610.122. Arrest record expunged, requirements. — 1. Notwithstanding other provisions of law to the contrary, any record of arrest recorded pursuant to section 43.503 may be expunged if:
(1) The court determines that the arrest was based on false information and the following conditions exist:
(a) There is no probable cause, at the time of the action to expunge, to believe the individual committed the offense;
(b) No charges will be pursued as a result of the arrest; and
(c) The subject of the arrest did not receive a suspended imposition of sentence for the offense for which the arrest was made or for any offense related to the arrest; or
(2) The court determines the person was arrested for, or was subsequently charged with, a misdemeanor offense of chapter 303 or any moving violation as the term moving violation is defined under section 302.010, except for any intoxication-related traffic offense as intoxication-related traffic offense is defined under section 577.023 and:
(a) Each such offense or violation related to the arrest was subsequently nolle prossed or dismissed, or the accused was found not guilty of each offense or violation; and
(b) The person is not a commercial driver's license holder and was not operating a commercial motor vehicle at the time of the arrest.
2. A record of arrest shall only be eligible for expungement under this section if no civil action is pending relating to the arrest or the records sought to be expunged.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
35
cases (
2 in the last 5 years), 1999–2024 · leading case:
Martinez v. State, 24 S.W.3d 10 (Mo. Ct. App. 2000).
Martinez v. State, 24 S.W.3d 10 (Mo. Ct. App. 2000).
· cites it 62× “Thereafter, pursuant to the provisions of Sections 610.122 2 and 610.123 RSMo Cum. *14 Supp.”
Jones v. St. Louis Cnty. Police Dep't, 133 S.W.3d 524 (Mo. Ct. App. 2004).
· cites it 23× “The County contends the tidal court erred in expunging the arrest record because the trial court failed to follow the statutory conditions for expungement contained in Section 610.122, RSMo 2000, 1 and erroneously applied equitable principles in direct contravention of Section…”
Ford v. Dir. of Revenue, 11 S.W.3d 106 (Mo. Ct. App. 2000).
· cites it 25× “His petition sought relief pursuant to Section 610.122, RSMo Cum.Supp. 1998, 2 “and in accord with the equitable authority granted to Courts of general jurisdiction within the State of Missouri.”
Coleman v. Missouri State Crim. Records Repository, 268 S.W.3d 464 (Mo. Ct. App. 2008).
· cites it 14× “Point on Appeal On appeal, the State argues the trial court erred in granting Coleman’s Petition to expunge her record because Coleman did not satisfy the requirements of Section 610.122 1 in that she failed to prove that her arrest was based on false information, that there was…”
In Re Dyer, 163 S.W.3d 915 (Mo. 2005).
· cites it 8× “Section 610.122 has remained unchanged since 1995.”
McNally v. St. Louis Cnty. Police Dep't, 17 S.W.3d 614 (Mo. Ct. App. 2000).
· cites it 12× “On appeal, the Director contends that the trial court exceeded its jurisdiction and misapplied the law because petitioner sought expungement of arrest records under Section 610.122 RSMo (Cum.Supp. 1998), a section which does not provide for expungement of records of…”
B.K. v. Mo. State High. Patrol, 561 S.W.3d 876 (Mo. Ct. App. 2018).
· cites it 6× “filed a Petition for Expungement of Arrest Record under section 610.122, RSMo. He sought to expunge his record of arrest for passing a bad check pursuant to section 570.”
Adum v. St. Louis Metro. Police Dep't, 423 S.W.3d 327 (Mo. Ct. App. 2014).
· cites it 10× “The SLMPD argues the trial court erred in granting Adum’s petition to expunge because Adum failed as a matter of law to prove his arrest was based on false information and failed to prove there was no probable cause at the time of the petition to expunge to believe he committed…”
Simpson v. State High. Patrol Crim. Records Repository, 522 S.W.3d 369 (Mo. Ct. App. 2017).
· cites it 10× “1 See section 610.122. In two interrelated points, MSHP challenges the trial court’s findings that (1) “[t]he arrest was based on false information” and (2) “[tjhere is no probable cause, at the time of the action to expunge, to believe the individual committed the offense.”
Maserang v. Crawford Cnty. Sheriff's Dep't, 211 S.W.3d 118 (Mo. Ct. App. 2006).
· cites it 7× “The State contends that the trial court failed to follow the statutory conditions for ex-pungement contained in § 610.122, 1 in that as a “matter of law there exists probable cause to believe that [Maserang] committed the crimes.”
— Mo. Rev. Stat. § 610.122(1) — 4 cases
Martinez v. State, 24 S.W.3d 10 (Mo. Ct. App. 2000).
“Thereafter, pursuant to the provisions of Sections 610.122 2 and 610.123 RSMo Cum. *14 Supp.”
Jones v. St. Louis Cnty. Police Dep't, 133 S.W.3d 524 (Mo. Ct. App. 2004).
“The County contends the tidal court erred in expunging the arrest record because the trial court failed to follow the statutory conditions for expungement contained in Section 610.122, RSMo 2000, 1 and erroneously applied equitable principles in direct contravention of Section…”
Maserang v. Crawford Cnty. Sheriff's Dep't, 211 S.W.3d 118 (Mo. Ct. App. 2006).
“The State contends that the trial court failed to follow the statutory conditions for ex-pungement contained in § 610.122, 1 in that as a “matter of law there exists probable cause to believe that [Maserang] committed the crimes.”
— Mo. Rev. Stat. § 610.122(2) — 2 cases
Martinez v. State, 24 S.W.3d 10 (Mo. Ct. App. 2000).
“Thereafter, pursuant to the provisions of Sections 610.122 2 and 610.123 RSMo Cum. *14 Supp.”
— Mo. Rev. Stat. § 610.122(4) — 5 cases
Martinez v. State, 24 S.W.3d 10 (Mo. Ct. App. 2000).
“Thereafter, pursuant to the provisions of Sections 610.122 2 and 610.123 RSMo Cum. *14 Supp.”
Jones v. St. Louis Cnty. Police Dep't, 133 S.W.3d 524 (Mo. Ct. App. 2004).
“The County contends the tidal court erred in expunging the arrest record because the trial court failed to follow the statutory conditions for expungement contained in Section 610.122, RSMo 2000, 1 and erroneously applied equitable principles in direct contravention of Section…”
— Mo. Rev. Stat. § 610.122(5) — 1 case
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.