There’s a good chance that if you’ve been arrested in the past decade, your mugshot is available online, probably on numerous Web sites. A Toledo-based lawyer, Scott Ciolek, is taking on at least five of these sites, of which there are dozens, in a class-action lawsuit filed Monday in Lucas County Common Pleas Court.
The suit claims that more than 259,000 Ohioans have been cataloged on various mugshot Web sites and, to have a photo removed — even if an individual has been found not guilty or the charges were dismissed — the sites charge a removal fee. Full Article
I wonder why Offendex (Now SoArchives) hasn’t been included in this.
I had heard that there was a suit organized against offendex.com – now http://www.sorarchives.com (correct link) – but have not heard any updates recently. Anyone?
No clue. That’s okay, i’m going through there soon. I just may pay Oesterblad a visit.
maybe that’s why offendex.com changed their name…businesses change their names all the time due to lawsuits.
I think it was because we ousted him the pair behind it. It wasn’t that easy for him to hide, except with a new name. Someone figured out the new name… they weren’t counting on that happening.. but it happened.
They can run, but they cannot hide. There are too many of us, many are very tech savy, or have very good political pull, law enforcement connections or good at downright old school information collections. (Pay a visit to the right people).
There are a group of us now monitoring the movements of both of these people very closely. Both of them have changed behaviors and their lives since being ousted. One even put up his house for sale. The business partners from previous contacts are hesitant on communication with the pair. Old past problems in the courts are coming back soon to haunt them, in the form of potentially new charges.
They messed with an angry dog.
Please be patient. We are working on this matter. There should be news “soon”.
I have received email “spam” notifications warning of RSO locations in a specific zip code area. These are not law enforcement activities, but from a private source. Anyone know if this is legal in California?
It must be legal since many companies seem to be doing it. A friend has one of those fraud monitoring services (l i f e l o c k) and they send out these warnings along with the report of activity each month or so. I don’t think doj can dictate what is done with that information once it is released, but it sure would be interesting to see what is in fact legal. No one broadcasts that these ex-offenders could actually be considered harmless, they rely on fear mongering and the perception that they are somehow coming to the rescue of a besieged society by offering these vigilante services.
The laws could be amended to stipulate that no profit can be made from the release of the information if the sentences are over but that would be a far reach against first amendment and free trade, however misguided these practices are. They underscore the mistreatment that ros’ typically endure. Looking at ex-post-facto and how this information is used to re-impose and dictate terms should certainly be raised again and again to the courts. On a tangent, the annual registration should have only applied to those who had run afoul of normal registration parameters prior to the new laws. It was the pd’s in many cases that mismanaged their cases but it was conveniently hyped as virtually all ros’ being unaccounted for and running around in a state of lawlessness. More misinformation that was refined into the predicable panic that ensued. That left open these opportunities for “free trade” at its worst.
Excellent point! The fact that this information should NOT be on a pubic registry list since it leads to extortion as these sites are exploiting. Discrimination in housing, employment, and living conditions.
Providing this information to the public has even lead to the MURDER of several ROS on the list!
The Nazi’s had a list and look how well that went for those on it!
Please let me know of any lawsuits against soarchives. My husband would like to join as a plaintiff. He was listed for something he did as a teenager and he has never reoffended. He is no longer required to register, but the first thing you see when you google his name is the listing on soarchives. He has paid the price for what he did and they refuse to remove his name. When I emailed them and asked them to remove it, they emailed me back and called my husband and I names and told me that he deserved to die.
This continues to keep my husband from finding better work and haunts us wherever we go. There are laws against posting false information about people. If these people post information that is no longer relevant and it causes harm, isn’t that against the law? Why doesn’t someone do something?
See here
https://all4consolaws.org/2013/03/california-rsol-challenges-websites-in-federal-district-court/
You can probably use the Contact form on this web site to find out how you can help / get involved.