AS LONG AS PUBLIC AND GOVERNMENTAL IGNORANCE ABOUT THE USE OF COMPUTERIZED POLICE INFORMATION EXISTS, THE POLICIES REGARDING SUCH INFORMATION WILL LIKELY REMAIN UNDEVELOPED AND INSUFFICIENT. THE POLICE ALLEGE THAT THEY CANNOT FUNCTION WITHOUT READILY ACCESSIBLE INFORMATION; HOWEVER, LEGISLATORS HAVE NOT BEEN ADEQUATELY INFORMED OF THE SOCIAL CONSEQUENCES OF PERMITTING THE POLICE TO HAVE UNRESTRICTED USE OF INFORMATION ON INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE BEEN ARRESTED AND NOT CONVICTED OF CRIMES. CONVERSELY, NO ONE IS FULLY INFORMED ON THE CONSEQUENCES OF PERMITTING INDIVIDUALS WITH PRIOR CONTACT WITH THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM TO EFFECTIVELY CONCEAL THEIR BACKGROUND. IN LAIRD V. TATUM (1972), THE U.S. SUPREME COURT HELD THAT THE PLAINTIFFS WERE NOT ENTITLED TO CHALLENGE, IN COURT, MILITARY DATA COLLECTION CONCERNING THEIR POLITICAL ACTIVITIES. IN THE SUBSEQUENT CASE OF PAUL V. DAVIS (1976), THE COURT HELD THAT THE POLICE COULD CIRCULATE AN ANNOUNCEMENT THAT THE PLAINTIFF WAS A KNOWN SHOPLIFTER, EVEN THOUGH THE PROSECUTION OF THE SHOPLIFTING TERMINATED IN THE PLAINTIFF'S FAVOR. THESE COURT DECISIONS IMPLY THAT THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT PROTECT A CITIZEN'S REPUTATION. INFORMATION HELD BY THE POLICE IS CONSIDERED 'PUBLIC' IN NATURE AND MAY OFTEN BE DISSEMINATED WITHOUT RESTRICTION. ONLY SUCH INFORMATION AS FAMILY HISTORY, COUNSELING REPORTS, AND PERSONAL DATA MAY BE CONSIDERED MORE PRIVILEGED. THE EXPUNGEMENT OF INACCURATE DATA AND RESTRICTED USE OF DATA SHOULD BE CONSIDERED. FOOTNOTES ARE PROVIDED. (TWK)