4

I've recently been watching a youtuber by the name of "Patty Mayo". He arrests people who fail bond payments or fail to appear in court.

I've seen "Cops" before, but this guy doesn't blur faces and lists the fugitive's full name and on what charges they're being arrested for, as well as why they were supposed to appear in court in the first place. He also seems to goad confessions out of the fugitives for their original crimes. All on camera, obviously. His videos regularly have hundreds of thousands of views, sometimes going over a million or more.

He also uses the videos to promote his own merchandise, but I've noticed that he mutes the volume whenever his company name is said.

Is this legal? To me this seems like he directly profits off of destroying these people's reputations and uses his own job to (closest term I could find) "double dip".

He seems to do most of his work in LA.

  • 2
    Well, for starters, the fact that Mr. X has been ordered to appear in court on charges of Y, and did not do so, would typically be a matter of public record. (That's probably how this bounty hunter found out about them in the first place.) So revealing that could hardly violate any law. – Nate Eldredge Feb 18 '18 at 2:24
  • 2
    Destroying someone's reputation with truthful information is perfectly legal. – ohwilleke Jul 22 '18 at 19:56
  • @ohwilleke I'm wondering why doxing someone with information obtained from public sources is illegal in some places. Or is it? – mark b Nov 21 '18 at 18:03
3

If Mayo's content was against YouTube's Terms of Service, due to copyright, illegal activity or lack of model releases for the people filmed, I think by now Google would have taken his channel down due to complaints and Google's own housekeeping.

To me this seems like he directly profits off of destroying these people's reputations...

What is happening is one or a combination of several of these things:

1) As NateEldrige pointed out in his comment to the question "the fact that Mr. X has been ordered to appear in court on charges of Y, and did not do so, would typically be a matter of public record. (That's probably how this bounty hunter found out about them in the first place.)" So revealing that could hardly violate any law. Public records for people wanted for bounty violations are public and are used to find them.

2) Video taping the general public is generally legal. See Photography and the law - Wikipedia

3) After the taping of a segment, it's possible all individuals are asked to sign a release allowing the use of the video. See Is it legal for police to travel with a film crew and publicize arrest footage without consent? - Law Stack Exchange. If they don't sign, he can't use the tape.

4) There are some sites on the web that claim that (some or all of) Patty Mayo's videos actually use paid actors to recreate bounty hunter and arrest incidents, and as such the videos are not "real."

As for

He also uses the videos to promote his own merchandise, but I've noticed that he mutes the volume whenever his company name is said.

This may be a result of Google's TOS and restriction on advertising or use of his business name in his channel; it's hard to say without knowing details.

  • Many bounty hunters are self-employed, in which case "double dipping" wouldn't be an issue. Also, if he is employed, his employers are surely aware of his channel and could have fired him if they objected. – ohwilleke Jul 22 '18 at 19:56
  • Taping in private is not legal, and you don't have a right to tape people who AREN'T on the warrant in their homes. (read: family members). The show is fake. See my other comment. The Oregon Sheriffs have talked with Mr Mayo and directly state the entire show is a SHOW and all people are paid actors. – Katastic Voyage Jun 17 at 2:06
2

Another issue not discussed is that he is technically making a "Citizens' Arrest" which is a lawful arrest by a non-deputized citizen of a person who is breaking the law. In Common Law districts such as the United States, Citizens' Arrests are legal provided that the person who is subject to the arrest is treated in a legal fashion by the person arresting them. The videos may also serve as evidence that Patty Mayo's arrests are legal and that any claims of abuse made by the detained are demonstrably false. Typically police agencies do take a dim view on Citizens Arrests due to how easy it is for a lay person to cause the arrested individual harm. In effect, putting these arrests up on youtube.

The muting of certain portions is related to California wiretapping and photography laws. In CA, filming without permission is not a crime if it is conducted on public property. You do not need to ask anyone permission to film them. However, recording a conversation between a group of individuals in public if the individual is not making public statements does need consent of all parties (even if they are making statements to the film crew only... that needs a signed waiver). This doesn't count if the activity is clearly meant for the consumption of the public, such as the chanting of protesters, the testimony in a local government hearing, or the rando-crazy person yelling that you need to repent because the end is nigh.

-1

He isn't a real bounty hunter. The people that he apprehends are actors that can be booked through talent websites. He is doing this for entertainment purposes only.

Proofs: https://youtu.be/9IgS8cnP-YQ

https://youtu.be/2c2oi9caq7U

  • 1
    Please give citations for your claims. No matter how true they may be, evidence is needed to back them up. – GOATNine Aug 27 '18 at 15:49
  • This is absolutely fake according to the Oregon State Police's official announcement on the show. oregonsheriffs.org/… ".Mr. Mayo is not a member of law enforcement, nor affiliated in any way with any Sheriff’s Office in Oregon. He is an actor and the uniform he wears is a costume. [...] production crew or paid actors/actresses. Sheriff’s Office has met with Mr. Mayo and advised him filming his videos in public locations cannot continue without the proper security, permits (if needed) and road closures" – Katastic Voyage Jun 17 at 1:58
-2

Destroying someone's reputation with perfectly legal information falls under a civil tort of invasion of privacy. Invasion of privacy is included in our constitution as argued by Chief Justice Douglas "the constitution included "penumbral rights of privacy and repose." Simply put hes risking an attack on his wallet with his 15 minutes of fame on youtube.

  • The question doesn't appear to describe "intrusion of solitude", "public disclosure of private facts", "false light", or "appropriation". These are the four categories of invasion of privacy. False light would require proving malice. – Jason Aller Sep 18 '18 at 15:15

protected by Community Sep 23 '18 at 17:41

Thank you for your interest in this question. Because it has attracted low-quality or spam answers that had to be removed, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site (the association bonus does not count).

Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.