Lego forces California police department to stop using toy heads to mask the identities of suspects after it went viral amid new social media rules for law agencies

The toy maker has asked a California police department that caused hilarity by using superimposed Lego heads to protect the identities of captured suspects to stop.

The Murrieta Police Department had been editing images of suspects after a new law prohibited them from sharing photos and photographs of suspects for non-violent crimes.

But the toy company failed to see the funny side, and the department will have to find another way to comply with the law in its Instagram posts.

“The Lego Group approached us and respectfully asked us to refrain from using their intellectual property in our social media content, something we of course understand and will comply with,” the department said in a statement.

While the law was passed earlier this year, Murrieta police have been covering suspects’ faces with everything from emojis to Shrek for several years as they prioritize the presumption of innocence.

Murrieta police often include humorous captions when sharing a mugshot of a Lego suspect, including a recent image in which they said officers won a game of hide-and-seek with a thief.

“Fortunately for officers, they were able to use GPS to locate the suspect,” cops added, saying the suspect – with a sad, bearded Lego for a head – was located using the victims’ stolen iPhone that he forgot to turn off. .

In another, a Shrek-faced suspect was replaced because he had been “acting like an ogre” at a Target store while attempting to steal nearly $2,000 worth of items.

While praising his detective skills, many took to the comments on the countless posts to wonder why they were swapping heads, leading to Monday’s explanation.

‘Why the covered faces?’ They started.

“On January 1, a new law went into effect that restricts how and when law enforcement agencies in California share suspicious photos and photographs.”

The department said the new law, Assembly Bill 994 and Penal Code 13665, prevents them from sharing suspicious images of nonviolent crimes unless there are specific circumstances.

They added that the new law requires agencies to remove suspicious mugshots from social media after 14 days, unless special circumstances exist.

‘The Murrieta Police Department prides itself on its transparency with the community, but also respects everyone’s rights and protections as set forth by law; Even suspicious,” the post concluded.

“To share what is happening in Murrieta, we chose to cover the suspects’ faces to protect their identity while also aligning with the new law.”

Murrieta police said this suspect had acted “like an ogre” at a Target store while attempting to steal nearly $2,000 worth of items.

The mock editions are divided in opinion, with some feeling they are a fun way to get around the law and “the Lego faces look better anyway.”

Some critics argued that it only serves to help lawbreakers, and “there seem to be more laws protecting criminals than law-abiding citizens.”

The Lego mugshots divided opinion, with some feeling they were a fun way to get around the law, while others questioned whether they were appropriate and only served to help lawbreakers.

One local commented that “Lego faces kill me,” and another felt that “Lego faces are better anyway.”

“Not all those arrested are guilty and one day it could be you,” added another defender.

However, some were offended by the editing skills and argued that it only serves to protect criminals.

‘Who makes these laws?’ one questioned. “Gosh, it seems like there are more laws protecting criminals than law-abiding citizens.”

Another critic said it was “another L for California,” and questioned, “Why does our legislation spend so much time and effort protecting criminals?” It’s so backwards.’

Although the department said it was mandated by the Jan. 1 law, they clarified in a November post that the decision was made after they decided to prioritize the presumption of innocence for those arrested.

‘The department had an internal discussion about publishing the faces of detainees in general. “After weighing many factors, the department ultimately decided not to publish the faces of the detainees,” they said.

“Circumstances arise that require or justify the publication of a detainee’s face, but the department decided those would be the exceptions and not the rule.”

The publication also cited possible humiliation of the suspects’ families by sharing them on social media and a general risk aversion in sharing the images.

‘Our goal is to keep our citizens informed about what is happening in the city in which we all live, as well as the work that the police department is doing on behalf of the citizens,’ they concluded.