati o n A ct? O r d o the law s g o v ern ing “c ri m inal h ist o ry r ecor d i nfor m at i on” pr ecl ude t he pol i ce depar t m entfr om di s cl os i ng t h e p h o t o g r a p h ?
I n ourop inion, a mug shoti n t he pos s es s i on of a pol i ce depar t m ent i s not s ubj ect t o t he r es t r i ct i ons pl aced o n “cr i m i nal h isto ryre c o rd in f

o rm a tio n ” b y S tate a n d f e d e ra l law . R a th e r, it sh o u ld b e tre a ted a s a n in v e stig a to ryre c o rd o f th e p o lice d e p a rtm e n t. T hus , i ts houl d be di s cl os ed i n r es pons e t o a Publ i c I nfor m at i on A ct r eques tunl es s t he depa r t m entd eter m i nes t hatdi s cl os ur e w oul d be c o n tr a ry to th e p u b lic in te re s t.

I Backg r ound
A
. Mu g S h o ts
“M ug s hot ” i s t he t er m us ed fora phot ogr aph t aken as par tof th e b o o k in g p ro c e s s o f

a p e rs o n w h o h a s b e e n a rr e s te d

. See B lack ’s L aw D i ct i on ary p. 1040 ( 8 ed. 2004)

. T he pr act i ce of t aki ng th phot ogr aphs of ar r es t ed i ndi vi dual s began i n t he ea r l ypar tof t he 20 thG en. 26] 27

Th e B e rt ill on syste m, de vis e d by Alph on seB e rt ill on , a

c le rk in 1 the Paris Prefe ctureof Police, re lied on eleve n phy sical mea surements of an i n d iv id

u a l’ s b o dy , to g e th e r

w it hp h o to gr a

p h s an d n o te s of distinguishing ma

rks, for its identification sy stem. SeeHutc hin g s, Mo de rn Fo re ns ics: Ph otograp hy an d O the r S

us pe c ts , 9 C ar d o z o S tu d

. L. & L it e r atu

r e 2 2 9 , 2 3 4

- 3 5 ( 1 9 9 7 )

. T h e me a s ur e me nt s y s te m was late r superse ded by

the takingof finge rp ri n ts, although theprac tice of taking photographs wa s retaine d. Id . at 236. centur yas pol i ce de par t m ent s adopt ed t he B er t il l on s y s t em of c ri m in a l id e n tif

ic a tio n
. See D o w n s v . Sw a n n , 111 M d. 53, 57- 58, 73 A

. 6 5 3 ( 1 9 0 9 )

. Th e r a t i o n a l e f o r p r e s e r v i n g a r e c o r d of t he 1 appea r ance of t he i ndi vi dual w as t hat“i ti s nece s s ar yt o t he pr oper enfor cementof pol ice r egul at i ons and the s ecur i ng of t he pr i s oner f o r tria l th a t a f

u ll d e sc rip tio n o f

h im sh o u ld b e h a d in o rd e r th a t, i f he s houl d under t ake t o become a fugi t i ve fr om j us t i ce, t he pol i ce a nd det ect i ve depa r t m entm aybe i n pos s es s ion o f s uch i nfor m at i on as w i l l enabl e t hem t o have hi m i dent i fi ed, w her everhe maybe found

. . . ” Id . a t 5 8 -5 9

. T ypi cal l y , a mug shotcons i s t s of fr ont al and s i de vi ew s of t he head ( “mug”) of t he i ndi vi dual

. I t m ayhave a backdr op w i t h l i nes s how i ng t h e i n d i v i d u a l ’ s h e i g h ta n d a s i g n wi t h a n i d e n t i f i c a t i on num beras s i gned t o t he i ndi vi dual

. A m ug s hoti s t ypi cal l yr et ai ned byt he pol i ce dep artm en torl aw enfor cementagenc yt hatt ook t he p h o to g ra p h a n d d o e s n o t b e c o m e a p a rt o f th e c o u rt f iles re latin g to th e a rr e s t.
A m u g sh o t m a y b e c o m e p a rt o f a “ w a n ted ” p o ste r circ u late d to t he publ i c t hati dent i fi es a fugi t i ve s oughtb ya l aw enfor cement agenc yfora futur e off ens e or inv est i gat i on. A m ug s hotm aybe us ed i n t he cour s e of a n i nves t i gat i on of ot her cr i m es – forexampl e, as par tof a phot os pr ead s how n t o an ey e w i t nes s t o a cr i m e ori n a fac e book r evi ew ed bycr i m e vi ct i m s
. T he phot ogr aph mayl at erbe admi t t ed i nt o evi dence ata cr i m i nal t r i al t o ver i fyan i dent i fi cat i on th a t w a s m a d e
. See A n n o ta tio n , A dm is s i bi l i t y, and pr ej udi ci alef

f ect of adm is s i on, of

“m ug s hot

, ” “rogues’ g a ll er

y” phot ogr aph, or phot ogr aph t aken i n pr is on, of def endant i n cr i m i nalt r i al , 3 0 ALR 3 d 9 0 8 , § 2 (19 7 0 , 2 0 0 7 S u p p
. ).2 8 [92 O p . A tt’ y

The ne wspape r supported its position that mug s hots should be 2 publicly acc essible with a leg al analysis f rom the attorne y

representingthe Maryland-De laware-D .C. Press Association. See L etter f rom Alice N eff Lucan , E s qu i re, to L ori B la ir , Anne Ar undel County

Offic e of L aw (Oc tober 13, 2005).
Th e Mary

land -D e lawa

re -D .C Pre ss A sso c iatio n e la bo ra te d on it s 3 position i n a letter to this Office . L etter f rom Alice N eff

Lucan, E squire, to A ssi sta nt Atto rn e y

Ge ne ral Wil liam R. Varg a (August 21, 2006). B. Reque s t

f orMug Sho t

s f r om Count

y Poli c e D e

pa r t m e nt
A lo c a l n e w sp a p e r ra ise d th e iss u e o f p u b lic a c c e ss to m u g sh o ts att he C ount yPol i ce D epar t m ent

. T he P ol i ce D epar t m entr eques t ed 2 advi ce f r om t he C ount yO ffi ce of L aw , w hi ch pr ovi ded a m e m o ra n d u m a n a ly z in g th e iss u e . T h e m e m o ra n d u m re a so n e d th a t, b e c a u se a m u g sh o t is in f o rm a tio n a ss o c iate d w ith a n a rre st, it cons t i tut es c ri m inal h ist o ryrec o rd inform at i on ( “C H R I ”) , w hi ch may onl ybe di s s emi nat ed fors peci fi c purpos es
. T he mem or andum ackn ow l edg ed thatt here are excepti on s t hat al l ow t he p ub l i c rel ease of ce r t ai n inf

or m at i on s uch as w ant ed pos t er s , butt hata mug shot d o e s n o t f

a ll w ith in a n yo f

th o s e e x c e p tio n s
. I

d. A ccor di ngl y , t he C ount yO ffi ce of L aw concl uded t hatt he phot ogr aphs coul d notbe pr ovi ded t o t he pr es s
. M emora ndum fr om H ami l t on F. T y l er , Seni or A s s i s t antC ount yA t t or ney , t o P. T hom as Shanahan , C hi ef of Pol i ce (M a rc h 2 9 , 2 0 0 6 ). Y o u r p re d e c e ss o r su b se q u e n tlyre q u e ste d th is opi ni on. 3
II

P ubl i c I nf

orm at i on A ct
A c c e ss to p u b lic re c o rd s in M a ry lan d is g o v e rn e d b yth e P u b lic I nfor m at i on A ct( “PI A ”) , codi fi ed atA nnot at ed C ode of M ar y l and, St at e G over nm entA r t i cl e ( “SG ”) , §10- 611 et s eq
. T h e P IA g ra n ts t he publ i c a br oad ri ght of ac ces s t o publ i c r ecor ds i n t he cus t odyof th e S ta te o r a lo c a l g o v e rn m e n t. See S G § § 1 0 -61 2 , 1 0 -6 1 3 (a); Mas s ey v

. G al l ey , 3 9 2 M d . 6 3 4 , 6 4 2 , 8 9 8 A .2 d 9 5 1 (2 0 0 6 ).
T he phr as e “publ i c r ecor d” i ncl udes an ori gi nal and anycopyof anydocument ar ym at er i al , r egar dl es s of m edi um , t h at is “made by a uni tori ns t r um ent al i t yof t he St at e gov er nm entorof a pol i t i cal s ubdi vi s i on or r ece i ved byt he uni tori ns t r um ent al i t yi n connec t i on w i t h t he t r ans act i on of publ i c bus i nes s
. ” SG §10

- 611( g)

. T heG en. 26] 29

On theoth e r h and , ma

ny of the see xcep tio ns aretr

ump e d if 4 another law make s the rec ord ac ce s s i b l e. See SG 1 0- 61 6( a) ( “ Un le ss otherwise provided by

law ...”) ; SG §10-6 1 7 (a ) (same); SG §10-618(a) (same)

. The PIA d ef

i nes the “ official custodian” to be theoffice r or 5 employee who “is responsible for keeping thepublic rec ord.” SG §10- 611(d). Theterm “c ustodian” also includes any o ther a uthorized individual who has phy sical custody of a record. SG §10-611(c)

. sta tu te lists a n u m b e r o f e x a m p les o f

th e m a n y f

o r m s th a t a p u b lic r ecor d m ayt ake. A m ong t hos e i s a phot ogr aph. SG §10- 611( g) ( i i ) 8. T h u s , t h e r e i s n o q u e s t i o n t h a t a p h o t o g r a p h o f a s u s p e c tt a k e n b y a p o lic e d e p a r tm e n t, or in th e c u sto d yo f th e d e p a rtm e n t, i s a p u b lic re c o rd s u b

je c t to th e P IA

. P em ber t on v. B ethl ehem St eel C or p. , 66 M d . A p p . 1 3 3 , 1 6 8 , 5 0 2 A .2 d 1 1 0 1 , cer t

. deni ed , 306 M d. 289, 508 A .2 d 4 8 8 , cer t

. deni ed , 4 7 9 U .S . 9 8 4 (1 9 8 6 ).
N o t al l “pu b li c rec o rds” are av ail ab le to the p u b li c. T h ere are a number of exce pt i ons t o t he PI A ’ s gener al r ul e t hatpubl i c r ecor ds ar e ac ces s i bl e byt he publ i c. Fi r s t , t he P I A defe r s t o var i ous t ypes of l aw – comm on l aw pr i vi l eges , fede r al and St at e s t atut es , fede r al reg u lat ion s, co u rt rules, c o u rt o rde rs – that m ay p rec lud e d iscl o su re o f a re c o rd . S G § 1 0 -6 1 5

