Publications

California has collected information on suspected child abusers since 1965. Under the Child Abuse and Neglect Reporting Act ("CANRA"), an agency must transmit a written report "of every case it investigates of known or suspected child abuse or severe neglect which is determined not to be unfounded" to the Department of Justice's Child Abuse Central Index ("CACI" or "Index"). A report is "unfounded" if the investigator who conducted the investigation deems it: [1] to be false, [2] to be inherently improbable, [3] to involve an accidental injury, or [4] not to constitute child abuse or neglect." There is no further definition of what it means for a report to be "false" or "inherently improbable," and no discussion of the standard of proof by which that determination is to be made.

In Humphries v. County of Los Angeles, the Humphries own teenage child accused them of abuse. The Humphries were arrested and their other children were taken away. The day after the arrest, in accordance with CANRA, a report regarding the investigation of abuse of the Humphries was forwarded to CACI. After further investigation, the prosecution dismissed the criminal case against them. The Humphries were ultimately found "factually innocent," and the arrest records were ordered sealed and destroyed. Similarly, the juvenile court dismissed all counts of the dependency petition as "not true." The Humphries asked for their names to be removed from CACI. Following an inquiry by the Department of Justice, the Los Angeles Sheriff Department denied the request, saying the report was not unfounded because criminal charges were filed.

The Humphries sued the Los Angeles Sheriff Department, its sheriff and several deputies, including the reporting deputy under 42 U.S.C. section 1983. The district court said that continued inclusion on CACI did not violate the Humphries' Due Process rights. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed and reversed.

The Ninth Circuit found that because California makes the CACI database available to a broad array of government agencies, and even requires some groups to consult the database before making hiring, licensing, and custody decisions, individuals placed on the CACI have a liberty interest in not being wrongly maintained on CACI. The Ninth Circuit acknowledged that CANRA itself did not create a procedure by which the Humphries could have challenged their listing on CACI. Nonetheless, the court announced that the Los Angeles Sheriff Department should have created an independent procedure that would allow the Humphries to challenge their listing on the Index. The court found that the failure to do so violated the Humphries' Fourteenth Amendment rights to due process.

In light of the Ninth Circuit's decision, law enforcement agencies should adopt a policy and enact procedures to allow individuals who are included on CACI to appeal the listing/submission. In creating such policies and procedures, it is advisable for law enforcement agencies to take note of the Ninth Circuit's warning that "an investigator who conducted the investigation is unlikely to reverse his original decision." Thus, it might be prudent for the appeal to be handled by someone other than the original investigator. Public entities are encouraged to consult legal counsel for more information on the Child Abuse Central Index.