by Staff Reporter | Mar 11, 2026 | News
By Staff Reporter |
The Scottsdale Police Department (SPD) says they won’t be posting the mugshots of recently arrested child sex traffickers under the claim that Arizona law prohibits the posting of mugshots.
“It is currently against the law in Arizona to post mugshots and names on social media related to arrests,” said SPD.
However, it’s not Arizona law that prohibits the posting of mugshots. SPD based their claim on the 2024 Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in Houston v. Maricopa. The agency involved in that ruling, the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office (MCSO), modified their mugshot posting practice in order to comply with that ruling.
SPD issued the statement in response to criticisms that they failed to post the mugshots identifying around 200 individuals arrested in a weeks-long sex trafficking sting by SPD’s Human Exploitation and Trafficking Unit from the end of January through mid-February.
Charges included child sex trafficking, attempted sexual conduct with a minor, luring a minor for sexual exploitation, prostitution and pandering, and weapons misconduct. Some of those individuals arrested had outstanding felony warrants.
MCSO resumed their posting of mugshots in a manner they claim achieves compliance with the court ruling last August.
An MCSO spokesperson, William Jinks, indicated at the time that the court ruling didn’t make it “illegal” to post mugshots. Rather, the judgment established guidelines for posting.
“The changes made to the mug shot page are in accordance with the opinion of the appellate court,” said Jinks.
The 2024 ruling found specifically that MCSO’s policy of posting mugshots was unconstitutional — not the entire practice of posting mugshots.
The court took issue with MCSO’s policy of posting personally identifying information with the mugshot (birth date, sex, height, weight, hair color, eye color, and arresting charges), removing the online posting after three days, and failing to identify the arresting agency.
Ninth Circuit Judge Marsha Berzon ruled that governmental transparency wasn’t a valid justification for MCSO’s mugshot posting policy.
“Governmental actions that harmfully affect arrestees pretrial can violate due process if impermissibly punitive, whether a condition of pretrial detention or not,” stated Berzon. “What is the public interest, for example, in publicly disclosing [the arrestee’s] weight? So, too, with other personal information including his birthdate, height, eye color, and hair color. The County nowhere purports to show, much less succeeds in showing, why this level of granular detail about [the arrestee’s] body and personal identity rationally furthers an interest in government transparency.”
MCSO adapted its policy to resolve those contentions by the court. The new mugshots page lists far less information: booking number, first and last name, and charges. Mugshots also have watermarks identifying MCSO as the arresting agency. The page also has a disclaimer posted at the top: “All individuals are innocent until proven guilty.” The page only includes the 100 most recent mugshots.
Houston v. Maricopa is currently under civil appeal within the Arizona District One Court of Appeals. The latest development in that case was the court’s approval last month for oral arguments.
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
by Matthew Holloway | Jul 5, 2024 | News
By Matthew Holloway |
Arizona Senator Jake Hoffman (R-LD15) has raised a potent legal challenge to the politically driven prosecution that he and 17 other prominent Republican alternate electors have faced at the hands of Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes whom he referred to as “zealously partisan.” Hoffman released a scorching statement to accompany a legal motion to dismiss the case on July 2, along with his official mugshot taken after his indictment “in response to Kris Mayes political persecution campaign against the 2020 Republican electors.”
Hoffman wrote,
“In war, only leaders are targeted for assassination.
This is a political war.
You can persecute us.
You can attack us.
But you will never silence us.
Truth will always prevail.
NEVER SURRENDER.
Before an investigation had even been conducted and with no evidence, Kris Mayes declared that she believed electors such as myself were guilty of a crime, that it was her job to get Biden re-elected, and that she would control the timing of the indictment.
Let me be unequivocal, I am innocent of any crime, I will vigorously defend myself, and I look forward to the day when I am vindicated of this naked political persecution by the judicial process.”
Hoffman’s attorney Tim La Sota filed the motion citing Arizona state law that allows for rapid dismissal of cases under special circumstances to protect citizens from legal action for exercising a constitutional right known as “SLAPP” or “strategic lawsuit against public participation,” according to the Arizona Republic.
La Sota called the charges against Hoffman “politics by other means,” describing it as, “an effort by an overtly partisan elected attorney general to shame and punish her political opponents and critics for exercising their constitutional rights.”
In the motion, La Sota added, “The attorney general’s novel, overzealous, and retaliatory prosecution is also tied to Sen. Hoffman’s Republican colleagues’ efforts to conduct oversight of her office.”
Hoffman’s attorney pointed to multiple examples of extra-judicial speech from Mayes and her Chief Deputy Dan Barr for prejudicial statements posted to social media, such as a July 2022 post in which Mayes wrote she “would have immediately investigated the fake electors” stating they “videotaped their crime for all to see.” He also pointed to an August 2022 post from Barr who wrote, the alternate GOP electors were “criminals” claiming they “should be prosecuted as such,” according to AZCentral.
La Sota wrote in the motion, “Attorney General Mayes’ and Chief Deputy Attorney General Barr’s extrajudicial statements demonstrate a strong animus against those who questioned the 2020 election and particularly the alternate electors, including Senator Hoffman, and a desire to prosecute them before any investigation had taken place.”
In an email to the outlet Tuesday, he explained that Mayes’ and her surrogates had effectively branded his client and his co-defendants as criminals before any investigation into their actions began. “It was more than a mere pledge to investigate whether or not they committed a crime, which would have been ethical.”
Executive Director of Save Arizona and Chairwoman of Strong Communities Action Merissa Hamilton reposted Hoffman’s post to X supportively writing, “Future generations will look back on this dark time in our nation’s history and remember those that stood in the gap to save our freedom! Please keep @JakeHoffmanAZ and his family in your prayers! They have backbones of steel! Every day wake up and ask yourself what you can do to save Arizona today! Then go forth like your freedom and life depends on it!”
Matthew Holloway is a senior reporter for AZ Free News. Follow him on X for his latest stories, or email tips to Matthew@azfreenews.com.