. S e c o n d , th e P IA itse lf re q u ire s th a t ce rta in r e c or ds a nd s pe c i fi e d c a t e go r i e s of i nfo r mat i on be w i t hh e l d. SG §§10- 616 and 10- 617. W i t h r es pectt o cer t ai n t ypes of r ecor ds , t he PI A gi ves t he cus t odi an of t he re cor d di s cr et i on t o deny acc es s t o t he r ecor d, ors ever abl e por t i ons of t he re cor d, i f t he cus t odi an “be l i eves th a t in sp e c tio n
.. . b yth e a p p lica n t w o u ld b e c o n tra ryto th e p u b lic i nterest. ” SG §10- 618. T hes e exc ept i ons t o t he gene r al r ul e of di s cl os ur e ar e notm ut ual l yex cl us i ve. T hus , m or e t han one exce pt i on m ayappl yt o a par t i cul arr ecor d. O f f i ce of t he At t or ney 4 G ener alv. G al l agher , 3 5 9 M d

. 3 4 1 , 7 5 3 A

. 2 d 1 0 3 6 ( 2 0 0 0 )

. F i n a l l y, t he PI A i ncl udes a ca t ch- al l pr ovi s i on t hat , i n t he eve nt no exce pt i on a p p lies a n d th e o f

f ic ia l cu sto d ian o f

th e re c o rd b e liev e s th a t it s 5 di s cl os ur e “w oul d caus e s ubs t ant i al i nj ur y t o t he publ i c i nt er es t , ” t he offi ci al cus t odi an mayt empora r i l yw i t hhol d t he r ec o r d and s eek a cour tor derpr event i ng di s cl os ur e. SG §10- 619.
In o u r view , tw o o f th e e x ce p ti o n s to d iscl o su re u n d er the P IA p o tential lyap p ly to m u g sh o ts. If a m u g sh o t i s co n side red C H R I, t hen t he St at e s tat u te and fe der al r egul at i ons r es t r i ct i ng t he d isse m in ati o n o f C H R I m ay li m itit s d iscl o su re u n d er the P IA3 0 [92 O p . A tt’ y

Th e qu e sti on

po se d to us c on c e rn e d b oo kin gph oto gra p h s o f a du lt 6 arre stees in the possession of a police depa

rtment, and weconfineour analysis to the laws that may g overn disclosureof those photographs. A mugsh ot o f a

juv e nil e take n in

c onne c tio n w ithhis or

he r a rre st wo uld ordin ari ly bec on fi de nti a l pu

rs ua nt to the s tatut e g ov e rn ingjuv e nil e re co rd s
. Ann o t at edC o d e o f M aryl an d , C o urt s & Ju d i ci al P ro ce ed i n gs Article, §3- 8A-27. In addition, othe r laws may g overn photographs of de fenda nts in the possession of other c riminal justice ag encie s. For e x ample, Mar yland law re qu ir e s th e Di vis ion

of Cor re c tio n to inc lud e a

ph oto gra ph of an inmate in the inmate’s ca se re cord, but plac es spec ific re strictions on disclosure of the c ontents of th e ca s e rec ord. SeeAnnotated Code of Maryland, Correc t i o nal Service s Article, §§3- 601(a) (2), 3- 602; 86 Opinions of the Attor ne yGe ne ra l 22 6, 22 8- 29 (2 00 1) ; se eals o Cowles Publishing Co. v. Spokane Po l i ce Dep’t., 987 P.2d 620, 624 (Wash. 1999) (en ba nc) (h oldingthat si mil ar Wa sh ington statut e re nd e re d jailh ou seand arre st photos ex empt from disclosureunder public records statute).
In 2005, M ary

land joined the National Crime Prevention and 7 Privacy Compact, ena cted by

Congress in 1998. CP §10-237 et seq .; see als o 42 U.S.C. §14611 et seq

. Th at law g ov e rn s int e rs tate and feder a l- (continued...) p u rsu a n t to S G § 1 0 -6 1 5 (2 )(i) a n d (ii). In a d d iti o n , if a m u g sh o t is 6
cons i der ed an i nves t i gatoryrec o rd, t h e P IA ’s discre ti o n aryexce pt i on s e tf o r t h i n S G § 1 0

- 6 1 8 ( f

) w o u l d a l s o a p p l y.
III
A n a ly sis
A
. R estri cti on s on D isclosu re of Crim in al H istory R ecord I nf or m ati on
T he s t atut e es t abl i s hi ng t he M ar y l and C r i m i nal J us t i ce In f o rm a tio n S y ste m (“ C JIS ” ) re stric ts th e d iss e m in a tio n o f C H R I in t he pos s es s i on of l aw enfor cementagenc i es s u ch as l ocal pol i ce d ep artm en ts. A n n o tat e d C o d e o f M ary land , C ri m inal P roc ed u re A r t i cl e ( “C P”) , § 1 0

- 201 et s eq. T hatl aw der i ves fr om , and i ncorpor at es , a re l at ed fe der al s t atut e and r egul at i ons
. A s expl ai ned a b o v e , the P IA in c o rp o ra tes re stric tio n s o n d isc lo su re o f p u b lic r ecor ds t hatar e i m pos ed by“ot herl aw
. ” SG §10- 615. T hus , i f m ug s hot s fel l w i t hi n the d efi ni t i on of C H R I , a pol i ce de par t m ent re sp o n d in g to a P IA re q u e st f o r su c h p h o to g ra p h s m u st c o m p lyw ith t he rest ri ct i on s of t he S t at e C JI S st at ute and rel at ed fe deral l aw s. 7G en. 26] 31

(...continued) 7 state ex chang es of CHRI for noncriminal justice uses. The Compact does not reduc e oblig ations of the State under the CJ I S statut e or the fe deral CHRIregulations with respec t to its own re cords. CP §10-246(c ).
The ter m does not include “iden t i fication information such as 8 fing erprint r ecords if such information does not indicate the individual’s involvement with the criminal justice sy stem.” 28 CFR §20.3(d)

. F e de ral law re qu ir e s the Attor ne y Ge ne ral of

theUn ite d St ate s to 9 “ac quire, c ollect, classify , and pre serveidentification, criminal identification, crime, and othe r records” a nd to “exchang e such records and information with, and for the of ficial use of

, ... the States, cities, and

(continued...) 1. F ederal L aw
T he feder al l aw gover ni ng s t at e C H R I s y s t ems i s l i nked t o t he fede r al m onet ar yas s i s t ance that has s uppor t ed t he cr eat i on and m ai nt enanc e of t hos e s y s t ems. Si nce 1973, fede r al l aw has at t ache d v a rio u s c o n d iti o n s to th is f in a n c ial su p p o rt, i n c lu d in g re q u ire m e n ts t hatSt at e s y s t ems i ncl ude di s pos i t i on as w el l as ar r es tdat a, t hatt he in f o rm a tio n b e k e p t cu rre n t, th a t “th e se c u ritya n d p riv a c yo f a ll i nfor m at i on i s adequa t el ypr ovi ded for , ” t hatt he i nfor m at i on be us ed onl y for “l aw enfor cement and cr i m i nal j us t i ce and o ther l aw ful p u rp o se s,” a n d th a t th e S tate h a v e p ro c e d u re s to c o rre c t in a c c u ra te o r i n co m p let e inf

o rm ati o n
. 4 2 U

. S

. C

. § 3 7 8 9 g (b).
T h e D e p a rtm e n t o f

Ju stic e h a s is s u e d re g u latio n s in ten d e d to “as s ur e t hat[C H R I ] w her everi tappea r s i s co ll ec t ed, s t or ed, and dis sem i na ted i n a m ann er t o en sure the acc uracy , com plet eness, cur r ency , i nt egr i t y , and s ecur i t yof s uch i nfor m at i on and t o pr ot ect i n d i v i d u a l p r i v a c y
. ” 2 8 CF R § 2 0

. 1

. Th e r e gu l a t i o n s d e f i n e CHRI a s “ in f o rm a tio n c o llec ted b yc rim in a l ju stic e a g e n c ies o n in d iv id u a ls co n sis ti ng of identi fi able descr i pti on s and n otat i on s of arr est s, de t e n t i o n s , i n d i c t me n t s , i n f o r ma t i o n , o ro t h e rf

o r ma l c r i m i nal c h a rg e s, a n d a n y d isp o sitio n a risin g th e re f ro m , in c lu d in g a c q u itt a l, s e nt e nc i ng , c or r e c t i on a l s upervi si on , a nd r e l e a s e
. . . . ” 28 CFR § 2 0 .3 (d ). T h e p h ra se “ c rim in a l ju stic e a g e n c y ” in c lu d e s th e c o u rts

8
a n d a g e n c ie s in v o lv e d in th e “ a d m in is tr a tio n o f c ri m in a l ju s tic e ,” su c h a s a p o lice d e p a rtm e n t. 2 8 C F R § 2 0 .3 (b ), (g ); see al so 28 CFR Par t20 A ppendi x ( di s cus s i on of §20. 3( g) )

. T he r egul at i ons pr ovi de s epar at e rul es for s t at e re cor d s y s t ems and re cor ds m ai nt ai ned byt he F ed era l B u rea u o f In v esti g ati o n (“F B I”). 93 2 [92 O p . A tt’ y

(...continued) 9 penal a nd other institutions.” 28 U.S.C. §534(a)(1) and (4) . The Attorne y Gen eral has del egatedres po ns ib il ity for th ese r ecor ds to th e FBI . 2 8 C FR §0.85(b). B eca

use this op i n i o n co n cer

ns mug shots that are par t of a police depa

rtment’s own re cords a

nd not p h o t ographs that a police depar tment may

have obtained through the FB I , we d o not discuss the regulations pertainingto the latter re cords. The regulations apply to any ag ency whose c ollection, storag e, 10 or dis se min atio n o f CH RI ha s be e n su pp or te d by fe de ral fu

ndingava ila

ble afte r July 1, 1973, pursuant to Title Iof the Omnibus Crime Control and Sa feStr e e ts A c t. 2 8 CF R §2 0. 20 (a); see also 63 Opinions of the Attorney Ge ne ra l 197, 204 (1978).
“No nc onvic tio n d ata ” is d e fine d a s f oll ow s: 11

