LAKE COUNTY, Calif. — A federal court ruling handed down earlier this month has resulted in changes to inmate and arrest information posted on the Lake County Sheriff’s Office website.

The Houston V. Maricopa County ruling in the Ninth Circuit Court led to the sheriff’s office temporarily disabling its "recent arrests" and "in custody" online tools on its website at www.lakesheriff.com.

The Ninth Circuit ruled unanimously that Maricopa County, Arizona’s practice of posting photographs of arrestees — which is common across the United States — is not constitutionally permissible because it amounts to punishment.

“The state may not punish pretrial detainees without an adjudication of guilt,” said the decision, which overturned a lower court’s dismissal of the case.

The federal Houston case is now having a ripple effect across the country, including here in Lake County.

“County counsel gave us direction on making the decision to disable the current system due to the fact that we can’t share compliant information without displaying booking photos,” said Lauren Berlinn, the Lake County Sheriff’s public information officer.

For about 20 years, the Lake County Sheriff’s website has featured mugshots and detailed arrest logs.

Berlinn said the agency has launched a new tool called Citizen RIMS to display recent arrests and in custody information that remains under compliance with all regulations resulting from the court decision.

On Tuesday morning, the in-custody information was once more live at https://www.lakecountyca.gov/953/In-Custody. At that point the arrests page was still disabled. However, by Wednesday it was reestablished with the Citizen RIMS format.

The Citizen RIMS tool includes full names, ages, genders, race, height and weight, hair and eye color, build, complexion, booking numbers and booking dates. It includes the arresting agency, date, location and bail, and the counts for which they were arrested.

Information that is no longer offered includes birthdates, birth place and current city of residence, arresting officer and the arrestee’s next date in court.

Most notably, the website now does not show mugshots.

Also missing are the two decades of previous arrest information that could be accessed through the Lake County Sheriff’s website.

Similarly, the Mendocino County Sheriff’s Office took down the mugshots on its website.

“Due to a recent ruling of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, in the case of Houston V. Maricopa, the Mendocino County Sheriff’s Office is not posting photographs of arrestees on the Mendocino County Sheriff’s Office booking log website,” the agency said on its website.

The federal case that triggered the change

The case that yielded the Sept. 5 Ninth Circuit Court decision that led to removing mugshots, Houston V. Maricopa County, involves Brian Houston, who was arrested and charged with assault by Phoenix Police officers in January 2022.

The circuit judges who heard the case are Marsha S. Berzon, Andrew D. Hurwitz and Anthony D. Johnstone. The three judges were appointed by presidents Bill Clinton, Barack Obama and Joe Biden, respectively.

Case documents explain that, during the Maricopa County jail booking process, Houston’s photo was taken and posted, alongside many others, on the County’s publicly accessible “Mugshot Lookup” website.

“Next to the mugshot photo were Houston’s full name, birthdate, and an entry under ‘Crime Type’ describing the category of his alleged offense. Pushing a ‘More Details’ button would have revealed Houston’s sex, height, weight, hair color, eye color, and the specific charges on which he was arrested,” the court’s decision explained.

That information remained online for approximately three days pursuant to the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office’s regular practice. The court noted that Houston was never prosecuted on the charges noted on the post, which were later dropped.

“To justify its mugshot posting practice, the County asserts that its posts promote transparency in the criminal legal system. But the ‘Mugshot Lookup’ page did not contain the names of the arresting officers, the division of the County police department responsible for the arrest, whether charges were pursued or dismissed, or the jail in which Houston was held. The ‘Mugshot Lookup’ posts thus shed light only on arrestees, not on the operations of the Sheriff’s Office or County law enforcement,” the court document explains.

In May of 2022, Houston filed a lawsuit against Maricopa County and Sheriff Paul Penzone seeking declaratory relief, injunctive relief, monetary damages and punitive damages.

Houston alleged that the online booking sheets violated Arizona’s Public Records Law, the Arizona Constitution’s right to privacy, Arizona law on intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, the Arizona Mugshot Act, due process under the Fourteenth Amendment and the Arizona Constitution, the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause and the Sixth Amendment.

He also said the mugshot posting had caused him emotional distress and public humiliation, permanently damaged his business and personal reputation, and placed him at risk of identity theft, fraud and extortion.

Part of the damage came from a third-party website scraping his mugshot and personal information for posting. Houston alleged that Maricopa County was aware of that practice.

Maricopa County moved to dismiss the operative complaint, which a district court granted. However, Houston appealed, which led to the case eventually making it to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

The court found that Maricopa County’s “nonpunitive reason” for posting Houston’s mugshot — transparency — was not a “talisman” for them.

“Arguments about transparency—quite a vague concept—require context. We cannot credit a transparency justification without evaluating what information is at issue, to whom such information is being revealed, and the purpose such disclosure serves. After conducting such an examination, we conclude that a mere assertion of a transparency interest does not establish a ‘legitimate governmental objective’ requiring dismissal of Houston’s complaint,” the decision explained.

Ultimately, the court found, “Houston plausibly pleaded a substantive due process claim against the County based on pretrial punishment,” and they reversed the district court’s dismissal.

The court also noted in its conclusion that the posting of mugshots as was Maricopa County’s practice resulted in “public exposure and humiliation of pretrial detainees, who are presumed innocent and may not be punished before an adjudication of guilt.”

Maricopa County’s website now says “unavailable” under the mugshot lookup page.

Email Elizabeth Larson at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.. Follow her on Twitter, @ERLarson, or Lake County News, @LakeCoNews.