SB 352 - This act modifies provisions relating to judicial proceedings. COURT DISSOLUTION OF A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY (SECTION 347.143) The act modifies the procedure by which a court may decree dissolution of a limited liability company. Specifically, in addition to circumstances where it is not reasonably practicable to carry on the business in conformity with the operating agreement, the court may issue such a decree if it determines: (1) Dissolution is reasonably necessary for the protection of the rights or interests of the complaining members; (2) The business of the limited liability company has been abandoned; (3) The management of the limited liability company is deadlocked or subject to internal dissension; or (4) Those in control of the limited liability company have been found guilty of, or have knowingly countenanced, persistent and pervasive fraud, mismanagement, or abuse of authority. This provision is identical to a provision in SCS/SB 897 (2024), in SCS/HCS/HB 2064 & HCS#2/HB 1886 (2024), in CCS/HCS/SS/SCS/SB 72 (2023), HB 85 (2023), HB 278 (2023), SB 401 (2023), and SB 475 (2023), and is substantially similar to HB 1458 (2024). ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROCESSES (SECTIONS 435.014 AND 435.300 TO 435.312) This act establishes provisions relating to procedures for alternative dispute resolution ("ADR") processes. A court may refer, either by rule or order, any individual civil case or category of civil cases to any nonbinding ADR process. Within 30 days of referral, the parties may: (1) Notify the court that the parties have chosen pursuant to a written agreement to pursue an ADR process different from the ADR process chosen by the court; (2) Notify the court that the parties have agreed to delay such ADR process until a date certain; or (3) If any party, after conferring with the other parties, concludes that the ADR process has no reasonable chance of helping the parties understand or resolve a procedural or substantive issue or if there is a compelling circumstance, the party may file a motion to not participate in the ADR process. Once a motion has been filed, the ADR process shall not occur until a ruling and, if granted, the matter shall not be referred without compelling circumstances. In any action referred to an ADR process, discovery may proceed in any other action before, during, and after the ADR process, except the court may stay discovery to promote savings in time and expense. A neutral individual ("neutral") appointed by the court or requested by the parties to serve in the ADR process shall avoid any conflict of interest. Even if the neutral believes that no disqualifying conflict exists, the neutral shall: (1) Before agreeing to serve, make a reasonable inquiry to determine whether there are facts that would cause a reasonable person to believe that the neutral has a conflict of interest; (2) As soon as practicable, disclose reasonably known facts relevant to any conflicts of interest; and (3) After accepting a designation, disclose any previously undisclosed information that could reasonably suggest a conflict of interest. After disclosure of a conflict, the ADR process may proceed if all parties have agreed in writing or if the organization administering the ADR process determines under the parties' written agreement that the neutral may continue to serve. Any party believing a court-appointed neutral has a conflict of interest may request for the neutral to recuse himself or may file a motion for disqualification. Additionally, the court may require a change of a neutral if necessary to protect the rights of an unrepresented party. ADR communications, as defined in the act, shall not be admissible as evidence in any proceeding or subject to discovery. However, evidence that is otherwise admissible or subject to discovery shall not be inadmissible or protected from discovery solely because of its disclosure or use in the ADR process. Additionally, a court may admit communications, upon motion by a party and following a hearing, if the court finds that the communication is relevant and admissible and was: (1) Made in the presence of a mandated reporter and pertains to abuse or neglect that such mandated reporter is required to report; (2) A substantial threat or statement of a plan to inflict bodily injury capable of