... arrest information without disposit i o n i f an interval of oneyear

has ela psed from the date of arre st a nd no a c tiv e pros e c uti on

of th e cha rg e is pending ; inf

o rm ation disclosing that the police (continued...) T h e re g u latio n s re late d to sta te r e c o rd sy ste m s ap p lyto a n ysta te orl ocal agenc yt hat co ll ec ts, s t or es , ordi s s emi nat es C H R I

. 28 10 C F R P art 20 , S u b p art B (“S tat e a n d L o ca l C ri m inal H ist o ryR ec o rd In f o rm a tio n S y ste m s” ). T h e re g u latio n s e sta b lish sta n d a rd s f o r sta te C H R I s y s t ems, i ncl u d i n g th e c o mpl e t e n e s s , acc ur acy , di s s emi nat i on, a n d se c u rity o f su c h re c o rd s. C o m p lete a n d a c c u ra te r e c o rd s a re to b e m a in ta in e d in a “ c e n t r a l re p o s ito ry.” 2 8 C F R § 2 0 .2 1 (a ). A crim inal justi ce ag en cy is to qu ery the ce n tr al rep o sit o ryb e fo re di s s emi nat i ng anyC H R I “unl es s i t can be as s ur ed t hatt he mostupt o- dat e di s pos i t i on dat a i s bei ng us ed. ” Id

. T h e re g u latio n s d ra w a d istin c tio n b e tw e e n C H R I th a t re late s to pendi ng pr ocee di ngs and pr ocee di ngs t hath av e re s ul t ed i n a convi ct i on, on t he one ha nd, and C H R I t hatr el at es t o pr ocee di ngs t hatdi d not r es ul t i n a convi ct i on, on t he ot her

. W i t h r es pect t o t he for m ercat egor y , the fede r al r egul at i ons pl ace no l i m i t at i ons on d iss e m in a tio n . A sta te m a y ro u tin e lym a k e a v a ilab le c o n v ictio n d a ta a n d p e n d in g c h a rg e s, if it ch o o se s to d o so , o r i t m a ylim it d is s e m in a tio n . 2 8 C F R P a rt 2 0 A p p e n d ix

. W i t h r es pectt o “nonconvi ct i on dat a”– gener al l y ar r es t s orot her pr ocee di ngs t hathave not r es ul t ed i n a convi ct i on – t he r egul at i ons 11G en. 26] 33

(...continued) 11 have elec ted not to ref er a matter

to a prosec utor, that a prose cut or has e lected not to commenc e criminal pr o ceeding s, or that proc eeding s have been indefinitely

postponed; and information that the reha s b e e n a

n a c qu itt a l or

a dis mis sa l. 28 CFR §20.3(q). r equi r e t hats t at es s ets om e par amet er s on t he di s s emi nat i on of t hat cl ass of C H R I, bu tult i m at el ydefe r t o the st at es on w hat th o se p a ra m e ter s s h o u ld b e . 2 8 C F R § 2 0 .2 1 (b ); s ee al s o 28 CFR Par t20 A ppendi x. T he r egul at i ons al l ow di s s emi nat i on of nonconvi ct i on dat a t o cr i m i nal j us t i ce agenc i es for cr i m i nal j us t i ce a dm i ni s t r at i on an d crim inal justic e a g en cy em p loy m en t. 2 8 C F R § 2 0

. 2 1 (b)(1 ). Such dat a mayal s o b e d isse m i nat ed as par tof an a gr eementfor s er vi ces r el at ed to t he admi ni s t r at i on of cr i m i nal j us t i ce a nd for rese arc h an d stat istic a l p u rpo ses. 28 C F R § 2 0

. 2 1 (b)(3 ) an d (4). F in a lly , n o n c o n v ic tio n d a ta m a yb e d iss e m in a ted to “ [ i]n d iv id u a ls and age nci es foranyp u rpo se aut hor i zed bys t atut e, or di nance , exec u ti v e o r der , orcour tr ul e, deci s i on, oror der , as cons t r ued by a pp r op r i a t e St a t e orl oc a l of fi c i a l s ora ge nc i e s [. ] ” 28 CFR §20. 21( b) ( 2)

. H ow ever , t he r egul at i ons m ake cl ear t hatt heydo not m a n d a te th a t a s tate d iss e m in a te s u c h in f o rm a tio n a n d th a t sta te offi ci al s ar e t o det er m i ne w het her di s s emi nat i on i s r equi r ed byl ocal l aw
. 28 C FR §20. 21( c) ( 3)

. T he r egul at i ons t hus gi ve s t at es s ubs t ant i al di s cr et i on t o adoptpol i ci es that s ever el yl i m i tt he avai l abi l i t yof nonconvi ct i on C H R I or , on t he ot her hand, t hatm ake i tw i del yavai l abl e. A s t he D epar t m ent of J us t i ce c om m ent ar yt o t he r egul at i ons expl ai ns , “a St at e coul d pl ace a t ot al ban on d iss e m in a tio n [ o f

n o n c o n v ic ti o n d a ta] if it so w ish e d . T h e S tate coul d, on t he ot herhand, enac tl aw s aut hor i zi ng any m ember of t he p ri v ate se ctor to h av e a cc ess to n o n co n v ictio n d a ta. ” 2 8 C F R P art 20 A ppendi x. A n y d iss e m in a tio n o f C H R I to a n o n c rim in a l ju stic e a g e n c yis t o be l i mi t e d t o t h e p u rp o s e f o rwh i c h i twa s g i v e n
. 2 8 CFR §20. 21( c) ( 1)

. T he exi s t ence of C H R I i s not t o be confi r m ed for any p e rso n o r a g e n c y if th a t p e rso n o r a g e n c y is n o t elig ib le to a c tu a lly re c e iv e th e in f

o rm a tio n . 2 8 C F R § 2 0 .2 1 (c )( 2 ).
T h e f e d e ra l re g u latio n s d o n o t ap p lyto C H R I c o n tain e d in cer t ai n t ypes of r ecor ds , i ncl uding “[p] os t er s , announce m ent s , or l i st s for i den t i fy i ng or app rehend i ng fug i t i ves or w an ted p ers on s”3 4 [92 O p . A tt’ y

Also excluded is CHRIfound in court r ecords of public judicial 12 proc e e din g s, pu

bli sh e d c ourt

or a dmi nis tr ativ e op ini on s and pu bli c judic ia l, a dmi nis tr ativ e or leg isl ativ e proc e e din g s, re c ords of tr a ff ic offe nses maintained by

motor vehicle ag encie s, and announcements of executive cleme ncy . 28 CFR §20.20(b)( 3)-( 6).
Th e re gulatio n r e a ds : 13
No thi ngin t

he sere gulatio ns pr e ve nts a crim in a l j u s ti c e a g e n c y

f r o m dis c lo s in gto the public criminal history

rec ord information related to t heof fe ns e fo r whic h an indivi du a l is c ur re ntly wi thi n th e c ri min a l ju sti c e sy stem . N or is a criminal justice ag ency prohi b ite d from confirmingprior cr i m i n al h i s t o ry rec ord information to members of the news media or a ny other person, upon specif ic inquiry as to whethe r a name d individual w as ar rested, de tained, indicted, or whe ther a

n information or other formal c harg e wa s filed, on a specific date, if the arrest rec ord informat i on or criminal record information disclosed is ba sed on d at a ex cluded by [§20 .2 0(b) ]. Th e re gulatio ns do no t pro hib it the dissemination of cri minal history rec ord infor matio n f or purp os e s o f i nte rn atio na l trave l, such as i ssuing visas a

nd grantingof citizenship. and “[ o] r i gi nal r ecor ds of entr ys uch as pol i ce bl ot t er s m ai nt ai ned by cr i m i nal j us t i ce agenc i es , compi l ed chr onol ogi cal l yand r equi r ed by l a w or l o n g s t a n d i n g c u s t o m t o b e ma d e p u b l i c
. . . ” 2 8 CFR § 2 0 .2 0 (b )(1 ) a n d (2 ). F u rth e rm o re , the re g u latio n s d o n o t p ro h ib it 12
a c rim in a l ju stic e a g e n c yf ro m p u b liclyd isc lo sin g C H R I re late d to an off ens e forw hi ch an i ndi vi dual i s cur r ent l yw i t hi n t he cr i m i nal justi ce sy stem

. 2 8 C F R § 2 0

. 2 0 (c). 13
2. M aryl and C ri m i nal Just i ce I nf orm at i on Sy s t em
In 1 9 7 6 , the G e n e ra l A ss e m b lye n a c ted th e C JIS sta tu te to c r e a te a u n if

o rm m a n a g e m e n t sy ste m f o r m a n a g in g C H R I in M a ryla n d . C h a p te r 2 3 9 , L a w s o f M a ryla n d 1 9 7 6 , n o w c o di f i ed at A n n o tat ed C o d e o f M ary land , C ri m inal P ro ce d u re A rt icl e (“ C P ”), §10- 201 et

s eq
. T he Legi s l atur e expr es s ed an i nt ent“t o cr eat e and m ai nt ai n an accur at e and e ffi ci entcr i m i nal j us t i ce i nfor m at i on s y s t em” t o s er ve t he nee ds of cr i m i nal j us t i ce uni t s foracc ur at e andG en. 26] 35

The statut e al so cre ated the Criminal Just ice Information 14 Advisory Boa rd to monit o r th e o peration of CJ I S and to make rec ommendations for re gulat i o n s , rules and procedures g overningthe sy stem. CP §10-207 et seq.
Th e statut e a lso a

uth orize s th e Court

of Ap pe a ls t o p ro mul g ate 15 simil ar r ules for thejudicial branc h. The Court h as ad o pted rules conce rningthe transmittal of CHRIby the cour ts to the Central Repository and the inspection of CHRIin court re cords. See Mary land Rules 16-308, 16-503. Other regulations gove rn criminal hist ory chec k s for pa

rticular purposes such as working with c hildren, working in a dult dependent c are pr o gr ams , an d

h o ld e r s o f

c o mm e r c ial d

riv e r li c e n s e s wh o transport hazardo us mate ri a l. C OM AR 12 .1 5. 02 - 1 2. 15 .0 4. Nume ro us State statutes a lso re qu ir e c ri min a l ba c kgro un d c he c ks in c onne c tin gwi th various licensingscheme s and public sec tor employ ment. “Criminal justice unit” is defined in some de tail in CP §10- 16 201(f)

