Law enforcement and government agencies rely on recurring justifications to label innocent individuals as “involved,” despite the absence of a factual or legal basis. Each justification is flawed.

Law enforcement response: “The investigation occurred at the person’s residence.”

Fact: A residence is a location, not a person. Property ownership or occupancy does not establish participation, knowledge, or culpability and does not create lawful “involvement.”

Law enforcement response: “The person was mentioned in the report.”

Fact: Being referenced in an investigative record does not constitute involvement. Witnesses, property owners, and uninvolved third parties are routinely mentioned without any criminal connection.

Law enforcement response: “The individual was a witness or potential witness.”

Fact: Witness status is not involvement and carries heightened privacy protections. Labeling a witness as “involved” is inaccurate and misleading.

Law enforcement response: “The case was still open.”

Fact: An open investigation does not suspend record-accuracy or privacy obligations. Classifications must reflect actual status, not speculation or administrative default.

Law enforcement response: “The label was internal or administrative.”

Fact: Once records are released, internal labels become public representations. Agencies are responsible for the accuracy of classifications used to justify disclosure.

Law enforcement response: “A Search Warrant Was Executed at the Person’s Residence, So They Were ‘Involved"

Fact: A search warrant authorizes the search of a location, not the accusation of the people who live there. When an individual is investigated, cleared, and not charged, there is no factual or legal basis to continue labeling that person as “involved” or to disclose their personal identifiers based solely on the execution of a warrant at their residence.

Law enforcement response: “It was a clerical or system error.”

Fact: Agencies remain accountable for the systems they use. Automation does not excuse unlawful disclosure or mislabeling.

Law enforcement response: “There was no intent to cause harm” or “it was corrected later.”

Fact: Intent is irrelevant. Once personal identifiers are released, the harm is permanent and cannot be cured retroactively.

Law enforcement response: “The Person Was ‘Involved’ Because They Were at the Car Accident”   

Fact: Being present at or witnessing a car accident does not establish fault, participation, or wrongdoing. A witness, bystander, or person who stopped to help is not “involved” in a criminal or civil sense unless facts show responsibility. Presence alone cannot lawfully justify labeling someone as “involved” or disclosing their personal identifiers.

If law enforcement can label an innocent person as “involved” based on proximity or administrative convenience, then no one’s privacy is secure. This mislabeling has been used to bypass mandatory privacy protections and redaction requirements, resulting in the unlawful disclosure of sensitive personal information and shifting the burden onto innocent individuals to repair harm they did not cause.

This petition demands that misclassification practices be corrected at the source before any records are released so privacy laws are enforced as intended. Only individuals with a factual and lawful investigative basis may be labeled “involved,” and innocent people must be protected from improper disclosure, not exposed by it.

By signing this petition, you are standing up for privacy rights and demanding accountability from law enforcement and records officials. This is about protecting innocent people and their families, restoring public trust, and stopping a practice that puts everyone at risk.

Please sign and share. Silence allows this to continue. Public action stops it and holds accountability from law enforcement and records officials