Naming policy for arrestees and the accused

Status

This policy is a first draft and will be reviewed by a California media-law attorney before launch. Nothing here should be read as legal advice.

The arrestee / charged / convicted distinction

This is the most important editorial discipline at Pier and Point. It applies without exceptions, regardless of the seriousness of the alleged conduct or the prominence of the accused.

• Arrestee. A person taken into police custody. An arrest is not an adjudication. We use "arrested," "taken into custody," or "detained" — not "arrested for [crime]" with the criminal label attached as if proven.
• Charged. A prosecutor has filed criminal charges. We say so explicitly: "the Ventura County District Attorney charged X with Y" and we cite the case number and filing where possible.
• Convicted. A jury, judge, or guilty plea has resolved the case. Until then, we use "alleged" or "accused" before the criminal label.

The word "alleged" is not a stylistic preference. It is the difference between accurate reporting and a lawsuit waiting to happen.

Booking photos

We do not publish booking photos for nonviolent arrests absent a specific, articulable public-interest justification. Routine publication of booking photos for nonviolent arrests causes disproportionate reputational harm and serves minimal public interest.

When we do publish a booking photo, we explain in the story why it is in the public interest.

AB 994 binds law enforcement agencies, not publishers, but its logic shapes our editorial policy.

Auto-update on dismissal or acquittal

When a charge is dismissed or a defendant is acquitted, and the affected person asks us to:

• We update the original story with the outcome, clearly labeled.
• We add an editor’s note explaining what happened.
• We unpublish the original arrest story upon request when the charge was dismissed or the defendant was acquitted, leaving an editor’s note at the URL explaining what happened. The internal record is preserved.

We do not require a legal demand to make these changes. A polite email from the affected person is sufficient.

Private individuals on matters of public concern

California’s defamation framework treats private individuals on matters of public concern under a negligence standard (Brown v. Kelly Broadcasting, 48 Cal.3d 711). This is a lower bar than the actual-malice standard that applies to public officials and public figures, and it is where most local-news defamation exposure lives.

Practical implications for Pier and Point:

• Right-of-reply attempt before publication is mandatory for every story that names a private individual.
• The arrestee / charged / convicted distinction applies with extra care.
• We document the right-of-reply attempt in the editorial record even when no response comes.

Public officials and public figures

Public officials and public figures must prove actual malice — knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth — under New York Times v. Sullivan and Reader’s Digest. The bar is high, but AI-generated text that fabricates a quote or invents a fact about a named official can clear it. Our AI usage policy is the procedural firewall against that scenario.

Juveniles

We do not name juveniles charged with crimes except in narrow categories where the public interest is exceptional and the juvenile justice system has already disclosed the name. This policy is more restrictive than California law requires.

Victims of violence

We do not name victims of sexual violence. We do not publish identifying photographs of crime victims when publication could reasonably create danger or distress. We err toward minimization.