. cur r enti nfor m at i on and t o ens ur e t he “r i ght o f p ersons t o be fr ee f r o m i mp r o p e ra n d u n wa r r a nt e d i n t r u s i o n s i n t o t h e i rp r i v a c y
. ” CP §1 0

- 2 0 3 ( 1 ) ( i i )

- ( i i i )

. Th e l e g i s l a t i o n was d e s i g n e d t o e n s u r e t hat M ar y l and’ s s y s t em com pl i ed w i t h t he fe der al r egul at i ons
. C P §10- 2 0 3 (1 )(i); see al

so M em o ran d u m o f T h o m as P ed d icord , G o v ern o r’s L egi s l at i ve O ffi ce, t o G ener al A s s embl y conce r ni ng Senat e B i l l 415 and H ous e B i l l 1106 (F eb rua r y12, 1976) atp. 3; M emora ndum of T hom as Peddi cor d, G over nor ’ s L eg i s l at i ve O ffi ce, t o G ener al A s s e m b ly co n c e rn in g H o u s e B ill 1 1 0 6 (A p ri l 1 , 1 9 7 6 ) a t p .1

. T he s t a t u t e e s t a b l i s h e d a CJ I S Ce n t r a l Re p o s i t o r yi n t he D ep artm en t of P u b li c S af ety an d C o rrecti o n al S erv ices (“D P S C S ”). C P §10- 213. T he G ener al A s s embl yacc or ded t he S ec ret ar yof

14 D PSC S br oad aut hor i t y t o adopt r egul at i ons r el at i ng to ex ecut i ve br anch a genci es and l ocal c r i mi n a l j u s t i ce a genci es t hat , among ot her t hi ngs , “r egul at e t he col l ect i on, r epor t i ng, and di s s emi nat i on of [C H R I ]

. . . ” C P §10- 221( a) ( 1) and ( b) ( 1)

. T he Secr et ary has 15
exer ci s ed t hataut hor i t yt o adoptr egul at ion s tha tr ei t er at e and e la b o ra te o n th e C J IS s ta tu te

. See C O M A R 1 2 .1 5 .0 1

. E ach cri m i nal j ust i ce un i t– w h ich bydefini t i on i ncludes a pol i ce de par t m ent – m us tr epor tC H R I t o t he C J I S C ent r al 16 Re p os i t or ya c c o r d i n g t o s p e c i f i e d t i me t a b l e s a n d p r o c e d u r e s
. CP §10- 214. T he Secr et ar yof D PSC S spe ci fi es “cont ent , for m at , and3 6 [92 O p . A tt’ y

In o rd er to avoid duplicate r eporting , the statute allows the 17 Secre tary and the Court to s p ec i fy repor ting of particula r eve nts by particula r units. CP §10-215(b)

. me d i a f o rCH RI r e p o r t e d t o t h e Ce n t r a l Re p o s i t o r y
. ” CO M AR 1 2 .1 5 .0 1 .0 9 . A p o lice d e p a rtm e n t o r o th e r c rim in a l ju stic e u n it i s fr ee t o m ai nt ai n C H R I t hat i s m or e det ai l ed t han t hatr epor t ed t o t he C en tr al R ep o sit o ry
. C P § 1 0 -21 4 (e).
F o r pu rp o se s o f

th e M a ry lan d sta tu te, C H R I is d e f in e d sim ilarly to th e f e d e ra l re g u latio n s, b u t in so m e w h a t g re a ter d e tail. It is d e f i n e d g e n e r a l l y a s “ d a t a t h a ta r e d e v e l o p e d o rc o l l e c t e d b y a c rim in a l ju stic e u n it ab o u t a p e rso n a n d th a t p e rta in to a re p o rta b le e v e n t. ” C P § 1 0

- 2 0 1 (d )(1 ); see al so C O M A R 12

. 15

. 01

. 03 B (3)

. A l i st of “report able ev ents ” i s it em i zed i n C P §1 0-215 (a) , w i t h the provis o t hatt he l i s tm aybe expa nded byt he Secr et ar yof D P S C S by regul at i on or byt he C ou rtof A pp eal s by rul e. Incl ud ed o n the l i st 17 i s “ a n a r r e s t

. ” CP § 1 0

- 2 1 5 ( a ) ( 2 )

. Th e s t a t u t e e x c l u d e s c e r t a i n i t e ms f ro m th e d e f

in iti o n o f C H R I

– a m o n g o th e r th in g s, d a ta c o n tain e d in i nt el l i gence ori nves t i gat or yfi l es , pol i ce w or k pr oductr ecor ds us ed onl yforpol i ce i nves t i gat i ons , pol i ce bl ot t erent r i es , and w ant ed p o sters. C P § 1 0 -20 1 (d)(3 ); C O M A R 1 2

. 1 5

. 0 1

. 0 3 B (3)(a), ( c).
W h ethe r C H R I is in the cu stod y o f th e C JIS C en tr al R ep o sit o ry ora l ocal cr i m i nal j us t i ce a gency , t he gene r al s t atut or yr es t r i ct i on on t he di s s emi nat i on of C H R I i s t he s ame:

E x c e p t in a c c o rd a n c e w ith a p p lica b le f eder all aw and r egul at i ons , a cr i m i nal j us t i ce uni t an d t he C ent r al R epos i t or ym aynot d issem inate [ C H R I].
C P §10- 219( a) ( emphasis suppl i ed)

. T he D PSC S r egul at i ons s i m i l ar l ys t at e:

T h e C ent r al R epos i t or yand ot hercr i m i nal just i ce age ncies m ayno taccess or di ssem i nate [C H R I ] exce pti n accor dance w i t h fede r al and St at e l aw s and r egul at i ons and t h e re gul at i ons p rom u lgated p u rsua n t t o [C P § 1 0 -22 1 ].
C O M A R 1 2 .1 5 .0 1 .1 0 A

.G en. 26] 37

Subject to an exception conce rn i ngpendingcriminal 18 p ro ce ed i n gs , ani n d i v i d

u al h as th e r i ghtt o ac ce s s h i s o r h er o wnC HR I, including inf

ormation in the custody

of a loc al criminal justice ag ency and a right the challeng e the c ompleteness, c o n tents, acc urac y , or dissemination of such information. See CP §§10-222 - 10-227; COMAR 12.15.01.05 - .07.
Som e state statut e s g ov e rn ing CH RI make c le ar that mu gsh ots 19 arepublicly available

. SeeNeb. Rev. Stat. Ann. §29-3521( 1) (statingthat “photographs take n in conjunction with an arre s t for purpose s of ide nti fi c atio n o f t

hearre ste d p e rs on ” arepu bli c ly ava ila ble ). Some statutes specify

that such photographs in the posses s i o n of the c entra l rep o s it o r y ma y b e ma d e av a il a

b le to th e p u

b li c w it h th e a s s e nt of the individual to whom the photogra ph perta ins. See W. Va

. Co d e, § 1 5 -2- 24 (d); W est Virginia State Policev. Taylor , 499 S.E.2d 283 (W . Va. 1997). T he t er m “di s s emi nat e”, w hi ch i s n o t de fi ned i n t he fe der al re g u latio n s, h a s p a ra llel, th o u g h n o t id e n tica l, de f in iti o n s in th e S tate sta tu te ( “ to tra n sm it [C H R I] in a n yf o rm ” ) a n d r e g u latio n s (“ to tr an sm itC H R I i n an yo ra l o r w rit ten f o rm ”). C P § 1 0 -20 1 (g); C O M A R 12. 15. 01. 03B ( 7)

. T r ans m i s s i ons w i t hi n a cr i m i nal j us t i ce uni t , t o t he C ent r al R epos i t or y , or t o anot hercr i m i nal j us t i ce uni tfor s ubs equen t pro ce ed ing s relati n g to the sam e c ri m e a re e x clud ed fr om th e d e f in itio n o f

d is s e m in a tio n
. I

d. I n addi t i on, t he r egul at i ons al l ow di s cl os ur e of CH R I by a law enfor cementagenc y“foror d u r i n g t h e c o n d u c to f

a p u b l i c j u d i c i a l p r o c e e d i n g
. ” CO M AR 12. 15. 01. 03. B ( 7) ( excl udi ng s uch d isc l os ur es fr om defi ni t i on of

“ d iss e m in a te” ); see al

so C r i m i nal H i s t or yR ecor ds I nfor m at i on U s er A gr eement( r evi s ed 10/ 25/ 05) A ppendi x, p. 13.
U ndert he D PSC S r egul at i ons , a noncr i m i nal j us t i ce a gencyor i ndi vi dual m ay notnor m al l yobt ai n C H R I fr om a cr i m i nal j us t i ce a g e n c y , o t h e r t h a n t h e CJ I S Ce n t r a l Re p o s i t o r y
. CO M AR 12. 15. 01. 10B

. T he r egul at i ons s etfor t h i n s om e det ai l t he 18
c irc u m sta n c e s u n d e r w h ich th e C e n tra l R e p o sito ryw ill d iss e m in a te C H R I oraut hor i ze a cr i m i nal j us t i ce a gency , s uch as a pol i ce d e p a rt m e n t, to d o s o . C O M A R 1 2 .1 5 .0 1 .1 0 th ro u g h 1 2 .1 5 .0 1 .1 3

. 3
. W h e t h e r M u g S h o t s a r e CHRI
T he M ar y l and C J I S s t atut e does notexpl i ci t l yaddr es s t he s t atus of m ug s h o t s i n t h e p o s s e s s i o n o f a p o l i c e d e p a r t me n t

. Norhave 193 8 [92 O p . A tt’ y

The Court of Spec ial Appea ls impl icitly held that mugshots are 20 not CHRIwhen it asser

ted in Pembe r ton that such photographs a re not c ov e re d b y

SG § 10 -6 15 , th e pa

rt of the PIA wh ic h inc or

po rate s o the r S tate and fe deral statutes – such as the statutes gove rningCHRI– to the extent that they require an age ncy to deny inspection of a rec ord. 66 Md. App. at 16 8- 69 . H ow e ve r, theCou rt did no t anal yz e theiss ue , p re suma bly beca use the parties did not bring it to the Court’s attention. See P artI I I .B. 1 of this opinion.
Th e de fi nit ion

of CH RI in t he fede ral r e gulatio ns re fe rs to 21 “information ... on indivi duals consisting of identifiable de scriptions and notations of arrests ....” 28 CFR §20.3(d)

. t he M ar y l and cour t s expl i ci t l ycons i der ed w het her s uch phot ogr aphs a re C H R I. In o u r v iew , the ya re n o t.

