Attorney General Chris Koster's office has not said, yet, if it will ask the Missouri Supreme Court to review last week's state appeals court ruling that neither the attorney general nor the Missouri Highway Patrol (MSHP) has an automatic right to be included in a Sex Offender Registry case.
Last year, Circuit Judge Kenneth M. Hayden ordered in a Laclede County case that Heath Dunivan, Camdenton, be removed from the registry.
Dunivan, 42 on Thursday, has been required to register following his Oct. 13, 1993, conviction for second-degree sexual abuse of a 13-year-old in Lebanon, that occurred on May 1, 1992. Dunivan was 19 at the time.
In 2012 he asked the court to set aside that order and - after a hearing that included the Laclede County prosecuting attorney's office - Hayden agreed, and on May 20, 2013, issued the order removing Dunivan from the list.
However, Dunivan's information still was available Monday afternoon on the Highway Patrol's website, www.mshp.dps.missouri.gov/CJ38/searchRegistry.jsp.
Three months later, court records show, the attorney general's office filed a motion for both Koster's office and the patrol to intervene in the case.
After Hayden denied those requests, the attorney general appealed, raising two legal points - that a state law gives his office an "unconditional right" to intervene, and that a separate Supreme Court rule also gives the attorney general and the patrol that same right.
The appeals court rejected both claims.
On the first claim, the court said, Koster's office "overstates the rights" the state law gives, because that law says the attorney general "may also appear ... in any proceeding or tribunal in which the state's interests are involved."
The judges noted that the words "'may' appear is not synonymous with an unconditional right to intervene in any existing lawsuit," especially since the state was "already a party ... represented by the prosecuting attorney."
The judges also noted that the law that allows removing a name from the Sex Offender Registry "does not provide that the Attorney General be given notice of the petition to remove a name from the registry, nor does it mandate that the Attorney General be made an additional party to the proceeding."
Koster's office also had argued that, as a practical matter, the disposition of Dunivan's petition could cause problems for the patrol's enforcing Missouri's Sex Offender Registration Act, and that their interests might not be represented adequately without being allowed to intervene.
In its ruling, the judges noted the attorney general argued "that the MSHP has an absolute right to intervene because of its interest in maintaining the statewide sex offender registry as required by statute. The MSHP does have that duty - however, it does not have input into whether Dunivan should be on the registry.
"(Hayden's) order does not affect the MSHP's duty to maintain the registry."
The appeals court said Hayden didn't abuse his discretion in denying the motions to intervene, noting again that "the State was already a party and was being represented by the prosecuting attorney."
The judges ruling in the case were Nancy Steffen Rahmeyer, Gary W. Lynch and Don E. Burrell.