11. Mug shots.

There is no apparent reason why mug shots should not be disclosable pursuant to the state Public Records Act, except to insofar as a records custodian can successfully argue the applicability of one of the provisions of AS 40.25.120(a)(6), such as that production of these records could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings (6)(A), or could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of the personal privacy of a suspect, defendant, victim, or witness, (6)(C). Note that in the context of a challenge to the Alaska Sex Offender Registry Act, with respect to the state's explicit constitutional right of privacy, the Alaska Court of Appeals noted the constitutional protection of an individual's privacy depends on the factual context and the competing interests between society and the individual.  The court said that at least in the context of convicted sex offenders, the offender's assumed subjective expectation of privacy in biographical information gathered and released pursuant to the statute must yield to society's public safety interest. Patterson v. St., 985 P.2d 1007 (Alaska App. 1999). The court found that any subjective expectation of privacy held by the sex offenders in matters already of public record, such as details of conviction or date of birth, or in his physical appearance — as represented by his photograph, or in his employer's address, was not an expectation society would recognize as reasonable. Id. Comp. Doe v. State, 183 P.3d 999, 1002 (Alaska 2008) (referencing posting of convicts’ photos on internet as part of ASORA implementation).