San Francisco’s Mug Shot Ban: Reform or Cover-Up?
San Francisco Police Chief Bill Scott announced on July 1, 2020, that the department will stop releasing mug shots unless a suspect poses a public threat, claiming it’s about racial bias—but some see it as a dodge.
The policy, effective immediately, has sparked debate: is it a genuine push for fairness, or a way to hide the reality of who’s committing crimes in the city?
On July 1, 2020, San Francisco Police Chief Bill Scott rolled out a new policy with a lofty promise: no more mug shots released to the public unless the arrestee is a clear danger or police need help tracking someone down. The stated reason? To tackle racial bias, particularly the “negative stereotypes” Scott says booking photos pin on minorities. But dig a little deeper, and this move starts to look less like reform and more like a convenient shield for a thornier truth—crime stats in San Francisco, like many cities, show Black individuals disproportionately involved in arrests, and some suspect Scott’s just trying to keep that out of the spotlight.
Under the new rules, the SFPD won’t share mug shots with the press or post them online without jumping through hoops—approval from the department’s PR squad is now required. Scott, who’s Black himself, leaned hard into the narrative, sharing anecdotes about being racially profiled in department stores. “I’ve been followed around, looked at suspiciously,” he said, framing the policy as a personal crusade against prejudice. He argues that plastering minority faces across media feeds creates an “illusory correlation”—a fancy term for people assuming Black equals criminal. But here’s the rub: what if the correlation isn’t so illusory? Crime data’s no secret—Black residents, though a small slice of San Francisco’s population, consistently account for a outsized chunk of arrests. Is this really about fairness, or is it about dodging accountability for a problem the city can’t—or won’t—solve?
Scott’s got his cheerleaders. Jack Glaser, a UC Berkeley professor who advised him, trots out studies showing Black arrestees are more likely to see their cases dropped than white ones, suggesting police overreach. Fair enough—except that doesn’t erase the initial arrests or the crimes that prompted them. Glaser says mug shots stick around online, tainting people even if they’re cleared. True, but isn’t that a symptom of a bigger issue: why are so many arrests happening in the first place? Meanwhile, Eugene O’Donnell from John Jay College calls it a justice reform win, but skeptics might ask—whose justice? The public’s right to know who’s being nabbed, or a police chief’s image?
Then there’s the pushback. Nina Salarno of Crime Victims United of California isn’t sold, pointing out mug shots can jog victims’ memories and bring more cases to light. She’s got a point—how’s the SFPD deciding who’s “threatening” enough to show? Sounds like a recipe for cherry-picking. And those sleazy websites charging to scrub mug shots? They’ll keep cashing in either way—Scott’s policy doesn’t touch that mess.
The chief says this is a “small step” toward equity, and San Francisco’s now a trailblazer—unlike LA or New York, where mug shot limits don’t come with the racial bias sermon. But let’s call it what it might be: a PR stunt dressed up as progress. If Black crime rates are high—and stats say they are—hiding the photos doesn’t change the reality; it just keeps people from seeing it. Scott’s betting on applause from the reform crowd, but for anyone paying attention, this could just be a slick way to sweep an inconvenient truth under the rug. Transparency’s taking a hit, and the question lingers: who’s this really protecting?