Court Opinion

ID: 9690695
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 19:34:17.751081+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:19:01.336770
License: Public Domain

ROY L. RICHTER, Judge,
concurring.
I concur in the result but write to bring attention to the problems, created by the statutes and local court rules of St. Louis County. Here, the wife filed a Petition requesting an Order of Protection, which the Court granted, ex parte. Part of the Court’s responsibility is detailed in Section 455.040.3, which reads:
3. A copy of any order of protection granted pursuant to sections 455.010 to 455.085 shall be issued to the petitioner and to the local law enforcement agency in the jurisdiction where the petitioner resides. The cleric shall also issue a copy of any order of protection to the *48local laiu enforcement agency responsible for maintaining the Missouri uniform, law enforcement system or any other comparable law enforcement system the same day the order is granted. The law enforcement agency responsible for maintaining MULES shall enter information contained, in the order for purposes of verification within twenty-four hours from the time the order is granted. A notice of expiration or of termination of any order of protection shall be issued to the local law enforcement agency and to the law enforcement agency responsible for maintaining MULES or any other comparable law enforcement system,. The law enforcement agency responsible for maintaining the applicable law enforcement system shall enter such information in the system. The information contained in an order of protection may be entered in the Missouri uniform law enforcement system or comparable law enforcement system using a direct automated data transfer from the court automated system to the law enforcement system, (emphasis added)
As a practical matter, the Court enters the Ex Parte Order, and Court Clerks enter the fact of that Order’s existence into the Missouri Uniform Law Enforcement System (MULES). The local law enforcement agency where the petitioner resides also receives a copy of the Order. The entry of this information permits law enforcement officers to determine if an Order exists when violations of Orders are alleged. Law enforcement officers routinely rely on MULES for verification of outstanding arrest warrants and Orders of Protection.
In this case, Petitioner apparently1 filed a Motion to Dismiss the Order on Friday, February 17, 2006. There was testimony that the Motion was faxed to the Court sometime after 5:00 p.m. on the evening of February 17th. The Twenty-first Judicial Circuit Court Rule 8.4(2) provides, “A document received by facsimile transmission will be deemed filed as of the date and time recorded by the facsimile. The party transmitting the document is responsible for the completeness of the transmission.” Since the fax would not have been seen by Court personnel after business hours on a Friday evening, MULES was not notified of the termination. Court personnel would not have been aware of the intended termination until the Court opened on Tuesday morning, February 21st, as February 20 was the Presidents’ Day Holiday and the Court was closed.
Law enforcement is therefore placed in the unenviable position of being unable to determine whether a Court’s Order of Protection is valid, or if it has been terminated by the faxed filing of a Motion by the Petitioner which has not been seen by Court personnel and therefore has not been entered into MULES. The statute allows a Petitioner to dissolve a Court Order without judicial action, and the Local Court Rules of St. Louis County exacerbate the situation by deeming something filed when Court personnel are unaware of the “filing.” Nights and weekends are “prime time” for violations of Orders of Protection, and Law enforcement will always wonder if the information from MULES is accurate, or if there is a Motion to Dismiss sitting in the tray of a fax machine, waiting to be seen by court personnel at the start of the next business day.
In no other area of the law is a party given the power to unilaterally dissolve a Court’s Order; permitting a party to do so *49when the existence of such an Order is required to be entered into a database relied upon by law enforcement invites arrests that may later be determined to have been unnecessary. The Legislature may wish to change the statute to require Court approval before a Court’s order is dissolved.

. The legal file does not include any document indicating that a Motion to Terminate the Order of Protection or Motion to Dismiss the Petition was faxed to the Court.