Case Name: K.M., Plaintiff/Respondent, v. MISSOURI STATE HIGHWAY PATROL CRIMINAL RECORDS REPOSITORY, Appellant, and City of Crestwood and St. Louis County Police Department, Defendants
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2015-08-18
Citations: 467 S.W.3d 908
Docket Number: No. ED 102170
Parties: K.M., Plaintiff/Respondent, v. MISSOURI STATE HIGHWAY PATROL CRIMINAL RECORDS REPOSITORY, Appellant, and City of Crestwood and St. Louis County Police Department, Defendants.
Judges: Before Philip M. Hess, P.J., Gary M. Gaertner, Jr., J., and Angela T. Quigless, J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 467
Pages: 908–909

Head Matter:
K.M., Plaintiff/Respondent, v. MISSOURI STATE HIGHWAY PATROL CRIMINAL RECORDS REPOSITORY, Appellant, and City of Crestwood and St. Louis County Police Department, Defendants.
No. ED 102170
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION TWO.
Filed: August 18, 2015
Gregory M. Goodwin, Assistant Attorney General, PO Box 899, Jefferson City, Missouri 65102, for Appellant.
Clayton E. Gillette, Lathrop & Gage, L.C., 10 South Broadway, Suite 1300, St. Louis, Missouri 63102, Gregory S. Kessler, Co-Counsel, Frankel, Rubin, Bond, Dubin, Siegel & Kelin, P.C., 231 South Bemiston, Suite 1111, Clayton, Missouri 63105, for Respondent.
Kathryn E. Linnenbringer, 41 South Central Avenue, 9th Floor, Clayton, Missouri 63105, Lawrence J. Wadsack, Lash-ley & Baer, P.C., 714 Locust Street, St. Louis, Missouri 63101, for Defendants.
Before Philip M. Hess, P.J., Gary M. Gaertner, Jr., J., and Angela T. Quigless, J.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM
The Missouri State Highway Patrol (MSHP) appeals the trial court's Judgment and Order of Expungement of Arrest Records in favor of K.M. MSHP argues that the trial court erred in granting KM.'s petition for expungement because K.M. did not prove the elements entitling her to expungement under the statute and that K.M. was otherwise barred from seeking expungement under the doctrine of issue preclusion. We affirm.
We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and have determined that an extended opinion would serve no jurisprudential purpose. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion only for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision. Rule 84.16(b).