## Facts

- A Lincoln Police Department (LPD) officer prepared an incident report and a supplemental investigation narrative after receiving a report that a nine-year-old child might have been sexually abused by V.C.
- The officer interviewed the child at school, consulted with a school counselor, reviewed information from a custody dispute, and completed the investigation narrative.
- The investigation concluded there was no evidence of sexual assault and no criminal charges were filed, but the narrative characterized V.C.’s relationship with the child as “peculiar and inappropriate.”
- LPD maintained incident reports as public records that identified victims but not suspects, while supplemental investigation narratives naming involved persons were restricted to official access (e.g., law enforcement and governmental agencies).
- Nebraska DHHS could access investigative materials for official child-protection and licensing functions, but the narrative report was not available to the general public.
- V.C. claimed continued retention of the investigation narrative was false, stigmatizing, and harmed his reputation and employment prospects, particularly for work involving children.
- V.C sued in equity seeking an order requiring expungement of records related to the investigation from LPD and DHHS files; the district court denied relief and excluded some accuracy-related evidence as irrelevant.

## Issues

1. Whether equitable expungement of police investigative records was warranted absent a showing that retention invaded a clearly protected legal right.
2. Whether retention and limited official dissemination of the investigation narrative violated informational privacy or deprived V.C. of a protected liberty interest without due process.
3. Whether exclusion of evidence challenging the report’s accuracy required reversal.

## Decision

- The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the denial of expungement.
- Expungement was deemed an extraordinary equitable remedy, and V.C. failed to show exceptional circumstances or an invasion of a legally protected right.
- The court held that reputational injury and speculative employment effects, without an accompanying change in legal status or loss of a tangible right, did not establish a due process liberty deprivation.
- The court found no informational privacy violation where the narrative was not publicly disseminated and was retained and shared only for legitimate governmental purposes.
- The district court erred in excluding some evidence bearing on the report’s accuracy, but the error was harmless because even assumed inaccuracies did not establish a predicate right justifying expungement.

## Legal Principles

- Expungement of law-enforcement investigative records is extraordinary equitable relief, appropriate only in exceptional circumstances where record retention itself invades a constitutional or statutory right or constitutes an abuse of power.
- Injury to reputation alone does not constitute a protected liberty interest under due process; a claimant must show stigma plus a material alteration of legal status or deprivation of a tangible legal right.
- Limited retention and inter-agency sharing of investigative information for legitimate law-enforcement or regulatory functions, without public disclosure and without a statutory entitlement to destruction, ordinarily does not violate privacy or due process.
- Erroneous exclusion of evidence is harmless if the excluded proof would not change the dispositive conclusion that no protected legal interest was invaded.

## Conclusion

The court refused to order expungement because V.C. did not show that retention of a restricted-access investigation narrative—kept for legitimate law-enforcement and child-protection purposes—invaded a recognized liberty or privacy right, and any evidentiary error regarding the report’s accuracy did not affect that result.


V.C. v. Casady, 262 Neb. 714, 634 N.W.2d 798 (Neb. 2001)