Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

St. Louis County Police, et al. Missouri Cases

This party appears in the Ott Law Firm Missouri court opinion archive. The cases below connect legal research paths to related practice pages when the opinions map to practical client issues.

Party ID
st-louis-county-police-et-al
Cases Shown
1
Top Practice Route
Criminal Law
Archive note: This is a summary of public court records and is not legal advice. Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source. This archive contains Missouri appellate slip opinions reproduced for research convenience, not the final official reporter version. Official source links remain authoritative where provided. Joseph Ott, Attorney 67889, Ott Law Firm - Constant Victory - Personal Injury and Litigation maintains these public legal archives to support Missouri case research and to help prospective clients connect that research to the firm's courtroom practice.

Related Practice Pages

Practical guidance connected to this party profile

These links route party-name research from the court archive into Ott Law Firm practice pages when the associated opinions map to a practical client issue.

Legal Help From The Archive

Need help turning court research into a case plan?

If a party-profile research path points to a current injury, employment, insurance, or litigation issue, Ott Law Firm can review the facts and explain practical next steps.

Cases Involving St. Louis County Police, et al.

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District / Jun 7, 2022

Brock Smith, Appellant, vs. St. Louis County Police, et al., Respondent.

Respondent

Brock Smith, a Tier I sex offender, sought removal from the Missouri Sex Offender Registry after fulfilling the ten-year registration period under the 2018 amendments to MO-SORA. The circuit court denied his petition, concluding that his federal registration requirement under SORNA mandated lifetime registration in Missouri, based on prior appellate interpretations. The Eastern District reversed, holding that the 2018 amendments fundamentally altered the registration framework, allowing Tier I and II offenders to petition for removal after the appropriate time, thereby superseding earlier interpretations that imposed lifetime registration.