Prohibition on Disclosing Booking Photographs
House Bill 446 would regulate how booking photographs, commonly known as mugshots, may be shared and removed in North Carolina. It creates a new statute prohibiting law enforcement agencies from knowingly providing a pretrial defendant’s booking photograph to a “publish-for-pay” publication or website, while still allowing agencies to post booking photos on their own websites or mobile apps. The bill also requires these private publications and websites to remove and destroy a booking photograph when the subject requests removal and provides documentation showing the related charge was dismissed, resulted in acquittal, was expunged, or was no true billed by a grand jury, so long as there is no conviction tied to the arrest.
The bill further amends the state’s civil liability law for dissemination of certain criminal history information to add booking photographs explicitly. A covered publication or website must act within seven business days after receiving a qualifying request, and failure to do so can expose the entity to civil damages, court costs, and attorneys’ fees. The bill also states that conditioning removal on payment of a fee or other item of value may constitute a criminal offense, and it sets a minimum civil damages amount of $100 per day for each day a booking photograph remains visible after the deadline.
In practical terms, the bill would expand protections for people whose arrests did not lead to conviction by limiting the commercial use of mugshots and giving individuals a clearer removal process. It would affect law enforcement agencies, mugshot websites, and other private publishers that profit from charging for removal or deletion of booking photographs. The measure takes effect December 1, 2025, and applies only to disclosures, removal requests, fee-based removal demands, and failures to remove occurring on or after that date.
The available context shows no recorded committee debate or vote history, so there is no documented legislative sentiment from hearings or floor action. Based on the bill text, the measure appears aimed at consumer protection and privacy, with an emphasis on preventing pay-to-remove mugshot practices. Likely points of contention would be the restriction on law enforcement disclosure to private publishers, the potential criminal exposure for fee-based removal practices, and the new civil liability regime for websites and publications that host booking photographs.
The bill adds a new section to Chapter 15A governing booking photographs and amends G.S. 15A-152 to expressly cover civil liability for the dissemination of booking photographs. It limits law enforcement’s ability to share pretrial booking photos with pay-to-remove websites and publications, requires removal and destruction of qualifying mugshots upon request, and creates or reinforces civil remedies including damages, costs, and attorneys’ fees. It also establishes a minimum damages amount of $100 per day for noncompliance after the statutory deadline, affecting law enforcement agencies, mugshot publishers, and websites operating in North Carolina.
No committee transcripts or votes were provided, so there is no direct evidence of legislative debate or recorded support/opposition. From the bill’s structure, the measure appears to have a privacy- and fairness-oriented purpose, suggesting likely support from members concerned about reputational harm and exploitative mugshot practices. Any opposition would likely come from law enforcement stakeholders, media or website operators, and others concerned about disclosure limits, enforcement burdens, and liability exposure.
The main points of contention are likely to be the prohibition on law enforcement sharing booking photographs with publish-for-pay outlets, the requirement that private websites remove and destroy mugshots after a qualifying request, and the bill’s treatment of fee-based removal as potentially criminal. Another likely dispute is the mandatory civil liability framework, especially the $100-per-day damages provision and attorneys’ fees, which could be viewed as strong enforcement tools by supporters but as overly punitive by affected publishers. The bill also leaves room for debate over whether public posting by law enforcement should remain unrestricted while private republication is curtailed.