Why don’t you publish mug shots when you write about crime in D.C.?

Last week, the man accused of being responsible for a spate of sexual assaults in Dupont Circle was arrested. And while Oscar Mauricio Carnejo-Pena stands charged with four counts of misdemeanor sexual assault, he may well be responsible for a number of other gropings—some of which he admitted to when detained by D.C. police.

But when we—like many other media outlets—first reported on his arrest, we were stuck with little to work with by way of a picture: either we could use a stock image of a police officer, or, as we originally chose to do, an image of Liz Gorman, one of Carnejo-Pena’s victims who went public after being groped in the heart of Dupont Circle.

Readers and friends alike asked me why we didn’t have a mugshot of Carnejo-Pena to share; the man is likely responsible for a number of sexual assaults, after all, and was only sent to a halfway house after an initial court appearance. The implication seemed obvious: we’d at least like to know what this man, known to hang around Dupont Circle, looks like. Sadly, it’s not that easy.

Unlike many surrounding jurisdictions—just check out these mugshots from all around the region—neither MPD nor prosecutors release mugshots unless a suspect is wanted or until after they are convicted. Even if we asked really nicely or filed a Freedom of Information request, D.C. police and the offices that prosecute offenders would most likely turn us down.

The reasons for why dates back to the late 1960s. In 1967, a report commissioned by the D.C. Board of Commissioners—the precursor to our elected mayor and D.C. Council—found that arrest records, including mugshots, were widely disseminated. In an era of civil disobedience, this was bad news: a single arrest for protesting the government could land an otherwise honest citizen’s mugshot in a local paper, endangering their job and livelihood. It could also mean that the FBI could get a hold of the information, starting a file on that person.

A 1969 court case dealing with an arrest of a man for disorderly conduct who was never prosecuted described the report’s conclusions:

The Report found that the use of arrest records by prospective employers was widespread, and the consequences of a person having been arrested, even if the charges were subsequently dismissed, were severe. The Report recommended that the Commissioners adopt rules prohibiting the dissemination to employers of records of arrests where no conviction resulted. The Report also recommended, however, that complete arrest records should be disseminated to law enforcement agencies. On November 2, 1967, the Commissioners adopted virtually all of the Report’s recommendations, and the recommendations became law 90 days later.

Those provisions are known in part as the Duncan Ordinance, which keeps a tight lid on information related to juvenile cases but more broadly keeps adult arrest records—and mugshots—sealed from public view until a conviction.

Of course, this isn’t absolute. According to a Department of Justice statement of policy dating back to 1970, police and prosecutors can release basic information on a suspect and what they are charged with. That being said, the policy stresses that certain types of information “generally [tend] to create dangers of prejudice without serving a significant law enforcement function,” and those should be kept from public view. Mugshots are included; the specific provision reads:

Personnel of the Department of Justice should take no action to encourage or assist news media in photographing or televising a defendant or accused person being held or transported in Federal custody. Departmental representatives should not make available photographs of a defendant unless a law enforcement function is served thereby.

According to Bill Miller, spokesman for the U.S. Attorney’s Office for D.C.—which prosecutes many local crimes—mugshots are rarely released before a conviction, though they can be if introduced as evidence during a trial. A spokeswoman for the D.C. Superior Court and one for MPD confirmed that D.C. police don’t release mugshots do the press or public.

This practice certainly doesn’t extend to all of Virginia and Maryland (or many other states), as evidenced by the weekly roundup of mugshots that many local media outlets publish. And in looking at those mugshot slideshows, it’s not hard to realize that the line between sensationalism and justice is a fine one indeed. Yes, many of those mug shots are of criminal suspects that may have done bad things—but the key word is “may.” If they’re eventually acquitted, would the same media outlet that published their mugshot remove the image and explain that the person is innocent for all intents and purposes? Probably not.

That, of course, is another debate for another time. Are mugshots vital elements of what the public has a right to know, or could they simply serve to prejudice the public against someone who could well be innocent? D.C. opts for the latter. As for Carnejo-Pena, his mugshot won’t be available to us unless he’s convicted.