20 Subj ectt o cer t ai n exce pt i ons , t he C J I S s t atut e defi nes C H R I as
“ d a ta

. . . col l ect ed bya cr i m i nal j us t i ce uni tabouta per s on and t hat p e rta in s to a re p o rta b le e v e n t.” C P § § 1 0 -2 0 1 (d )(1 ) (e m p h a sis add ed). A n arr esti s a r epo rt able eve n t. C P §1 0-215 (a) (2)

. Is a b o o k in g p h o to g ra p h p ro p e rlyc h a ra c ter ize d a s “ d a ta” p e rta in in g to t h a te v e n t ?
A comm on di ct i onar y defi ni t i on of “dat a” i s “i nfor m at i on, es p. i nfor m at i on or gani zed for anal y s i s orus ed as t he bas i s fordeci s i onm aki ng. ” W ebs t er ’ s I I , N ew C ol l ege D i ct i onar y( 1995) atpp. 287- 88. Si m i l ar l y , t he def

i ni t i on of C H R I i n t he fe der al r egul at i o ns re f e rs to “ in f

o rm a tio n
.. . o n in d iv id u a ls c o n sis tin g o f id e n tifia b le des cr i pt i ons and not at i ons of ar r es t s
. . . . ” 28 C FR §20. 3( d)

. T hi s , of cour s e, s i m pl ybr i ngs us back t o t he “I ” i n C H R I , w hi ch s t ands for

“ in f o rm a tio n .” P e rh a p s th e k e yp o in t h e r e is th a t C JIS sta tu te p ro te c ts c e rt a in in f

o rm a tio n , n o t p a rt ic u la r r e c o rd s
. I n ourv i e w, t h e i n f

o r ma t i o n t h a tt h e CJ I S s t a t u t e a n d r e l at ed law s are inten d ed to p rot e c t co n ce rn th e h ist o ryo f th e ind ividu al’s encount ers w ith law en fo rce m en t, n o t his or h er p h y sical ap p ea ran ce. T he C J I S st atut e and r egul at i ons do notappea rt o cont empl at e mug sh o ts a s “ d a ta” e n c o m p a ss e d w ith in C H R I. T h e C JIS sta tu te expl i ci t l y i ncl udes cer t ai n i dent i fy i ng i nfor m at i on – i

. e. , fin g e rp rin ts – w i t hi n t he def

i ni t i on of C H R I

. C P §§10- 201( d) ( 2 )(i i i ) , 10- 216. Fi ngerpr i nt s have l ong been t he key component ens ur i n g the acc ur acyof cr i m i nal hi s t or yr eco r d s
. Pu r s uantt o C P §10- 221( b) ( 1) 21G en. 26] 39

For example, State L aw r equire s that a DNA sample be c ollected 22 from an o ff

e nd e r i n c onne c tio n w ithc e rt a in e ve nts that area lso

“ r ep o rta b le e v e nts ” un d e r th e CJI S s tatute

. SeeAnnotated Code of Mary land, Publ i c S af

ety Art i cl e ( “P S ”) , § 2 -5 0 4 (a )( 1 ); C P § 1 0 -2 1 5 (a )( 1 1 )- (1 2) . We are no t awa

re of any a uth ority that in dic ate s th at su c h DNAdata is subject to the restr ictions on dissemination of CHRI . Rather the c o ll e c ti o n an d u s e o f s u c h d ata is g e n e r a lly c o ntro ll e d b y the DNA databa se law, which has its own restric tions on disclosure. PS §2-501 et seq. ; see91 Op ini on s o

f th eAttor

ne yGe ne ra l 135 (2006). a n d CO M AR 1 2

. 1 5

. 0 1

. 0 9 , t h e Se c r e t a r y o f DPSCS s p e c i f i e s t he for m atfor s ubm i s s i on of C H R I t o t he ce nt r al r epos i t or y
. T he Secr et ar yr equi r es agenc i es t o s ubm i tC H R I w i t h i dent i fy i ng in f o rm a tio n in th e f

o rm o f f in g e rp ri n ts . C O M A R 1 2 .1 5 .0 1 .0 9 -1

. T he C J I S s t atut e does notr equi r e arr es t i ng agenc i es t o t ake or s ubm i tphot ogr aphs and ot her i dent i fy i ng i nfor m at i on as par tof t he C H R I s ubm i t t ed t o t he St at e’ s C ent r al R epos i t or y
. N ori s any 22
m ent i on m ade i n t he re g u lat i ons of s ubm i t t i ng phot ogr aphs t o t he C ent r al R epos i t or y
. T hi s om i s s i on s tr o n g lys ugges t s t hats uch p h o to g ra p h s a re n o t C H R I. See 19 90 V a. O p. A t t y
. G en. 9 (A ug ust 30, 1990) , 1990 W L 511491 ( obs er vi ng t hatV i r gi ni a l aw does not r equi r e booki ng phot ogr aphs t o be s ubm i t t ed t o that st at e’ s centr al r epos i t or yand conc l udi ng t hat“mug sho ts” are notC H R I ) ; T ex. A t t y
. G en. O p. O R 2002- 3469, 2002 W L 32052787 ( J une 26, 2002) ( concl udi ng t hatm ug s hot s do notfi t t he def i ni t i on of C H R I under e ith e r f e d e ra l o r T e x a s la w ).
M or eover , a cr i m i nal j us t i ce agenc ys uch as a pol i ce de par t m ent is ord inaril yreq u ir e d to q u erythe C en tr al R ep o sit o ryb ef o re di s s emi nat i ng C H R I t o a noncr i m i nal j us t i ce e nt i t yori ndi vi dual

. 28 C FR §20. 21( a) ; C O M A R 12. 15. 01. 10B

. I ts eems ver yunl i kel yt hat t he dr aft er s of t hos e r egul at i ons cont empl at ed t hat a po l i ce depar t m ent w oul d be r equi r ed t o fol l ow t hat pr ocedur e bef or e us i ng m ug shots i n co nn ect i on w i t h an i nv est i gati on
. F or si m i l ar r easons, a C al i for ni a cour t h as hel d t hata mug shoti s not“i nfor m at i on” w ith in th e m e a n in g o f C a lif o rn ia ’s C H R I s ta tu te

. P eopl e v. McC l oud , 146 C al

. A pp. 3d 180, 182- 83, 194 C al

. R pt r
. 75 ( C t

. A pp. 1983)

. T he cour tr eas oned t hat t he abs ence of an e xpl i ci tr efe r ence t o m ug s hot s i n t he def

i ni t i on of C H R I evi dence d a l egi s l at i ve i nt ent no tt o en com pass such p ho t og raphs:4 0 [92 O p . A tt’ y

The FB I -operated NCI C 2000 Sy stem, providingfede ral, state, 23 and loca l criminal justice ag encie s acc ess to criminal justice information including CH R I , all ows the entry of a mugshot in each individual’s rec ord. See< http : //www.f bi.gov/hq/cjisd/ncic.htm>. Howeve r, the Maryland Central Re p o s i t o ry has not yet upgrade d to the NCI C 2000 Sy stem. It is our un d erstandingthat fewMaryland law e nforc ement a g e nc ie s routin e ly

su bmi t mug s ho ts to t

heMary land CJI S un it at th is t i m e ; m any a g e n c i e s l a c k th e a b i l i ty t o s u

b m i t mu gs h o t s e l e c tr o n i c a l l y. T h e leg isl a tiv e o m iss io n w a s p a ten tly i nt ent i o n al, fori f i tw er e nots o, cr i m i nal i nves t i gat i o n wou l d b e c o me wel l ni gh i m pos s i bl e, and phot ogr a p h i c l i neups necessari l yforbi dd en. (I nd eed, few i f any po st o ff i ces , orfede r al bui l di ngs orbanks , l ack a pr om i nentdi s pl ayof m ug s hot s of “w ant ed” crim inal su sp ec ts)

. 1 4 6 C a l. A p p . 3 d a t 1 8 3

. W i t h t he adve ntof di gi t al phot ogr aphy , i t m i ghtbe ar gued t hat th e ter m “ d a ta” lit e ra llye n c o m p a ss e s p h o to g ra p h s. T h e e lec tro n ic i nfor m at i on fr om w hi ch a di gi t al phot ogr aph i s pr i nt ed i s oft en r efe r r ed t o as “dat a” – e .g ., “ c o m p u te r d a ta ” , “ d ig ita l d a ta .” M o re o v e r, a d ig ital p h o to g ra p h h a s th e p o ten tial to b e e a sily t r ans m i t t ed t o a cent r al r epos i t or yw i t h ot heri dent i fy i ng i nfor m at i on conce r ni ng a r epor t abl e eve nt

. A l t hough m u g shot s have notbeen hi s t or i cal l ycentr al i zed, as t echnol ogyevol ves , m ug s hot s captur ed att he t i m e of book ing a r e l i kel yt o become a r out i ne par tof centr al i zed r ecor d s y s t ems. T he L egi s l atur e m ayw antt o cons i der 23
w het hert o addr es s m or e expl i ci t l yt he s t atus and us e of suc h p h o to g ra p h s u n d e r t h e C J IS s ta tu te

. I n a n ye v e n t , r e g a r d l e s s o f whe t h e ra p h o t o g r a p h i s “ d a t a ” for purpos es of t he M ar y l and C J I S s t atut e, t hat s t atut e exc l udes fr om t he d ef init ion o f C H R I “d ata c o n tai n ed in intell igen ce o r i n v esti g atory fi les o rpol i ce w or k pr oductr ecor ds us ed onl yi n pol i ce in v e stig a tio n s .” C P § 1 0 -2 0 1 (d )(3 )(i); see al so CO M AR 1 2 .1 5 .0 1 .0 3 B (3 )( a ). M u g sh o ts h a v e lo n g b e e n e m p lo y e d in con necti on w i t h invest i gati on s and as ev i den ce at cri m i nal tri al s. Indeed , t heiruse has been t he subj ect of n um erous j ud i ci al op i nions.G en. 26] 41

The a nnotation notes that mug shots areg enerally used for 24 identification purpose s, but may be inadmissible at trial to the extent that they s u gges t to the jury

that the def

endant may

have ba d characte r or a prior criminal record. Annotation, 30 ALR 3d 908, §2. S e e , e .g ., S tra u g h n v . S ta te , 297 M d. 329, 3 3 3- 36, 465 A

. 2d 1166 ( 1983) ( uphol di ng i ntr o d u cti on of m ug s hot s us ed as par tof extr aj udi ci al i dent i fi cat i on of def endantbyw i t nes s ) ; A nnot ati on, A dm is s ib ility , a n d

p r e ju d ic ia l e

ffe c t o f a dm is s io n , o

f “ m u gs h o t,” “rogue s ’gal l er

y” phot ogr aph, orphot ogr aph t aken in pris on of d ef endant i n cr i m i nalt r i al , 3 0 ALR 3 d 9 0 8 ( c o l l e c t i n g cas es on ad m issi b il ity o f m u g sh o ts in a crim inal tr ial ); see al so P em ber t on 24
v. B ethl ehem St eel

C or p. , 66 M d. A pp. at169 ( des cr i bi ng t he us e of m ug shots for i nv est i gati ve p urposes). Indeed , t he o ri ginal pu rpose forcol l ect i ng m ug s hot s w as i n ant i ci pat i on of t hei rus e t o appr ehend fugi t i ves
. T hus , i n our vi ew , s uch phot ogr aphs ar e excl uded fr om t he def i ni t i on of C H R I and t he C J I S st atut e i s not“ot herl aw ” under SG §10- 615 t hatw oul d notpr ohi bi ta pol i ce d epar t m entfr om d is c lo s in g m u g s h o ts

. B
. A ppli cati on of

I nves ti gator y R ecor ds E

xcept i on 1. M aryl and L aw U nderSG §10- 618, a cus t odi an mayw i t h h o ld all orpar tof a p u b lic recor d thati s t he subj ect of a P IA requesti f t he record f a lls into c ertain c ateg o ri es a n d the c u stod ian b eli ev es th at disclo su re w oul d be “c ont r ar yt o t he publ i c i nt er es t

. ” SG §10- 618( a)

. O ne of t ho se cat ego ri es r el at es t o cert ai n l aw enfo rcem ent records. Itreads, in re lev a n t p a rt:

(1 ) S u b jec t to p a ra g ra p h (2 ) o f th is s ubs ect i on, a cus t odi an maydenyi ns pect i on of:

( i ) r ecor ds of i nves t i gat i ons co n d u cted b y
. . . a p o li ce d ep artm en t, o r a s her i ff; ( i i ) an i nves t i gat o r yf i l e compi l ed f o r a n y o th e r la w e n f o rc e m e n t, j u d icia l, cor r ect i onal , orpr os ecut i on purpos e; or4 2 [92 O p . A tt’ y

The phra se “person i n interest” is define d in somewhat greater 25 detail in SG §10-611(e)

.

( i i i ) r ecor ds t hatcont ai n i nt el l i gence in f o rm a tio n o r s e c u ri t y p ro c e d u re s o f ... a pol i ce d e par t m ent , a St at e orl ocal cor r ect i onal fac i l i t y , ora s her i ff.
S G § 10- 618( f) ( 1)

. T he PI A pr ovi des t hats uch r ecor ds m aybe w ith h e ld f

ro m a “ p e rso n in in ter e st” – e ss e n tially , the p e rso n w h o is th e su b jec t o f th e re c o rd – o n lyif

d isc lo su re o f

th e re c o rd w o u ld 25
res ulti n o ne o f seven l i st ed h arm s:

( i ) i nt er fer e w i t h a val i d and pr oper l aw enfor cementpr ocee di ng; ( i i ) depr i ve a n o th e rp e r s on of a r i ght t o a fa i rt r i al oran i m par t i al adj udi cat i on; ( i i i ) co n sti tute an u n w ar r ant ed i n v a s i o n o f

p e r s o n a l p r i v a c y; ( i v) di s cl os e t he i dent i t yof a confi dent i al s our ce; ( v ) di s clos e an i nves t i gat i ve t echni que orpr ocedur e; ( vi ) pr ej udi ce a n i nves t i gat i on; or ( vi i ) endange rt he l i fe orphy si cal sa f e tyo f a n in d iv id u a l.
S G § 1 0 -6 1 8 (f

)(2 ). O f c o u rse , e a c h o f

th e se listed c o n c e rn s w o u ld al s o j us t i fyw i t hhol di ng a r ecor d fr om a r eques t erw ho does not q u a lif ya s a “ p e rs o n in in te re s t.”
I n P em ber t on , 6 6 M d . A p p . 1 3 3 , the C o u rt o f S p e c ial A p p e a ls di s cus s ed t h e p os s i bl e appl i cat i on of the PI A exce pt i on for i nves t i gat or yr ecor ds t o m ug s hot s
. I n t hatcas e, a u n ion offi ci al br oughtsu it agai ns tB et hl ehem St eel C orpor at i on and var i ous ind ividu als fo r i n v asio n o f p ri v ac yan d o ther c au ses o f a cti o n
. In s uppor tof hi s cl ai m fori nvas i on of pr i vacy , Pem ber t on al l eged that t he def endant s had s entuni on m ember s copi es of docum ent s r el at i ngG en. 26] 43

A s n o te d in f

o o tn o te 2 0 a

b o v e , th e Co urt d id

not analyze 26 whether the Sta tea n d f e d eral law s restrictingdissemination of CHRImade mugsh ots c on fi de nti a l un de r S G § 10 -6 15 (2 )( i) and (i i) , p re suma

bly beca use the pa rties did not raise the issue. T he Court’s stateme nt that mug shots are not c overe d by th e ex ceptions i n SG §10-615 is, of course , consistent with our conc lusion in P art II I .A. of this opinion. t o hi s pr i orcr i m i nal convi ct i on, i ncl udi ng a m u g s hot

. Pem ber t on cont ended that t he m ai l i ng of hi s m ug s hotcons t i t ut ed unw ar r ant ed p u b lic ity o f

th e d e ta ils o f

h is p ri v a te lif

e
. I d. a t 1 6 1 -6 2

. T h e C o u rt o f S p ec ial A p p ea ls aff irm ed the tri al co u rt ’s di s m i s s al of t hat cl ai m
. I thel d t hatt he ci r cul at i on of cour tr ecor ds related to the co n v ict ion co u ld n o t sup p o rtthe c lai m , b ec au se c o u rt r ecor ds ar e “open to p u bl i c i ns pect i on” and ther efor e coul d notbe

“ p riv a te f

a c ts.” 6 6 M d . A p p . at 1 6 6 -6 8 . T h e C o u rt th e n tu r n e d to w het hera mug sho t is sim il ar l y“open t o publ i c i ns pect i on. ” The C o u rt f irst d e ter m in e d th a t a m u g s h o t is a p u b lic re c o rd a n d th a t, u n d e r th e P IA , p u b lic re c o rd s a re o rd in a rilyo p e n to p u b lic insp ec tio n
. It then co n side red w h ethe r an yex ce p ti o n to the P IA w o u ld sh iel d a m u g sh o t from p u b li c in s p e c ti o n
. T h e C o u rt concl uded t hatnone of the m andat or yexce pt i ons appl i ed and 26 dis cussed i n d et ai l on l yt he ex cepti on for i nv est i gator yrecor ds:

It is n o t a t a ll c lea r th a t a “ m u g sh o t” n ec essa ri lyco n sti tutes o r i s p art of a “ rec o rd o f in v e stig a tio n ” s o a s to b e p e rm iss ib ly excl udabl e i n t he fi r s ti ns t ance
. B utas s um i ng, ar guendo , tha t itis o f

th a t ch a ra c ter , the f

a c t is th a t itis n e v e rth e les s a p u b lic re c o r d th a t is n o t per se excl uded fr om publ i c acce s s
. M any of t hes e “mug shot s ” are r et ai ned for compar i s on purposes ; vi ct i m s of cr i m e oft en ar e i nvi t ed t o l ook t hr ough books orar r ay s of t hem i n o rdert o ident i fyt heirpredat ors. Id

. at169 ( emphasi s i n or i gi nal )

. T he C our thel d t hati tcoul d not r e g a r d P e mb e r t o n ’ s mu g s h o t“ a s b e i n g a p r i v a t e f a c t ; i ti s , b yl a w, a publ i c r ecor d t o w hi ch t he publ i c mayhave ha d acc es s
. ” I d.
A s t he C our ti n P em ber t on s ugges t ed, t he pr emi s e t hata mug s hoti s an i nves t i gat or yr ecor d can be di s put ed. A phot ogr aph t aken as partof a rou t i ne b oo king process m i gh tbe an al og i zed to an arr est l og, des cr i bed i n a 1978 A t t or neyG en er al opi ni on as “docke t

- t ype4 4 [92 O p . A tt’ y

In a ca se that pre -date d the PIA, the Court of Appe als sug g ested 27 that an adve rse impac t on an individual’s reputation or privacy might counsel a g ainst disclosure of mugshots relate d t o arrests that had not resulted in convic tions. Downs v. Swann , 1 1 1 M d

. 5 3 , 6 4 , 73 A. 653 (1909). books cont ai ni ng t he dat e of a r r es t , t he name of t he sus pectar r es t ed, t he addr es s , age, and r ace of t he s us pect , t he name of t he arr es t i ng o f f i c e r , a n d t h e c r i mi n a l c h a r g e a n d a p p r o p r i a t e c a s e n u mbe r
. ” 63 O pinion s of

t he At t or ney G ener al543 ( 1978)

. I n t hatopi ni on, A tto rn e yG e n e ra l B u rc h c o n c lu d e d th a t ar re st lo g s a re n o t o rd in a rily r ecor ds of i nves t i gat i on s ubj ectt o the exce pt i on beca us e t hey

“ m e re ly re f

l e c t th e e n d re s u lt o f

a p o lic e in v e s tig a tio n ... [ a n d ] ... cont ain n o inf

o rm ati o n w h atev er concer ni ng t he ac t ual i nves t i gat i on. ” I

d. a t 5 4 7 ; c

f. A l a. O p
. A tt y
. G en. N o. 2004- 108 (2004 ), 20 04 W L 77 18 46 (equat i ng a m ug shot i n a p oli ce database to th e p o rtio n o f a n a rre st re p o rt th a t w o u ld n o rm a llyb e a v a ilab le to th e p u b lic u n d e r th e A lab a m a o p e n re c o rd s la w ). If a m u g s h o t is conce i ved of a s s i m pl yone el ement of an a r r es t log , then t he exce pt i on w oul d notappl yand i tt oo w oul d be publ i cl yavai l abl e. H ow ever , t he 1978 opi ni on caut i oned t hat , i f i nves t i gat or ym at er i al w er e i ncl ud ed in an “ar r es tl og, ” i tw oul d be s ubj ectt o t he inves t i gat or yr ecor ds exce pt i on. 63 Opi n i o n s o f t h e At t or ney G ener alat547.
A s out l i ned i n Part I. A

