Summary — HB 446: Prohibition on Disclosing Booking Photographs (NC)
Status: Passed 1st Reading (filed 3/18/2025). Effective date in bill: December 1, 2025 (applies to disclosures/requests occurring on or after that date).
Purpose
- To limit the dissemination and commercial exploitation of “booking photographs” (mugshots) by prohibiting law enforcement disclosure to pay-to-remove publications/websites and by requiring such private entities to remove and destroy booking photographs in specified circumstances.
Key provisions
- New statutory section (to be codified at G.S. 15A‑502.01):
- Definitions:
- “Booking photograph”: image taken at initial booking of a person alleged to have committed a crime.
- “Publish-for-pay publication/website”: a publication or website that requires payment (or other consideration) to remove/delete a booking photograph.
- Disclosure ban:
- A law enforcement agency may not knowingly disclose a pretrial booking photograph to any publish‑for‑pay publication or publish‑for‑pay website.
- Exception: the law enforcement agency may still post booking photographs to the agency’s own website or mobile app.
- Removal/destruction duty for publish‑for‑pay entities:
- Publish‑for‑pay publications/websites must remove and destroy a booking photograph when an individual submits a request under G.S. 15A‑152(a1).
- Conditioning removal/destruction on payment (i.e., demanding money to remove a mugshot) “may constitute a criminal offense” (the bill signals criminal liability but does not set out a specific statutory penalty in the new section).
- Civil remedies: failure to comply may result in civil liability under amended G.S. 15A‑152(c).
- Amendments to G.S. 15A‑152 (civil liability statute):
- New duty (subsection (a1)): A publish‑for‑pay entity must remove and destroy a booking photograph within seven business days of receipt of a removal request if both conditions are met:
- No criminal conviction resulted from the arrest that generated the photograph; and
- The requester provides written documentation that the charge resulted in dismissal, acquittal, expunction, or the grand jury returned no true bill.
- Damages and penalties (subsection (c) as amended):
- A prevailing plaintiff may recover damages, court costs, and reasonable attorneys’ fees.
- Minimum statutory damage: at least $100 per day for each day after the seven‑business‑day deadline that the photograph remains visible/accessible on the publish‑for‑pay site/publication.
- The statutory civil-liability provision does not apply to entities subject to the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act or the Gramm‑Leach‑Bliley Act.
Who is affected
- Directly affected:
- Law enforcement agencies (restrictions on disclosure to pay-to-remove sites).
- Publish‑for‑pay websites and publications (obligation to remove/destroy qualifying booking photographs; exposure to civil liability and possible criminal exposure if they condition removal on payment).
- People with booking photographs (particularly those not convicted — dismissed, acquitted, expunged, or not indicted) who seek removal.
- Indirectly affected:
- News and non‑commercial law enforcement postings (agency website posting remains permitted).
- Legal/tech services that host or facilitate mugshot removal may face business model and compliance changes.
Enforcement and remedies
- Civil enforcement: private lawsuits for damages, plus court costs and attorneys’ fees; statutory minimum damages of $100/day after deadline.
- Possible criminal enforcement: bill states that conditioning removal on payment “may constitute a criminal offense,” but does not specify exact criminal penalties in the new section.
- Timing: removal requests and law‑enforcement disclosures covered on/after Dec. 1, 2025.
Practical impact and considerations
- Seeks to curb “mugshot extortion” and reduce harms to individuals whose charges were not sustained.
- Imposes compliance obligations and potential financial exposure on commercial pay‑to‑remove operators; may prompt changes to business models.
- Leaves certain exceptions (agency postings, entities covered by FCRA/GLBA); the scope and interplay with free‑speech, private‑sector legal defenses, and enforcement practices may be litigated.
