Maserang v. Crawford County Sheriff's Dept., No. 27675.

CourtCourt of Appeal of Missouri (US)
Writing for the CourtGary W. Lynch
Citation211 S.W.3d 118
Docket NumberNo. 27675.
Decision Date20 December 2006
PartiesLawrence Paul MASERANG, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. CRAWFORD COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, Defendant, and Missouri State Criminal Records Repository, Defendant-Appellant.
211 S.W.3d 118
Lawrence Paul MASERANG, Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
CRAWFORD COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, Defendant, and
Missouri State Criminal Records Repository, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 27675.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District, Division Two.
December 20, 2006.

[211 S.W.3d 119]

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., and Theodore A. Bruce, Assistant Attorney General, Jefferson City, MO, for appellant.

Stephen K. Paulus, Lange and Paulus, L.L.C., Cuba, MO, for respondent.

GARY W. LYNCH, Judge.


The State of Missouri appeals from the trial court's judgment and order expunging the record of Respondent Lawrence Maserang's arrest on June 17, 1998. The State contends that the trial court failed to follow the statutory conditions for expungement contained in § 610.122,1 in that as a "matter of law there exists probable cause to believe that [Maserang] committed the crimes." Because we find this contention lacks merit, we affirm.

1) Factual and Procedural Background

Maserang filed a Petition for Expungement of Arrest Records under the provisions of § 610.122,2 seeking an order expunging the record of his arrest on June 17, 1998, by a Missouri State Highway Patrol officer. At the hearing on his petition, Maserang testified on his own behalf as follows. On June 17, 1998, he operated a housewares store in Bourbon, Missouri. At this store, he sold various household items, including pipes that were manufactured and sold for the purpose of smoking tobacco only. All of the pipes that Maserang offered for sale were brand new from

211 S.W.3d 120

the manufacturer. There was nothing illegal about these pipes, none had been used in any type of illicit context, and none had any drug use associated with them. Maserang also sold belt buckles.

On the day in question, Sergeant Satterfield of the Missouri Highway Patrol entered the store in plain clothing. Maserang, unaware that Sergeant Satterfield was an officer, overheard him engaged in a conversation with another customer. Sergeant Satterfield was asking the customer his opinion as to which pipe would be the best to smoke "plenty of Missouri home-grown backyard tobacco." Sergeant Satterfield then purchased a pipe and left the store. Observing that Sergeant Satterfield was acting "so strange[,]" Maserang followed him out of the store into the parking lot, where he was promptly arrested by the officer. Sergeant Satterfield asked Maserang, his wife, and his minor child for permission to search the store, and all denied him permission. Sergeant Satterfield then returned into the store and seized over $50,000 worth of merchandise. Those items included corn cob pipes, small smoking devices that Maserang testified were "tobacco tasters[,]" and a brass belt buckle with holes which had a mechanism on the back to connect it to a belt.

Maserang specifically denied having any discussions with Sergeant Satterfield about using illegal drugs in any of the pipes at this store or, for that matter, discussing using or smoking anything in these pipes. Maserang further testified that he had no criminal convictions prior to or following this arrest. Maserang also offered that the charges had been dismissed by the prosecutor prior to preliminary hearing. Maserang stated that every pipe was new from the manufacturer and to his knowledge they were used to smoke tobacco. Maserang offered that the smaller pipes were used to taste tobacco, and he did not know of any other purpose for them. With regard to the belt buckle, Maserang testified that he had several belt buckles for sale in his store, and they all had a place for a belt to run through them and connect on the back.

Sergeant Satterfield was called as the State's only witness. During his testimony, he acknowledged that the items in the store which were seized were legal to possess but could be used illegally. Other testimony by Sergeant Satterfield will be elicited and discussed later in this opinion.

The record is not clear as to what crimes Maserang was charged with following his arrest. The court files in the case were destroyed through the fault of neither party. It appears that Maserang may have been charged with selling drug paraphernalia and possession of an illegal weapon. Both parties agreed that the charges had been dismissed, the statute of limitations had expired thereby preventing any potential charges from being filed, and all physical evidence relating to the cases had been destroyed. The physical evidence in both cases was destroyed upon motion by the State by a court order issued on July 14, 2001, three years after the seizure.

Following the conclusion of the evidence, the trial court announced orally that he was granting the request for expungement. Afterward, on March 10, 2006, the trial court entered its Judgment and Order of Expungement of Arrest Record providing, in pertinent part:

The court finds that the arrest of the petitioner in the case recorded pursuant to Section 43.503 RSMo identified above was based on false information, that there is no probable cause at the time of the action to expunge to believe that the individual committed the offense, that no charges will be pursued as a result of the arrest, that the petitioner/subject of

211 S.W.3d 121

the arrest has no prior or subsequent misdemeanor or felony convictions, that the petitioner/subject did not receive a suspended imposition of sentence (SIS) for which the arrest was made or for any offense related to the arrest, and that no civil action is pending relating to the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 practice notes
  • Trapani v. State, WD 79580
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • February 14, 2017
    ...of the trial court, which is free to believe none, part, or all of the testimony. Maserang v. Crawford County Sheriff's Dep't , 211 S.W.3d 118, 121 (Mo. App. S.D. 2006). We defer to the trial court's determination of the witnesses' credibility. Id. Doe v. Mo. State Hwy. Patrol Criminal Reco......
  • Doe v. Mo. State Highway Patrol Criminal Records Repository, No. ED 102092
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • August 18, 2015
    ...of the trial court, which is free to believe none, part, or all of the testimony. Maserang v. Crawford County Sheriff's Dep't, 211 S.W.3d 118, 121 (Mo.App.S.D.2006). We defer to the trial court's determination of the witnesses' credibility. Id.Point I: "Actual Innocence" In its first point,......
  • Simpson v. Mo. State Highway Patrol Criminal Records Repository, No. SD 34639
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • June 21, 2017
    ...the trial court, which is free to believe none, part, or all of the testimony of any witness. Maserang v. Crawford Cty. Sheriff's Dep't, 211 S.W.3d 118, 121 (Mo. App. S.D. 2006).522 S.W.3d 371As relevant here, a trial court may expunge an arrest recordif the court determines that the arrest......
3 cases
  • Trapani v. State, WD 79580
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • February 14, 2017
    ...of the trial court, which is free to believe none, part, or all of the testimony. Maserang v. Crawford County Sheriff's Dep't , 211 S.W.3d 118, 121 (Mo. App. S.D. 2006). We defer to the trial court's determination of the witnesses' credibility. Id. Doe v. Mo. State Hwy. Patrol Criminal Reco......
  • Doe v. Mo. State Highway Patrol Criminal Records Repository, No. ED 102092
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • August 18, 2015
    ...of the trial court, which is free to believe none, part, or all of the testimony. Maserang v. Crawford County Sheriff's Dep't, 211 S.W.3d 118, 121 (Mo.App.S.D.2006). We defer to the trial court's determination of the witnesses' credibility. Id.Point I: "Actual Innocence" In its first point,......
  • Simpson v. Mo. State Highway Patrol Criminal Records Repository, No. SD 34639
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • June 21, 2017
    ...the trial court, which is free to believe none, part, or all of the testimony of any witness. Maserang v. Crawford Cty. Sheriff's Dep't, 211 S.W.3d 118, 121 (Mo. App. S.D. 2006).522 S.W.3d 371As relevant here, a trial court may expunge an arrest recordif the court determines that the arrest......

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