Mugshot & Arrest Record Law, State by State
Whether a booking photograph can be removed depends first on whether publishing it was lawful in that state, and second on whether the record has been sealed, expunged, or made non-disclosable. Those are different questions with different answers, and most summaries online conflate them.
This reference publishes a state only once every claim on it has been checked against the legislature’s own bill history or the statute text. Where a state has not been checked yet, it says so. Secondary summaries of mugshot law are unreliable — we have seen a bill that died in committee reported as law in force, complete with an effective date and a damages figure.
This is not legal advice. It is a record of what the primary sources say, with links so you can read them yourself. For your own case, and before acting on anything here, consult a lawyer in that state.
Florida
Booking photos are public under the Chapter 119 public records law.
Florida's public records law keeps booking photographs accessible. Of the states reviewed so far it is the most permissive.
What actually constrains publication: Florida separately restricts the pay-to-remove model; confirm the current section before relying on it.
Primary sources
Illinois
Charging a fee to remove a mugshot is an unlawful practice, with damages set by statute.
815 ILCS 505/2QQQ makes it “an unlawful practice for any person engaged in publishing or otherwise disseminating criminal record information through a print or electronic medium to solicit or accept the payment of a fee or other consideration to remove, correct, or modify said criminal record information.” Subsection (b)(2) puts “photographs of the person taken pursuant to an arrest” squarely inside the definition.
What actually constrains publication: A for-profit publisher that charges for removal must correct errors within 5 business days of a certified-mail demand. Failure is “an unlawful and deceptive practice” carrying damages of $100 per day plus attorney's fees. The section expressly does not apply to news media or reporters as defined in § 8-902 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to the Illinois State Police, or to consumer reporting agencies. Separately, Public Act 100-0927 bars a law enforcement agency from publishing booking photographs on its social media.
Primary sources
Missouri
Arrest reports are open records — but close automatically if no charge is filed within 30 days.
Section 610.100 RSMo makes incident and arrest reports open records. It contains a provision with no equivalent in most states: “If any person is arrested and not charged with an offense within thirty days of arrest, the arrest report shall thereafter be a closed record.” The statute does not name booking photographs specifically.
What actually constrains publication: The thirty-day rule turns on whether a charge was filed, not on the outcome of the case. An arrest that never produced a charge moves from open to closed by operation of law, which is a stronger position for a removal request than most states offer.
Primary sources
North Carolina
Booking photos remain public record. No restricting law in force.
Two 2025 bills would have restricted publication and neither became law. H778 was re-referred to House Rules on 18 June 2025. S104, the Booking Photograph Privacy Act, passed first reading 17 February 2025 and sits in Senate Rules.
What actually constrains publication: The trend is toward restriction and both press groups and sheriffs' associations have engaged on past versions. Status should be re-checked each legislative session.
Primary sources
Texas
Booking photos are public. No statute bans publication.
There is no Texas statute banning pre-conviction mugshot publication. SB 509 (88R, 2023) would have created Government Code §552.1082 but DIED in committee — last action 21 March 2023, “Left pending in committee.” The section does not exist.
What actually constrains publication: Business & Commerce Code Ch. 109 is the operative law. A business may not publish criminal record information it knows is subject to an expunction order (CCP Art. 55.02) or an order of nondisclosure (Gov't Code Ch. 411, Subch. E-1). Ch. 109 chiefly targets the pay-to-remove business model.
Primary sources
Not yet researched
These states have not been checked against primary sources, so this page makes no claim about them. They will be added as each one is verified.
Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming
