Is the arrestee's right to privacy violated if a photograph of him is published by the police?

In addition, the suspect's right of privacy is not violated by prompt and accurate public reporting of the facts and circumstances of his arrest: 'It is also generally in the social interest to identify adults currently charged with the commission of a crime. While such an identification may not presume guilt, it may legitimately put others on notice that the named individual is suspected of having committed a crime. Naming the suspect may also persuade eyewitnesses and character witnesses to testify. For these reasons, while the suspect or offender obviously does not consent to public exposure, his right to privacy must give way to the overriding social interest.' (Briscoe v. Reader's Digest Association, Inc. (1971) 4 Cal.3d 529, 536, 93 Cal.Rptr. 866, 871, 483 P.2d 34, 39, see also Kapellas v. Kofman (1969) 1 Cal.3d 20, 38, 81 Cal.Rptr. 360, 459 P.2d 912.)

Next, the information derived from the arrest may be used by the police in several ways for the important purpose of investigating and solving similar crimes in the future. We have held, for example, that a photograph taken pursuant to even an illegal arrest may be included among those shown to a witness who is asked to identify the perpetrator of a subsequent crime. (People v. McInnis (1971) 6 Cal.3d 821, 825--826, 100 Cal.Rptr. 618, 494 P.2d 690.) This is a fortiori permissible in the case of a lawful arrest; and the same identification function is served, of course, by the arrestee's fingerprints and other recorded physical description.