Is selling an autographed mugshot of oneself a violation of Indiana&#39;s &quot;Son of Sam&quot; (notoriety-for-profit) law? Let's hypothetically say a person is arrested and booked into a county jail. During the intake process, their mugshot is taken. Let's also say that later on the arrest makes major news, even beyond local news, like regional and national news, and the person's mugshot is a part of the news coverage. The person was later convicted of the crime they were arrested for and is now out of prison. Could they sell autographed copies of their mugshot? Or would this be in violation of Indiana's &quot;Son of Sam&quot; laws (Indiana Code § 5-2-6.3-3) that prevent a person from profiting off their crimes? I have done a cursory google search and could not find anything explicitly forbidding this, but also nothing clearly stating that it was 100% legal either. Person in this hypothetical scenario is in Indiana, United States.
Indiana Code § 5-2-6.3-3 requires a person charged with a felony to remit 90 percent of any income derived &quot;directly or indirectly from a felony&quot; to the state's crime-victims fund. So if the defendant's crime was not a felony, the law does not purport to have any effect on the mugshot transaction. But even if it was a felony, the law does not actually prohibit the mugshot sale, it merely imposes a tax on transactions related to that offense. But the law is unconstitutional, as the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that these &quot;Son of Sam&quot; laws violate the First Amendment: We conclude simply that, in the Son of Sam law, New York has singled out speech on a particular subject for a financial burden that it places on no other speech and no other income. The State's interest in compensating victims from the fruits of crime is a compelling one, but the Son of Sam law is not narrowly tailored to advance that objective. As a result, the statute is inconsistent with the First Amendment. Simon Schuster v. Crime Victims Bd., 502 U.S. 105, 123 (1991).
(assuming United States law here, though I'd be surprised if it were significantly different in other jurisdictions with such restrictions) Your friend is incorrect: that would be a new offense, for which Person A could be prosecuted anew. If your friend's logic were correct, once a person is convicted of robbing a store, they'd be free to rob that store without repercussions for life. It's worth noting that the conviction isn't relevant: the prohibition of double jeopardy in the United States prevents even multiple prosecutions (except, in some cases, for separate state and federal prosecutions or foreign prosecutions).
It's called police and prosecutorial discretion to discern when to arrest and prosecute; and that situation in particular is also the result of a decision of the jury of the court of public opinion. Permits are required to sell on the street in Oakland. But not everyone who sells has a permit, and not everyone who is confronted about not having a permit is arrested and prosecuted. There are simply too many potential cases to prosecute. And, the police officer has the discretion to ticket or not. When you get pulled over while driving or riding a bike, you don't always get a ticket, since the officer has the option of discretion. When the officer responded and found an eight year-old selling water, he obviously was aware of the fact that it was a violation. But he was also aware of the court of public opinion. What is it going to look like if he arrests an eight year old and their parent? Allison Ettel was right, in a purely legal sense, to make the report. And technically, the child (and adult) needed a permit. And could have been ticketed and prosecuted. But it was Ettel was tried and convicted in the court of public opinion, and she lost her case. Happens a lot.
How come this is viable? Because it’s legal. What if people use their service to commit crimes? What if people use a Ford in a bank holdup? Or a Glock in a murder? Or the US Postal Service in a Nigerian letter scam? If the goods or services are legal and not provided for an obviously illegal purpose, nothing happens.
You didn't post the details of what exactly is involved with a "vampire initiation fee": is this simply the purchase of an physical object? Or the purchase of a service, such as the placing of a spell or the providing of the service of alleged protection from vampires? Or is this some form of a real "Advance-fee scam" where money and banking credentials or personal information is involved? (See link below). But in the big picture, one person's scam is another person's persuasive business sales pitch for an unusual item or service. Simply being able to pay for such an item or service doesn't make the sale - or the contract to sell it - illegal everywhere. It may be the case that selling an "vampire initiation fee" does not happen to be illegal in Nigeria. Illegal in the US, possibly yes. illegal there? Maybe not. Contract laws differ; in the US, contracting for something that is illegal voids the contract. In Nigeria, maybe not. Though the "vampire initiation fee" doesn't sound to me like a classic Advance-fee scam (Wikipedia), Google search on 419 scams and the results will tell you that it will be nearly impossible to get a prosecutor in that country to deal with anything like that, even if it is a real scam that promises lots of money for an upfront fee. Prosecutors have much better things to do. And you might have to go to Nigeria to make your case; see other answers that more fully outline the laws and legal aspects. Good luck. And it's better to spend your money on some garlic and a mirror. 7/03/18 Update re: the email transcript linked in question That's not a scam; the person is simply trying to sell you on the initiation fee. There is no crime. There is no promise of more money for a small fee (and bank credentials or personal information) like a typical 419 advance fee scam. You're not producing useful evidence for a prosecutor by engaging in the email and mostly agreeing to pay him. It's not illegal for you to send money by Western Union for the vampire fee. Even if you did send money, you're not being defrauded because you already know the vampire initiation is fake, and as a result you couldn't logically prove to a prosecutor or court that you were scammed. He's not guilty of fraud as no money has changed hands for a (fraudulent) service. Emailing with him might make you feel good by wasting his time, but that's all.
Simply being in the store in these fake nametags and outfits is probably not illegal. At least it does not violate any law that I know of. There might be some specific law in a particular jurisdiction, and the question does not say where this is assumed to occur. If a person actively impersonates a store employee, say by &quot;selling&quot; an item to a would-be customer and keeping the money, that would be fraud, or perhaps &quot;theft by deception&quot;. If a person pretending to be a store employee gives a patron advice as if from an employee, say on whether a product has a specific feature, that is IMO unethical, but probably not illegal. If a person pretending to be an employee runs down the store and advises a patron to go elsewhere to shop, that might be &quot;interference with a commercial relationship&quot; which is a cause for a civil action in some places, I understand. Certainly the management would object. If the management notices such a fake employee, I think they would tell that person to leave the store. Failing to do so, or returning later, would then be trespass. Copying the store logo might well be a technical infringement of copyright, but as long as there is no economic damage, a copyright suit is IMO quite unlikely. There would be no trademark case as long as the fake was not used to sell or advertise anything.
At the federal level, per 18 USC 751, escaping is a crime. In United States v. Allen, 432 F.2d 939 it was held that an arrest need not be lawful in order for an escape to be illegal; Laws v. US states that "This court has said that a sentence imposed for a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 751 is 'not affected by the validity of the sentences being served at the time of the escape'", giving numerous citations. I don't find cases where the escapee was exonerated; prosecutors have the discretion to not prosecute for committing a crime, so it would be hard to find a case where the legality of such a conviction was upheld (also, hard to find a jury willing to convict in such circumstances).
Yes, they are. A business can decide not to do business with someone for pretty much any reason. The obvious prohibited reason is due to your race. But I don't see how eBay would even know your race. Some State laws might protect you, but I don't think there's any that applies in this case. For example, California might give you a means of appeal if someone stole your identity and they performed those transactions, not you. But I don't know of any Federal or State law that would change the very, very basic principle of law that a property owner gets to decide who can and cannot access their property. eBay owns eBay. One key benefit of ownership is precisely that you can make decisions that other people consider to be unfair, discriminatory (other than the specifically prohibited categories) and draconian. Other people don't have to agree with your decisions for them to be lawful.