Ashcroft seeks high court support in concealing assault victim's address

St. Louis County Circuit Judge Sandra Farragut-Hemphill has until May 22 to tell the Missouri Supreme Court why she thinks the high court should not block her from ordering a woman to reveal her home address.

The woman is the wife in a divorce case that Farragut-Hemphill is presiding over.

And the wife also is a participant in Missouri's Safe at Home program, which is run by the secretary of state's office.

The News Tribune generally does not identify sexual assault victims, and in this story identifies the woman in the St. Louis County divorce case only as "the woman" or "the wife."

The state House on Friday sent Gov. Eric Greitens a bill that includes language giving the secretary of state the opportunity to intervene in any proceeding where a court is considering ordering a Safe at Home program participant to disclose a home address.

Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft on Thursday asked the Supreme Court to block Farragut-Hemphill from continuing to enforce that order, which she originally issued last September and re-issued in January and April.

Farragut-Hemphill issued "an order that potentially could have jeopardized the safety of (the wife) and other Safe at Home participants," Assistant Attorney General Jillian Meek Mueller reminded the high court in an 11-page "Suggestions In Support" of her six-page petition seeking the Supreme Court's order.

In that petition, Mueller reminded the court the Safe at Home program is "administered by the secretary of state to protect victims of domestic violence, rape, sexual assault, or stalking by keeping their home addresses confidential and authorizing the use of designated addresses for such victims and their minor children."

On Jan. 31, Farragut-Hemphill ordered the wife to give her home address both to her husband and to the guardian ad litem, a separate lawyer named to protect the legal interests of the couple's child during the divorce proceedings - in spite of the wife's being in the Safe at Home program since April 2016.

Mueller noted Farragut-Hemphill also ruled the woman "was not properly a 'certified participant' in the Safe at Home program because she had failed to provide a sworn statement that she was a victim of domestic violence who feared future violent acts."

Ashcroft asked to intervene in the divorce case on Feb. 8 but argued in the petition to the Supreme Court that Farragut-Hemphill has denied his motions both to intervene in the case and for her to re-hear that motion after she denied it the first time.

When she denied the original motion to intervene on April 13, Farragut-Hemphill also "entered an order requiring that (the wife) disclose her address 'before leaving the courtroom,'" Ashcroft told the Supreme Court, noting it was an order both Ashcroft and the woman's mother have said she complied with.

"(The judge) has not at any time modified or reconsidered her orders directing (the wife) to disclose her home address despite the fact that (the wife) re-applied for the Safe at Home program and was re-certified by the secretary as a participant in the program," Mueller told the high court. "Accordingly, unless prohibited from doing so by this Court, (the judge) will continue to act in excess of her statutory authority."

In her "Suggestions in Support," Mueller noted lawmakers placed the Safe at Home program into state law, and any individual "may participate in the program by submitting an application to the secretary that identifies "one or more addresses that the applicant requests not be disclosed for the reason that disclosure will jeopardize the applicant's safety or increase the risk of violence to the applicant or members of the applicant's household."

She said the law gives the secretary of state the authority to certify a person's participation in the program - and that the law requires "state and local agencies and the courts shall accept the designated address as a program participant's address when creating a new public record."

Because Farragut-Hemphill has, so far, rebuffed Ashcroft's motions to intervene, Mueller wrote: "The Secretary has no adequate remedy at law by which to secure the relief sought."

If Greitens signs the bill lawmakers passed this week, it won't go into effect until Aug. 28.

But it says no person or entity shall be compelled to disclose the actual address of an Address Confidentiality Program participant during the discovery phase of a court proceeding, unless:

The court finds there is a reasonable belief that the address is needed to obtain information or evidence so the investigation, prosecution or litigation can proceed.

There is no other practicable way of obtaining the information or evidence.

The court must provide the participant an opportunity to present evidence about the disclosure order and must notify the secretary of state about the order.