Kuenzle v. Missouri State Highway Patrol

Decision Date23 November 1993
Docket NumberNo. 75824,75824
Citation865 S.W.2d 667
PartiesWilliam F. KUENZLE, Respondent, v. MISSOURI STATE HIGHWAY PATROL, et al., Appellant.
CourtMissouri Supreme Court

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Timothy W. Anderson, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for appellant.

James C. Owen, Chesterfield, for respondent.

COVINGTON, Chief Justice.

William F. Kuenzle, respondent, was arrested for, but not charged with, stealing under $150. Kuenzle petitioned the Circuit Court of Cole County to use its equitable power to expunge the arrest record. The court ordered expungement, and the Court of Appeals, Western District, affirmed. This Court granted transfer to decide the question of whether the trial court in this case had equitable authority to expunge Kuenzle's arrest record. Judgment is reversed.

William Kuenzle worked as a clerk at Dillard's Department Store in St. Louis. On October 26, 1985, he sold to a customer clothing that had been marked down to $10.61, but which should have been priced at approximately $90. Kuenzle was arrested for stealing under $150, a class A misdemeanor. The markdown error was discovered, and Kuenzle was not charged with any crime.

Kuenzle earned an associate degree in criminal justice administration. He desires employment in law enforcement, but believes that the arrest record will unjustly hinder or prevent employment opportunities. Although the arrest record is closed, law enforcement agencies have access to the record for employment purposes. Sections 610.100, 610.120, RSMo 1986 & Supp.1992. Kuenzle petitioned the trial court to use its equitable power to expunge the arrest record. The trial court ordered the record expunged, and the Court of Appeals, Western District, affirmed, holding that Missouri courts possess equitable power to expunge arrest records and expungement is warranted because, on balance, Kuenzle's interest in expungement outweighs the state's interest in maintaining the arrest record.

Although the issue as framed by the parties is broad, the only question necessary for disposition of the matter presented is whether §§ 610.100 and 610.120 preclude equitable expungement of the arrest record in this case.

Examination of the history of the arrest record statutes reveals varying legislative approaches to balancing individuals' privacy interests and society's interest in maintaining arrest records. Prior to 1981, § 610.100 provided for closure of arrest records where the person was not charged within thirty days, and expungement where there was no conviction within one year of closure. In 1981, the legislature amended § 610.100 and enacted § 610.120. Section 610.100 continued to provide for closure after thirty days of arrest if no charges were brought, but it no longer allowed expungement. Section 610.100 was also amended to incorporate § 610.120, which provides access to closed arrest records for certain groups. The focus shifted from "existence of the record of an arrest not resulting in conviction, ... [to] the accessibility and the use of such record." Martin v. Schmalz, 713 S.W.2d 22, 25 (Mo.App.1986).

The list of groups that have access to closed arrest records, and the purposes for access, has grown since 1981. 1 Relevant to this case, in 1989 the legislature expanded § 610.120 to allow access for the purpose of criminal justice employment. Section 610.120, as it applies to this case, states:

Records required to be closed shall not be destroyed; they shall be inaccessible to the general public and to all persons other than the defendant except as provided in this section.... They shall be available only to courts, law enforcement agencies, child care agencies, facilities as defined in section 198.006, RSMo, in-home service provider agencies as defined in § 660.250, RSMo, and federal agencies for the purposes of prosecution, sentencing, parole consideration, criminal justice employment, child care employment, nursing home employment and to federal agencies for such investigative purposes as authorized by law or presidential executive order.

Section 610.120, RSMo Supp.1992 (emphasis added).