causing death or substantial bodily harm that is reasonably certain to occur; (3) Intentionally used to plan a crime, attempt to commit a crime, or to conceal an ongoing crime; or (4) Necessary to establish or defend against a professional misconduct or malpractice claim that is based on conduct occurring during the ADR process. If requested by a party or if necessary to ensure confidentiality, the hearing shall be conducted in the judge's chambers. A participant, including the neutral, has standing to intervene in any proceedings in order to object to the admissibility of communications made by such participant. Additionally, this act provides that no neutral, or agent or employee of the neutral or of the neutral's organization, shall be subpoenaed or compelled to disclose any ADR communication. No neutral who is a licensed attorney shall be required to disclose any ADR communication of which a reporting obligation in the rules of professional conduct of attorneys might otherwise apply. However, a neutral may be subpoenaed to enforce a written settlement agreement, but only to testify that the parties signed such agreement in his or her presence. The court may order the party seeking admission of an ADR communication to pay the costs and fees of the neutral or any other participant who intervenes to contest the admission or who responds to a subpoena regarding the ADR communications. Unless a written agreement provides for a binding ADR process, the processes conducted pursuant to this act shall be nonbinding. Furthermore, this act shall not preclude any court from referring any matter to a nonbinding ADR process. This act shall only apply to ADR processes referred by court order or rule or by a written agreement of the parties expressly providing for this act to apply. This act is not intended to undermine the right to a jury trial nor does this act require any party to settle any claim or attend a mediation with counsel. If the court has not referred the parties to an ADR process or if the parties elect not to use the provisions of this act, the process shall be regarded as settlement negotiations. If the parties have agreed in writing to an ADR process but have not invoked the provisions of this act, the neutral shall not be subpoenaed or otherwise compelled to disclose any matter revealed in the setting up or conducting of such ADR process. Finally, this act requires all settlement agreements to be in writing. These provision are identical to SB 256 (2025), provisions in SCS/SB 897 (2024), SB 1096 (2024), in SCS/HCS/HB 2064 & HCS#2/HB 1886 (2024), SB 215 (2023), in SCS/HCS/HBs 994, 52 & 984 (2023), SB 1148 (2022), SB 591 (2021), HB 953 (2021), HB 2534 (2020), and are substantially similar to HB 1456 (2024), provisions in CCS/HCS/SS/SCS/SB 72 (2023), HB 82 (2023), and are similar to HB 2660 (2022). UNIFORM CHILD CUSTODY JURISDICTION AND ENFORCEMENT ACT (SECTIONS 452.705, 452.730, 452.885 AND 487.110) This act modifies the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act by permitting the court, upon a filing of a petition as described in the act, to issue an ex parte warrant to take physical custody of a child if the court finds that there is a credible risk that the child is imminently likely to suffer wrongful removal. Additionally, the court may, before issuing the warrant and before determining placement of the child, order a search of certain databases to determine if the petitioner or respondent has a history of domestic violence, stalking, or child abuse or neglect. A respondent shall be afforded an opportunity to be heard at the earliest possible time after the ex parte warrant is executed, but no later than the next judicial day unless a hearing on that date is impossible. This act also modifies references to the title and sections of law of Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act, which was repealed in 2009, to the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act for the provision relating to child custody proceedings in family courts. These provisions are identical to provisions in SCS/SB 897 (2024), HB 1660 (2024), in HCS/SS/SB 198 (2023), in HCS/SS/SB 213 (2023), and HCS/HB 1058 (2023). UNIFORM CHILD ABDUCTION PREVENTION ACT (452.1100 TO 452.1122) This act establishes the "Uniform Child Abduction Prevention Act", which permits the court, either on its own or through a