Verified instances across the wider record: every early Durham file naming officers — six in one 2010 file — resolved against institutional respondents only. No officer, chief, or police counsel in the eighteen-year corpus we hold has faced a personal Code finding.
Why it matters
Removal is doctrinally tidy — the applicant loses no remedy in dollars. What is lost is attribution: the public record converts "Officer X did this" into "the institution did this," permanently. Meanwhile the reverse asymmetry operates without any rule at all: police databases retain civilians' unproven allegations, withdrawn charges, and "unfounded" files, and deploy them for years. (See the Records Guide on retrieving yours.)
The register — publication protocol
This page carries, first, the aggregate above: named-at-filing versus named-at-disposition, extended by service and year as coding completes. Second — only after independent legal review, and not before — a register drawn strictly from published decisions: name as it appears in the decision, citation, role, and the verbatim status line on every row (named as personal respondent at filing; removed as a party; allegations untested; no findings made against this individual). Nothing beyond the public record; nothing implied beyond the status line; corrections published in place.
Until that review concludes, the aggregate statistic is the publication. The register reports what the open-justice principle already made public — it simply declines to let procedure erase it.