. o f t hi s opi ni on, a mug shotdoes not s i m pl y s er ve as a r ecor d of t he cul m i nat i on of a past inve s t i gat i on. T he or i gi nal i m petus for taki ng s uch phot ogr aphs w as t o cr eat e an i d e n t i f i c a t i o n r e c o r d t h a t p o l i c e c o u l d u s e t o a p p r e h end t he defe ndanti f he or s he beca m e a fugi t i ve on t he cha r ges under l y i ng th e a rre st. M o re o v e r, a m u g sh o t is a ls o d e sig n e d to b e u se d in f u tu re in v e stig a tio n s, u n re late d to th a t a rre st, to id e n tify su sp e c ts; it m aybe us ed i n a w ant ed pos t er t o hel p l ocat e t he i ndi vi dual i f he or sh e b ec o m es a fu g it ive o n an o ther c h arg e. Itis no t si m p lya re co rd o f a p a s t e v e n t in v o lv in g law e n f o rc e m e n t an d a d e f

e n d a n t, bu t is cr eat ed as a t ool for i nves t i gat i on. T hus , i n our vi ew , unl i ke m os tof t he mat er i al t hatw oul d be found i n a t r adi t i onal ar r es tl og, s uch phot ogr aphs ar e enc om pas s ed byt he i nves t i gat oryr ecor ds excep t i on
. T hey are open t o inspect i on i n respon se t o a P IA request unl es s t he cus t odi an ca n i dent i fya publ i c i nt er es tj us t i fy i ng nondi s cl os ur e. 27G en. 26] 45

The re gulation states that “[p] ersonne l of the De p artment of 28 Justi c e
.. . s ho uld

no t ma keava ila ble ph oto gra

ph s o f a de fe nd ant u

nle ss a law enf orce ment function is serve d thereby .” 28 CFR §50.2(b) (7). 2. A nal ogous Federal C as es
T he PI A ’ s exce p t i o n f

o rl aw enfor cementr ecor ds w as m odel ed on a s i m i l arexce pt i on t hatappea r s i n t he f eder al Fr eedom of In f o rm a tio n A c t ( “ F O IA ” ). See 5 U

. S

. C

. § 5 5 2 (b)(7 ). F ed era l cou rt appl i cat i ons of t he FO I A exce pt i on are “ordi nar i l yper s uas i ve” a u t h o ri ty w ith re s p e c t to p a ra lle l e x c e p tio n s in th e P IA

. Fa u l k v. S ta te ’s A tto r n e

y fo r Ha r

fo r d C o u n ty , 299 M d. 493, 506, 474 A

. 2d 8 8 0 ( 1 9 8 4 ) ( r e l y i n g on fe de r a l c a s e l a w c o n s t r u i n g 5 U. S

. C. § 5 5 2 (b)(7 )).
T he D epar t m entof J us t i ce has t aken t he pos i t i on i n r egul at i ons t hatpho togr aphs of def endant s i n t he pos s es s i on of uni t s of t he D epar t m ents houl d notbe di s cl os ed, exce ptfora l aw enfor cement purpos e. 28 C FR §50. 2( b ). W hen r eques t s have be en made for 28
m ug s hot s , t he D epar t m enthas i nvoked t he l aw enfor cementr ecor ds exce pt i on underFO I A

. I n par t i cul ar , t he D epar t m ent has ar gued t hat m u g sh o ts a re p ro tec ted f ro m d isc lo su re u n d e r w h a t is c o m m o n ly refer red t o as E xem pti on 7(C ) t o F O IA , form al l ycod i fi ed as 5 U

. S. C

. §552( b) ( 7) ( C )

. E xempt i on 7( C ) al l ow s a fe der al agenc yt hat i s r es pondi ng t o a FO I A r eques tt o w i t hhol d:

( 7) r ecor ds ori nfor m at i on compi l ed for l aw enfor cementpurpos es , butonl yt o t he ext ent t hat t he pr oduct i on of su ch l aw e n f o rc e m e n t r e c o rd s o r i n f o rm a tio n
... (C ) c o u ld re a so n a b lyb e e x p e c ted to cons t i t ut e an u n warr a n t e d i n v a s i on of per s onal p r i v a c y.4 6 [92 O p . A tt’ y

In p erm i tting an ag ency to withhold records if production of 29 tho sere c ords “ could reasonably beexpe cted to constitute an unwar rante d invasion of per sonal privac y ,” the fede ral exemption may be broade r than a similarly

worde d PIA exception that cover s cert ai n law enf orce ment re c ords tha

t “ wou ld

. . . c o n s ti tute an unw ar r ante d inv a s io n o f

persona l privac y .” Com

pa re5 U.S.C. §552(b)(7)( C) with SG §10- 61 8( f) (2 )( iii ) (e mph a sis a dd e d) ; se eals o United States Departme nt of Justice v. Re po rters Com mi tte e for

Fre e do m o

f th ePress , 489 U.S. 749, 756 & n.9 (1 98 9) (e xpla ini ngtha

t 19 74 ame ndme nt s ub sti tut ing “ c ou ld re a so na bly be expected to”for “would” in E x emption 7( C) was intende d to cre ate a more fle x ible standard f

or an ag ency

to withhold records)

. An intermediate appe llate cour t in Michiga

n rea ched a

simil ar 30 conclusion under the Michig an ver sion of FOIA. Se eDe tro it F re ePress v . Oak lan d Co un ty

Sh e rif f , 418 N.W.2 d 1 24 , 1 28 -3 0 ( Mic h. Ct. App.1987). In that case , the Michig an Court of Ap p eals he ld that the dis c los ure of a bo okingph oto gra phto a ne ws pa pe r w ou ld n ot v iol ate either c ommon law or constitutional principles of priva cy and ther efore a (continued...) 5 U

. S. C

. §552(b)(7 ) ( C )

. T w o fede r al cour t s have a s s es s ed t he 29
m eri t s of t hat ar gu m ent and h ave reached differ ent r esul t s.
I n D etr oi tFr ee Pre s s , I

nc. v. D epar tm ent of

Jus t i ce , 73 F. 3d 93 ( 6 C i r
. 1996) , a new s papers oughtt he r el eas e of mug s hot s of ei ght th defe ndant s aw ai t i ng t r i al on fede r al char ges
. T he U ni t ed St at es M ar s hal s Ser vi ce ( a uni tof t he D epar t m ent of Jus t i ce) had dec l i ned t o pr ovi de t he phot ogr aphs , on t he gr ound t hatr el eas e of the phot os w oul d i nvade t he per s onal pr i vacy i nt er es t s of t he def endant s
. T he M a rs h a ls S e rv ic e re lie d o n E x e m p tio n 7 (C ).
A d ivided panel of t he Si xt h C i r cui thel d t hatt he r el eas e of m u g s h o t s r e l a t i n g t o p e n d i n g c r i mi n a l p r o c e e d i n g s i n whi c h t he names of the def

endant s had al r eadybeen m ad e publ i c w oul d not in v a d e th e p ri v a c y o f th e d e f e n d a n ts

. D et roi tFree P ress , 73 F. 3d at 97. M or eover , even i f t her e w er e s om e enc r oachmentof t he defe ndant s ’ pr i vacy i nt er es t s , t he C our ts ai d, t her e w as a s i gni fi cant publ i c i nt er es ti n t he di s cl os ur e of mug s hot s of def endant s aw ai t i ng tr ia l th a t c o u ld o u tw e ig h t h a t in te re s t. Id

. at 97 -98

. T h e C o u rt r eas oned t hatdi s cl os ur e of s uch phot ogr aphs s ubj ect ed the g o v ern m en t t o p u b li c o v ersigh t – itm igh t r ev e a l the g o v ern m en t’ s er r ori n det ai ni ng t he w r o n g p e r s o n o rt he ci r cumst ance s s ur r oundi ng th e a rr e s t o f

th e in d iv id u a l. I

d. at98. T hus , t he C our tconcl uded, t he di s cl os ur e of the mug shot s w oul d notcons t i t ut e an “ unw ar r ant ed in v a s io n o f

p e rs o n a l p r i v a c y .” I

d. (em p h asis ad d ed ). T h e C o u rt 30G en. 26] 47

(...continued) 30 Mic hig an F OIA e xemp tio n for dis c los ur e s that “w ou ld co ns tit utea c le arly unwar rante d invasion of ... privac y” did not apply

. Cf. Pa ul v . D av is , 424 U.S. 693 (1976) (no c onst i tutional violation when police distributed photographs of individuals arrested for shoplifting). e x p licitly d e c lin e d to d e c id e w h e th e r th e re lea se o f m u g sh o ts in s i t uat i ons i nvol vi ng di s m is s ed cha r ges , acqui t t al s , orcompl et ed c ri m in a l p ro c e e d in g s w o u ld a m o u n t to a n in v a s io n o f p ri v a c y
. Id

. at 97.
A f e w y e a rs la ter , a f

e d e ra l d istric t co u rt in a n o th e r c irc u it rea c he d a di ff

e r e ntc on c l us i on i n s l i gh t l ydi ff e r e ntc i r c ums t a nces. I n Ti m es P i cayune P ubl is hi ng C or p. v. U ni t ed St at es D epar tm ent of Jus t i ce , 3 7 F . S u p p .2 d 4 7 2 (E .D . L a . 1 9 9 9 ), a n e w sp a p e r so u g h t to o b tain th e m u g sh o t o f a p ro m in e n t b u sin e ss m a n w h o h a d r e c e n tly pl ed g u il t yt o cr i m i nal char ges ar i s i ng outof a pol i t i cal cor r upt i on i nves t i gat i on. A s i n D et roi tFree P ress , the U n ited S tate s M a rsh a ls Ser vi ce deni ed t he re ques t , ci t i ng E xempt i on 7( C )

. T he new s paper s ued underFO I A , ar gui ng t hat , beca us e t he phot o w as t aken aft ert he gui l t ypl ea, t he phot o w as not t aken fora l aw enfor cementpurpos e, butr at her an adm i ni s t r at i ve purpos e; t hus , i tw as noteven w i t hi n t he cat egor yof r ecor ds cover ed byE xempt i on 7( C )

. T he new s p ap er also co n tend ed that p ri v ac yw as no t at i ssu e, give n the p u b li c n ature of t he gu i l t ypl e a a nd t he p rom i ne nc e of t he de fe nd a nt

