V.C. v. Casady

The mother of nine-year-old C.C. was involved in a custody dispute with C.C.’s father. The mother told a police officer that V.C. (plaintiff), who was a friend of C.C.’s father, might have sexually abused C.C. The police officer investigated, concluded there was no evidence of sexual assault, and dictated a supplementary investigation report. The report stated there was no evidence V.C. had abused C.C. but that V.C.’s relationship with C.C. was peculiar and inappropriate. Investigation reports are electronic narrative reports that are not available to the general public without a subpoena or court order. Government agencies that conduct criminal investigations may obtain copies of the reports upon request. V.C. brought an action against Thomas Casady, the police-department chief, and Don Leuenberger (defendants), the director of the Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), seeking an order directing Casady and Leuenberger to expunge any record of the police department’s investigation. V.C. claimed that the police department’s retention of the reports constituted an invasion of his right to privacy and deprived him of liberty without due process of law. At trial, Casady testified with respect to the utility of the reports. The court excluded as irrelevant evidence that V.C. offered to undermine the facts and conclusions in the reports. The court declined to order expungement and dismissed V.C.’s petition. On appeal, V.C. argued that the court erred in finding that the police department and DHHS had a legitimate need to retain the reports, failing to find harm to V.C.’s legal interests, and excluding evidence relevant to the accuracy of the investigation.