party's petition, to order abduction prevention measures in a child custody proceeding if the court finds that the evidence establishes a credible risk of abduction of the child, as described in the act. An abduction prevention order may include: (1) An imposition of travel restrictions; (2) A prohibition on the respondent removing the child from this state, the United States, or another area without permission of the court or the petitioner's written consent, removing or retaining the child in violation of a child custody determination, removing the child from school or a child care or similar facility; or approaching the child at any location other than a supervised visitation site; (3) A requirement to register the order in other states as a prerequisite to allowing the child to travel to those states; (4) A direction that the child's name be placed on the U.S. Department of State's Child Passport Issuance Alert Program, a requirement that any of the child's United States or foreign passports be surrendered, and a prohibition on applying for a new or replacement passport or visa on behalf of the child; (5) A requirement that the respondent provide to the U.S. Department of State Office of Children's Issues and the relevant foreign consulate or embassy, an authenticated copy of the order detailing passport and travel restrictions for the child along with proof of completion of such requirements; (6) Upon the petitioner's request, a requirement that the respondent obtain an order from the relevant foreign country containing terms identical to the child custody determination issued in the United States. In an abduction prevention order, the court may impose conditions on the exercise of custody or visitation that: (1) Limit visitation to be supervised and order the respondent to pay the costs of supervision; (2) Require the posting of a bond or provide other security in an amount sufficient to serve as a financial deterrent to abduction, the proceeds of which may be used to pay for the reasonable expenses of recovery of the child, including reasonable attorney's fees and costs if there is an abduction; and (3) Require the respondent to obtain education on the potentially harmful effects to the child from abduction. Additionally, to prevent imminent abduction of a child, a court may: (1) Issue a warrant to take physical custody of the child; (2) Direct the use of law enforcement to take any action reasonably necessary to locate the child, obtain return of the child, or enforce a custody determination; or (3) Grant any other relief allowed under the law. These provisions are identical to provisions in SCS/SB 897 (2024) and are substantially similar to provisions in HB 1660 (2024), in HCS/SS/SB 198 (2023), HCS/SS/SB 213 (2023), and HCS/HB 1058 (2023). CLASSIFICATION OF MINORS FOR ORDERS OF PROTECTION (SECTIONS 455.010, 455.035 & 455.513) This act modifies the definitions of "adult" and "child" in provisions relating to orders of protection. An "adult" is any person eighteen, instead of seventeen, years of age or older and a "child" is any person under eighteen, instead of seventeen, years of age unless he or she is otherwise emancipated. These provisions are identical to provisions in SCS/SB 897 (2024), in SCS/HCS/HB 2064 & HCS#2/HB 1886 (2024), HB 2437 (2024), in CCS/HCS/SS/SCS/SB 72 (2023), HCS/HB 355 (2023), in HB 981 (2023), in SCS/HCS/HBs 994, 52 & 984 (2023), and in HCS/HB 1559 (2022). MENTAL HEALTH TREATMENT COURTS (SECTION 478.001) Currently, the treatment court divisions of the circuit courts may include an adult treatment court, DWI court, family treatment court, juvenile treatment court, and veteran treatment court, which are specialized courts focused on addressing substance abuse disorders, mental health disorders, and co-occurring disorders of certain criminal defendants. This act provides for the establishment of a mental health treatment court to provide an alternative for the disposal of cases that stem from mental health or co-occurring disorders of criminal defendants. This provision is substantially similar to a provision in SCS/SB 897 (2024), SB 1370 (2024), in SCS/HCS/HB 2064 & HCS#2/HB 1886 (2024), and in HCS/HB 2700 (2024). CIRCUIT JUDGES (SECTIONS 478.010 TO 478.625) This act modifies provisions relating to the addition of circuit judges based on judicial performance reports and for certain circuits. The act provides that the clerk of the Supreme Court of Missouri shall notify the Revisor of Statutes of any new circuit judgeships authorized pursuant to judicial performance reports and an initial appropriation. The Revisor shall publish a footnote listing the authorized judgeships and corresponding circuit. Authorized judgeships in partisan counties shall be elected at the next general election after the authorization, and every six years thereafter. Furthermore, this act codifies three circuit judges in the Sixth Judicial Circuit, which consists of Platte County. Additionally, this act increases the number of judges in the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, consisting of Boone County and Callaway County, from four to five and in the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, consisting of Cole County, from three to four with the additional judges elected in 2030. COMPENSATION OF JURORS (SECTIONS 488.040 & 494.455) Currently, a juror shall receive seven cents per mile to and from his or her place of residence and the courthouse. This act modifies the mileage rate of jurors to the mileage rate of state employees, which is currently provided at sixty-five and half cents. Current law also provides that grand or petit jurors in certain counties, including in Clay and Greene, shall not receive compensation for the first two days of service, but shall receive fifty dollars with seven cents per mile for the third and any subsequent days that the juror actually serves. This act provides that the governing body of the county or the City of St. Louis may adopt a system of juror compensation that provides grand or petit jurors to receive no compensation on the first two days of actual service, but receive fifty dollars with the state employee mileage rate for the third and any subsequent days of actual service. These provisions are identical to provisions in HCS/HB 83 (2025), in SCS/HCS/HB 176 (2025), SB 447 (2025), in SCS/HCS/HB 615 (2025), in SCS/SB 897 (2024), SCS/SB 1220 (2024), and in SCS/HCS/HB 2064 & HCS#2/HB 1886 (2024), are substantially similar to provisions in HB 131 (2025), in the truly agreed to and finally passed HCS/SS/SB 218 (2025), in HCS/SS/SB 221 (2025), and in SCS/HCS/HB 2700 (2024), and are similar to HB 1457 (2024). ST. LOUIS CITY CIRCUIT COURT CIVIL CASE FILING SURCHARGE (SECTION 488.426) Currently, any circuit court may collect a civil case filing surcharge of an amount not to exceed $15 for the maintenance of a law library, the county's or circuit's family services and justice fund, or courtroom renovation and technology enhancement. If the circuit court reimburses the state for salaries of family court commissioners or is the circuit court in Jackson County, the surcharge may be up to $20. This act provides that the circuit court in the City of St. Louis may charge a filing surcharge up to $20. This provision is identical to SB 18 (2025), a provision in HCS/HB 83 (2025), in SCS/HCS/HB 176 (2025), in SCS/HCS/HB 615 (2025), SB 800 (2025), in HB 1512 (2024), and in SCS/HCS/HB 2064 & HCS#2/HB 1886 (2024), and is substantially similar to a provision in SCS/SB 897 (2024), SB 1023 (2024), CCS/HCS/SS/SCS/SB 72 (2023), SB 252 (2023), HB 787 (2023), in HCS/HB 986 (2023), in the perfected HCS/HBs 994, 52 & 984 (2023), SB 1209 (2022), HB 1963 (2022), HB 143 (2021), HB 1554 (2020), HB 1224 (2019), in the perfected HCS/HB 1083 (2019), HB 1891 (2018), SB 288 (2017), HB 391 (2017), and SB 812 (2016). ADMISSIBILITY OF STATEMENTS OF CHILDREN AND VULNERABLE PERSONS IN CRIMINAL CASES (SECTIONS 491.075 & 492.304) Under current law, a statement made by a child under 14 years of age may be admissible in criminal proceedings under certain circumstances. This act changes the age to a child under the age of 18 years of age. Additionally, this act provides that visual or audio recordings of a child under 18 years of age or a vulnerable person, as defined in the act, relating to certain criminal offenses shall be admissible in criminal proceedings under certain circumstances. These provisions are identical to provisions in SCS/SB 897 (2024), in SB 905 (2024), SB 906 (2024), SB 1245 (2024), SB 1398 (2024), HCS/SS#3/SB 22 (2023), in CCS/HCS/SS/SCS/SB 72 (2023), in the perfected HCS/HB 454 (2023), and in HS/HCS/HBs 1108 & 1181 (2023). EXCLUSION OF PERSONAL INFORMATION IN COURT DOCUMENTS (SECTION 509.520) Currently, certain information shall be excluded from pleadings, attachments, exhibits, judgments, orders, or other records of the court, but shall be included in a confidential information sheet filed with the court, which shall not be subject to public inspection or availability. This act modifies the provision to include information concerning a witness in a criminal case that is confidential as otherwise provided by law or rule and any other information redacted for good cause by order of the court. This provision is substantially similar to a provision in HB 83 (2025), in SB 143 (2025), in SCS/HCS/HB 176 (2025), and in SCS/HCS/HB 2064 & HCS#2/HB 1886 (2024), and is similar to a provision in SB 691 (2025). UNIFORM INTERSTATE DEPOSITION AND DISCOVERY ACT (SECTIONS 510.500 TO 510.521) This act establishes the Uniform Interstate Depositions and Discovery Act, which provides procedures for out-of-state subpoenas for certain forms of discovery conducted in Missouri. To request a subpoena in Missouri, a party shall submit a foreign subpoena to a clerk of the court in the county in which discovery is sought to be conducted. The clerk shall promptly issue a subpoena, which shall incorporate the terms used in the foreign subpoena and include contact information of the attorneys and any party not represented by an attorney in the proceeding to which the subpoena relates. A request for issuance of a subpoena pursuant to this act shall not constitute an appearance in Missouri courts. The Missouri Supreme Court Rules of Civil Procedure and the laws of this state apply to subpoenas issued pursuant to this act and such subpoenas shall be served in compliance with such rules and laws. Additionally, an application for a protective order or to enforce, quash, or modify a subpoena issued by clerk of this state shall comply with such court rules and laws of this state. However, in applying and construing this act, consideration shall be given to the need to promote uniformity among the states. These provisions shall apply to requests for discovery in cases pending on August 28, 2025. These provisions are identical to provisions in SCS/SB 897 (2024), in SCS/HCS/HB 2064 & HCS#2/HB 1886 (2024), SB 394 (2023), and SB 1005 (2022), are substantially similar to provisions in HB 1452 (2024), in CCS/HCS/SS/SCS/SB 72 (2023), HB 84 (2023), in SCS/HCS/HBs 994, 52 & 984 (2023), HB 1549 (2022), HB 347 (2021), and HB 2570 (2020). UNIFORM PUBLIC EXPRESSION PROTECTION ACT (SECTION 537.529 & THE REPEAL OF SECTION 537.529) This act establishes the "Uniform Public Expression Protection Act." Currently, any action against a person for conduct or speech undertaken or made in connection with a public hearing or meeting in a quasi-judicial proceeding before a tribunal or decision-making body of the state or a political subdivision thereof is subject to a special motion to dismiss, a motion for judgment on the pleadings, or motion for summary judgment and any such motion shall be considered by the court on a priority or expedited basis. This act repeals this provision and creates procedures for dismissal of causes of action asserted in a civil action based on a person's: (1) Communication in a legislative, executive, judicial, administrative, or other governmental proceeding; (2) Communication on an issue under consideration or review in a legislative, executive, judicial, administrative, or other governmental proceeding; or (3) Exercise of the right of freedom of speech or of the press, the right to assemble or petition, or the right of association, guaranteed by the United States Constitution or the Missouri Constitution, on a matter of public concern. However, this act shall not apply to a cause of action asserted: (1) Against a governmental unit, as described in the act, or an employee or agent of a governmental unit acting in an official capacity; (2) By a governmental unit or an employee or agent of a governmental unit acting in an official capacity to enforce a law to protect against an imminent threat to public health or safety; or (3) Against a person primarily engaged in the business of selling or leasing goods or services if the cause of action arises out of a communication related to the sale or lease of such goods or services. No later than 60 days after a party is served with a complaint, cross-claim, counterclaim, third-party claim, or other pleading that asserts a cause of action covered by this act, or at a later time upon a showing of good cause, a party may file a special motion to dismiss. The court shall hear and rule on such motion no later than 60 days after the filing of the motion, unless the court orders a later hearing to allow for limited discovery or upon good cause. However, this act provides that the court shall hear and rule on the motion for dismissal no later than 60 days after the order allowing for discovery. This act provides that all other proceedings between the moving party and the responding party in the action, including discovery and any pending hearings or motions, shall be stayed upon the filing of the special motion to dismiss. Additionally, this act provides that the court may stay, upon motion by the moving party, a hearing or motion involving another party or discovery by another party if a ruling on such hearing or motion or discovery relates to a legal or factual issue. Any stay pursuant to this act shall remain in effect until the entry of an order ruling on the special motion to dismiss and the expiration of the time to appeal the order. A moving party may appeal an order denying the special motion to dismiss in whole or in part within 21 days of such order. If a party appeals an order ruling on a special motion to dismiss, this act provides that all proceedings between all parties shall be stayed until the conclusion of the appeal. The court may allow discovery if a party shows that specific information is necessary to establish whether a party has satisfied or failed to satisfy the requirements of this act and such information is not reasonably available without discovery. Additionally, a motion for costs and expenses, voluntary dismissal, or a motion to sever shall not be stayed. During a stay, the court upon good cause may hear and rule on any motions unrelated to the special motion to dismiss and any motions seeking a special or preliminary injunction to protect against an imminent threat to public health or safety. In ruling on a special motion to dismiss, this act provides that the court shall consider the parties' pleadings, the motion, any replies and responses to the motion, and any evidence that could be considered in a ruling on a motion for summary judgment. The court shall dismiss the cause of action with prejudice if: (1) The moving party has established that the cause of action is covered by this act; (2) The responding party has failed to establish that this act does not apply to the cause of action; and (3) Either the responding party failed to establish a prima facie case as to each essential element of the cause of action, or the moving party has established that the responding party failed to state a cause of action upon which relief can be granted or that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. A voluntary dismissal without prejudice of a cause of action that is subject to a special motion to dismiss pursuant to this act shall not affect the moving party's right to obtain a ruling on the motion and seek costs, reasonable attorneys' fees, and reasonable litigation expenses. Additionally, if the moving party prevails on the motion, this act provides that such costs, fees, and expenses shall be awarded to the moving party. A voluntary dismissal with prejudice of a cause of action that is subject to a special motion to dismiss establishes that the moving party prevailed on the motion. The responding party shall be entitled to such costs, fees, and expenses if the responding party prevails on the motion and the court finds that the motion was frivolous or filed solely with the intent to delay the proceeding. Finally, this act applies to causes of action filed or asserted on or after August 28, 2025. These provisions are identical to provisions in HCS/HB 83 (2025), in SCS/HCS/HB 176 (2025), HB 1092 (2025), SCS/SB 897 (2024), HB 1785 (2024), provisions in SCS/HCS/HB 2064 & HCS#2/HB 1886 (2024), and in CCS/HCS/SS/SCS/SB 72 (2023), and are substantially similar to SB 503 (2025), provisions in SCS/HCS/HB 615 (2025), in SCS/HCS/HB 1259 (2025), SB 1293 (2024), SB 432 (2023), HB 750 (2023), SB 1219 (2022), in HCS/SS#2/SCS/SB 968 (2022), HB 2624 (2022), and HB 1151 (2021). UNIFORM CIVIL REMEDIES FOR UNAUTHORIZED DISCLOSURE OF INTIMATE IMAGES ACT (SECTION 537.1300 TO 537.1316) This act establishes the "Uniform Civil Remedies for Unauthorized Disclosure of Intimate Images Act" which provides that an individual who is depicted in an intimate image, who is identifiable in such image, and who suffers a harm from a person's intentional disclosure or threatened disclosure of such intimate image without the individual's consent has a cause of action against the person if the person knew or acted with reckless disregard about whether the depicted individual consented to the disclosure, about whether the intimate image was private, and about whether the depicted individual was identifiable. The identity of the plaintiff may be protected in court filings and documents. Furthermore, this act specifies certain exceptions to liability for disclosure of an intimate image. A cause of action for an unauthorized disclosure or threat to disclose shall be brought four years from the date the disclosure was discovered or should have been discovered or from the date of the threat to disclose, respectively. This act is identical to provisions in SCS/SB 897 (2024) and is substantially similar to HB 2728 (2024) and HB 2024 (2022). INFORMATION RECEIVED BY PROBATION & PAROLE OFFICERS (SECTION 559.125) This act modifies provisions relating to privileged information received by probation or parole officers which shall not be receivable in any court except for criminal proceedings. This provision is identical to a provision in SCS/HCS/HB 2064 & HCS#2/HB 1886 (2024), in HCS/HB 2700 (2024) and is substantially similar to a provision in SCS/SB 897 (2024), HB 1954 (2024), in CCS/HCS/SS/SCS/SB 72 (2023), HB 196 (2023), in HCS/SS#3/SB 22 (2023), in HB 1227 (2023), HCS/SS/SCS/SBs 189, 36 & 37 (2023), and in HCS/HB 776 (2023). OFFENSES OF ENTICEMENT OF A CHILD & OFFENSE OF PATRONIZING PROSTITUTION (SECTIONS 566.151 & 567.030) Under current law, a person over 21 years old commits the offense of enticement of a child if he or she persuades any person less than 15 years old to engage in sexual conduct. This act changes the age to less than 17 years old. Additionally, this act modifies the offense of patronizing prostitution. If the person patronized for prostitution is ages 15 to 17 it shall be a class E felony and if the person is less than 15 years old it shall be a class B felony. These provisions are identical to provisions in SS#2/SCS/SB 811 (2024), in SCS/SB 897 (2024), in SB 906 (2024), in SB 1245 (2024), in HB 1450 (2024), in HB 1541 (2024), in HCS#2/HB 1886 (2024), in HCS/SS#3/SB 22 (2023), in CCS/HCS/SS/SCS/SB 72 (2023), in HCS/HB 454 (2023), in HS/HCS/HBs 1108 & 1181 (2023), in HB 1637 (2022), in SCS/HB 2088, HB 1705 & HCS/HB 1699 (2022), and in SCS/HB 2697, HB 1589, HB 1637 & HCS/HB 2127 (2022), and are similar to provisions in SB 1398 (2024) and in HCS/HBs 1706 & 1539 (2024). OFFENSE OF TAMPERING WITH ELECTRONIC MONITORING EQUIPMENT (SECTION 575.205) This act modifies the offense of tampering with electronic monitoring equipment to provide that a person commits the offense if he or she intentionally removes, alters, tampers with, damages, destroys, fails to charge, or otherwise disables electronic monitoring equipment which a court or the Parole Board has required such person to wear. The offense of tampering with electronic monitoring equipment if the person fails to charge or otherwise disables the electronic monitoring equipment is a class E felony, unless the offense for which the person was placed on electronic monitoring was a misdemeanor, in which case it is a class A misdemeanor. This provision is identical to a provision in SCS/SB 897 (2024), in HB 1454 (2024), in HCS/HB 2700 (2024), in HCS/SS#3/SB 22 (2023), in HCS/SS/SCS/SB 72 (2023), HB 86 (2023), SB 470 (2023), SB 878 (2023), in HS/HCS/HBs 1108 & 1181 (2023), HB 1637 (2022), HB 1547 (2022), SCS/HB 2088, HB 1705 & HCS/HB 1699 (2022), and SCS/HB 2697, HB 1589, HB 1637 & HCS/HB 2127 (2022), and is similar to HCS/HB 156 (2021) and SB 619 (2021). CRIME VICTIMS' COMPENSATION FUND (SECTIONS 595.045) This act adds that a person who pleads guilty to a class E felony shall pay a fee of $46 to the Crime Victims' Compensation Fund. This provision is identical to a provision in SCS/HCS/HB 2064 & HCS#2/HB 1886 (2024), in HCS/HB 2700 (2024), in HCS/SS#3/SB 22 (2023), in CCS/HCS/SS/SCS/SB 72 (2023), and in HS/HCS/HBs 1108 & 1181 (2023). KATIE O'BRIEN