. 37 F. S u p p .2 d a t 4 7 5

. T he di s t r i ctcour tr ej ect ed t he fi r s tar gum ent , not i ng t hatt he M ar s hal s Ser vi ce i s a l aw enfor cementage n cy and hol di ng t hat p ro c e s s in g a d e f

e n d a n t is p a rt o f its la w e n f o rc e m e n t d u tie s
. I

d. T he cour tfur t herhel d t hatt he def endanthad a pr o t ect abl e pr i vacy in ter e st un d e r F O IA in th e p h o to g ra p h , an d o b se rv e d th a t m u g sh o ts

“ g e n e r a l l y d i s c l o s e u n f l a t t e r i n g f

a c i a l e x p r e s s i o n s ” a n d c a r r y a “s t i gm at i zi ng eff

ect

. ” Id

. at 477. I tdi s t i ngui s hed t he D etr oi tFr ee P ress deci s i on on t he gr ound t hat t he defe ndant s i n t hat case w ere aw ai t i ng t r i al w hi l e t he cas e befor e i ti nvol ved a c om pl et ed cr i m i nal p ro c e e d in g
. Id

. at 47 8

. A lth o u g h the c o u rtco n ce d ed that there mi g h tb e a p u b l i c i n t e r e s ti n t h e d i s c l o s u r e o f mu g s h o t s i n s o me ci r cumst ance s – encour agi ng w i t nes s es t o come for w ar d, expos i ng r aci al orethni c bi as i n pr os ecut i ons , and r evea l i ng ordi s pr ovi ng pr i s onerabus e – i t hel d t hat di s cl os ur e of t he defenda nt ’ s m ug s hot w o u ld n o t se rv e th o s e in te re s ts

. Id

. at480- 81. T he cour tconcl uded t hat the d efen dan t ’s pri vacy i nter est ou t w ei gh ed any pu bli c i nter est i n t he ca s e bef

or e i tand uphel d t he r efus al of t he M ar s hal s Ser vi ce4 8 [92 O p . A tt’ y

Attorneys Gene ral in other stat es h ave rea ched similar 31 conclusions under their respective public records laws. See86 Op s. Ca l. Atty

. Gen. 132 (2003), 2003 WL 21672840 (mug shots in the possession of a c ounty

sheriff wer e disclosable subje ct to the inv es t i gatory rec ords e x e mp t i o no f th e C a l i f

o r n i a P u b l i c R e c o rd s A c t ) ; XX I K an
. O p
. Atty. Gen. 9 ( 1987), 1 9 8 7 W L290422 (mugshots may be withheld from disclosure unde r the Ka

nsas Open Rec ords Act unde r exemption relating to crimi na l inve sti g atio n r e c ords ); bu t c f. 1990 Va. Op. Atty . Gen. 9, 1990 WL 511491 (mug shots must be dis closed in response to a re quest under Vi rg ini a F OIA, a s th e e xempti on fo r i nv e sti g ator

y re c ords e xplic itl y excludes information “re lative to the identity” of a subject). t o di s cl os e t he phot ogr aph. W e under s t and t hatt he D epar t m entof Ju stic e c o n tin u e s to e n f o rc e its p o licyn o t to p ro v id e m u g sh o ts to m edi a or gani zat i ons , exce pt i n t he Si xt h C i r cui t , w her e t he D e tro it Free P ress d e c i s io n is th e la w o f th e c ir c u it. See U

. S. D ep’ tof J u s tic e , B u r e a u o f

J u s tic e S ta tis tic s , U

s e and M

anagem ent

of C rim i na lHist ory R ecord Inform ati on : A C om prehen si ve R epo rt , 2001 U pdat e, p. 54.
3. Sum m ary A lt h o ugh t he C our tof Speci al A ppeal s i n P em ber t on bri ef ly anal y zed t he appl i cat i on of SG §10- 618( f) t o m ug s hot s , it d id n ot defi ni t i vel ydeci de w het hera mug shotw oul d come w i t hi n t he pur vi ew o f t hatexce pt i on t o t he PI A ’ s gener al r ul e of di s cl os ur e. T h e f ed era l cou rtd ec isi o n s ap p ly in g a sim il ar e x ce p ti o n in F O IA appar ent l yagr ee that m ug s hot s r el at ed t o cur r entcr i m i nal pr ocee di ngs fal l w i t hi n t he t ype of r ecor ds pot ent i al l y cover ed by t he r el at ed fe der al exce pt i on, but di s agr ee t o s om e ext ent on w het hert he di s cl os ur e of mug shot s i n s uch s i t uat i ons cons t i tu t es an unw ar r ant ed i n v a s i o n o f

a d e f e n d a n t ’ s p r i v a c y.
I n ourvi ew , a mug s h o t tha ti s par tof a f i l e r el at ed t o a cr i m i nal pr ocee di ng i s w i t hi n t he pur vi ew of SG §10- 618( f)

. I f t he 31 ph otograph is i n the fi l e of a po l i ce dep artm e n t, i tcon st i t utes a “r ecor d of i nves t i gat i on” co v ered bySG §10- 618( f) ( 1) ( i )

. I tm ay al s o be prope r l ychar act er i zed a s an “i nves t i gat or yfi l e compi l ed for [a] l aw enfor cement , j udi ci al , cor r ect i onal , orpr os ecut i on purpos e” u n d e r S G § 1 0 -6 1 8 (f

)( 1 )( ii)

. T hus , i f a r eques t i s m ade under t he PI A t o a pol i ce de par t m ent for mug s h o t , i t s h o u l d b e d i s c l o s e d u n l e s s t h e c u s t o d i a n can a rticu late a re a so n w h yit w o u ld b e “ c o n tra ryto th e p u b lic in ter e st”G en. 26] 49

The possible adve rse e ffe ct could be e liminated or minimi zed by 32 reda ctingelements of thephotograph that identify it as an arrest photo – e.g., the side view, a

sign inc luding a

n arrest number. to a llo w in sp e c tio n o f th e p h o to g ra p h

. S G § 1 0 -6 1 8 (a ). In m a n y , if notm os ti ns t ance s , t her e w i l l be no publ i c i nt er es tj u sti fy ing a r efus al t o d i s c l o s e a p h o t o g r a p h

. I n d e e d , a s e x p l a i n e d a b o v e , t he pr act i ce of

t aki ng m ug s hot s began i n ant i ci pat i on t hat t hey w oul d be c ir c u la te d to th e p u b lic to h e lp a p p re h e n d a f u g itiv e
. O n occa s i o n , h ow ever , t her e maybe a va l i d bas i s fort he cust od i an t o conclude t hat dis cl osure w ou l d be against t he p u b lic i n t e r e s t

. Th e l i s t o f t h e s e v e r a l r e a s o n s f o r whi c h a n a gencym ay d e n yin sp e c tio n o f

a n in v e stig a tiv e re c o rd to a “ p e rso n in in ter e st” pr ovi des a che ckl i s tof pos s i bl e r eas ons t hatm i ghtappl yi n par t i cul ar c i r c u m s ta n c e s
. See SG §10- 618( f) ( 2)

. For exampl e, among t he fac t or s t hatt he depa r t m entm i ghtcons i derin m aki ng t hat d eterm ination is w h ethe r, in the p arti cu lar cir cu m stan ce s, d iscl o su re of a phot ogr aph of a n i ndi vidu al’s pas tencount erw i t h l aw enfor cementaut hor i t i es w oul d cons t i t ut e an unw ar r ant ed i nvas i on o f p ri v a c yo f

th e in d iv id u a l p h o to g ra p h e d

. C f. S G §10- 618( f)(2 )(i ii ). I n m os ti ns t ance s , t her e i s unl i kel yt o be anys igni fi cantpr i vacy conce r n. I n ot heri ns t ances inv ol vi ng pas tcas es i n w hi ch t he i n d ivi dual w as acqui t t ed ort he cha r ges w er e dr opped, t he pr i vacy i nt er es tw i l l be s t r onger i n l i ght of t he embar r as s i ng ci r cumst ance s t hatt he phot ogr aph d epi ct s
. I n s om e ca s es , t her e maybe a le gi t i m at e conc er n t hatdi s cl os ur e of a ful l m ug s hotr el at ed t o a pendi ng cas e coul d aff

ectt he r i ghtof t he i ndi vi dual t o a fa i rt r i al or im p arti al ad

judi cat i on. C

f. SG §10- 618( f) ( 2) ( i i )

. I n cas es i nvol vi ng 32 an ongoi ng i nves ti g ati o n, t he di s cl os ur e of the phot ogr aph mi ght p re ju d ic e th e in v e s tig a tio n
. C f. SG §10- 618( f) ( 2) ( vi )

. I n a par t i cul ar cas e, di s cl os ur e of the appe ar ance of an a rr es t ed i ndi vi dual w ho chos e t o cooper at e w i t h l aw enfor cementaut hor i t i es i n an underc o v er inv esti g ati o n m igh t disclose the id en ti tyo f a co n fid en t i al s our ce ( c f. SG §1 0

- 6 1 8 ( f

) ( 2 ) ( i v ) ) , o re n d a n g e rt h e l i f e o rp h y s i c al sa f e tyo f a n in d iv id u a l ( c

f. S G § 1 0 -6 1 8 (f

)( 2 )( v ii) ).

IV
C oncl usi on
I n our opi ni on, a m ug s hot i n t he cus t ody of a p o li ce depar t m enti s not s ubj ect t o t he re s t r i ct i ons pl ace d on di s s emi nat i on5 0 [92 O p . A tt’ y of C H R I by St at e and fede r al l aw
. R at her , i t s houl d be t r eat ed as a n i nves t i gat or yr ecor d of t h e pol i ce de par t m ent

. T hus , a mug shot shou l d b e dis cl osed b yt he d epart m ent i n respon se t o a P IA request u n less the d ep artm en t d eterm ines that d iscl o su re w o u ld b e c o n tr ary t o t he publ ic in tere s t

. G i ven t he i ncr eas i ng us e of di gi t al p h o to g ra p h ya n d th e p o ten tial f o r in c lu d in g d ig ital p h o to g ra p h s in cri m i nal hi st orydatabases, t he L egis latu re m ayw i sh t o ad dress expl i ci t l yt he s t atus of m ug s hot s undert he M ar y l and C J I S st atut e.

D ougl as F

. G ans l er A t t or neyG ener al
W i l l i am R

. V

ar ga A s s i s tant A tto rney G eneral
R o b e rt N . M c D o n a ld C h ief C o u n se l O pi ni ons and A dvi ce