No statutory basis exists for expungement of Kuenzle's arrest record. 2 Furthermore, the arrest records statute precludes equitable expungement of the record under the facts of this case. The legislature made a determination that law enforcement agencies should have the right to view its applicants' closed arrest records. Kuenzle's situation squarely fits within the statute. Where a statute clearly defines the rights of parties, the statute may not be unsettled or ignored. Milgram v. Jiffy Equipment Co., 362 Mo. 1194, 247 S.W.2d 668, 676 (1952). "Equity Courts may not disregard a statutory provision, for where the Legislature has enacted a statute which governs and determines rights of the parties under stated circumstances, equity courts equally with courts of law are bound thereby." Id. 676-77. An equity court is not free, therefore, to decide cases "merely upon its own conceptions of what may be right or wrong in a particular case." Seifert v. Seifert, 708 S.W.2d 150, 156 (Mo.App.1985). The legislature specifically amended § 610.120 to allow access to closed arrest records for criminal justice employment purposes; the trial court exceeded its equitable jurisdiction in disregarding the statute and expunging Kuenzle's arrest record.

Kuenzle and the court of appeals focus on the fact that the arrest records statute does not specifically eliminate a court's equitable power to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • Jefferson v. Jefferson
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • June 29, 2004
    ...courts equally with courts of law are bound thereby." McGhee v. Dixon, 973 S.W.2d 847, 849 (Mo.1998) (quoting Kuenzle v. Missouri State Highway Patrol, 865 S.W.2d 667, 669 (Mo. banc 1993)). We cannot find Missouri's statutory scheme plainly inadequate to resolve this issue and decline to ex......
  • Martinez v. State
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • February 1, 2000
    ...and that same year underwent a substantial revision in which the expungement provision was eliminated. See Kuenzle v. Missouri State Highway Patrol, 865 S.W.2d 667, 668 (Mo. banc 1993). Nevertheless, prior to that 1981 revision and continuing up to the 1993 legislation, Missouri courts have......
  • McGhee v. Dixon
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • May 26, 1998
    ...rights of the parties under stated circumstances, equity courts equally with courts of law are bound thereby." Kuenzle v. Missouri State Highway Patrol, 865 S.W.2d 667, 669 (Mo. banc 1993), quoting Milgram v. Jiffy Equipment Co., 362 Mo. 1194, 247 S.W.2d 668, 676-77 (Mo.1952). The new law s......
  • Lane v. Non-Teacher School Emp. Retir. Sys.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • August 30, 2005
    ...and determines rights of the parties under certain circumstances, equity, as much as the law, is bound thereby. Kuenzle v. Mo. State Highway Patrol, 865 S.W.2d 667, 669 (Mo. banc In their motion, the respondents alleged, as to why laches applied to bar the appellants' suit, facts concerning......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
3 books & journal articles
  • Chapter 5 501 Privileges Recognized Only as Provided
    • United States
    • The Missouri Bar Evidence Guide Deskbook
    • Invalid date
    ...records are “inaccessible” to all persons other than the defendant with listed exceptions. See Kuenzle v. Mo. State Highway Patrol, 865 S.W.2d 667 (Mo. banc 1993); State ex rel. McHaffie v. Bunch, 891 S.W.2d 822, 831 (Mo. banc 1995). 14. Information from the “putative father registry” Secti......
  • §501 General Rule—privileges Recognized Only as Provided by Law
    • United States
    • Evidence Restated Deskbook Chapter 5 Privileges
    • Invalid date
    ...records are "inaccessible" to all persons other than the defendant with listed exceptions. See Kuenzle v. Mo. State Highway Patrol, 865 S.W.2d 667 (Mo. banc 1993); McHaffie ex rel. McHaffie v. Bunch, 891 S.W.2d 822, 831 (Mo. banc 1995). 13. Information from the "putative father registry." S......
  • Section 19 Equity Follows the Law (Equity Follows Clear Rules of Statutory, Constitutional, or Common Law)
    • United States
    • The Missouri Bar Remedies Deskbook Chapter 1 History, Definition, and Maxims of Equity
    • Invalid date
    ...its equitable jurisdiction in disregarding the statute and expunging Kuenzle’s arrest record. Kuenzle v. Mo. State Highway Patrol, 865 S.W.2d 667, 669 (Mo. banc 1993) (citations omitted). One of the maxims of equity is that equity follows the law. The fact that this is a suit in equity is n......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT