B.K. v. Mo. State Highway Patrol
561 S.W.3d 876
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2018Background
- B.K. petitioned to expunge a 2009 arrest for passing a bad check (case filed Aug. 27, 2010; dismissed Sept. 17, 2010 after restitution). He sought expungement to avoid employment/licensing harm.
- B.K. did not recall the exact arrest date; trial evidence showed arrest occurred while the felony charge was pending (within the 22-day window between filing and dismissal).
- The Missouri State Highway Patrol (the State) opposed expungement, alleging B.K. had prior and subsequent misdemeanor traffic convictions and that the petition failed to list the arrest date as required.
- At bench trial the State offered Fine Collection Center (FCC) printouts to prove traffic convictions; B.K. objected for lack of authentication. The court conditionally admitted then later excluded the FCC records and related testimony.
- Trial court found no admissible evidence of prior/subsequent convictions, concluded B.K. was eligible, and ordered expungement and confidentiality of records.
- The State appealed, arguing (1) the FCC records were admissible under §490.130, (2) B.K. was ineligible due to prior convictions, and (3) B.K. failed to comply with §610.123 by not providing the arrest date.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (B.K.) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of FCC records | FCC printouts are statewide automated court records admissible under §490.130 | FCC is not a court record and printouts lack proper foundation/authentication | Court affirmed exclusion: FCC is an administrative bureau, not a court system under §490.130; records inadmissible without foundation |
| Whether B.K. is ineligible due to prior/subsequent misdemeanor convictions | FCC records (if admissible) show prior/subsequent traffic convictions, disqualifying B.K. | No admissible evidence of prior/subsequent convictions was introduced | Court affirmed expungement: no admissible proof of prior/subsequent convictions was before the court |
| Compliance with pleading requirement to list arrest date | B.K. failed §610.123 by not specifying exact arrest date in petition or offering a date at hearing | Date can be inferred from filing and dismissal dates; range conceded by State includes actual arrest date; remedial statute to be liberally construed | Court affirmed expungement: evidence proved arrest occurred within the 22-day window; that sufficed under liberal construction of expungement statute |
Key Cases Cited
- Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30 (Mo. banc 1976) (bench-trial standard of review)
- Finnegan v. Old Republic Title Co. of St. Louis, 246 S.W.3d 928 (Mo. banc 2008) (statutory interpretation reviewed de novo)
- Doe v. St. Louis Cty. Police Dep't, 505 S.W.3d 450 (Mo. App. E.D. 2016) (remedial expungement statutes construed liberally)
- State v. Ralph, 521 S.W.3d 673 (Mo. App. E.D. 2017) (JIS records admissible under §490.130 because JIS is a statewide court record system)
- State v. Pylypczuk, 527 S.W.3d 96 (Mo. App. W.D. 2017) (foundational requirements for documentary evidence and limits of statutory authentication)
- Levin v. Carpenter, 332 S.W.2d 862 (Mo. 1960) (administrative violation bureaus are not courts for purposes of conviction/adjudication analysis)