With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". § 455.085.8 for walking down a public hallway toward Petitioner because of the "no contact” provision in the order. This theory was flawed for two reasons. First, the information did not charge Defendant with violating this part of the order. See Magalif, 131 S.W.3d at 437-38 (rejecting the State's argument that the defendant’s conduct constituted a communication in violation of an ex parte order because the information only charged defendant with violating the terms and conditions relating to abuse). Second, unless the State had alleged and proven that walking down a public hallway violated the terms and conditions of the order relating to abuse or stalking, such conduct would not constitute a crime as defined by § 455.085. See State v. Cooper, 871 S.W.2d 92, 93-94 (Mo.App.1994) (<HOLDING>). 5 . We reject the State’s argument that

A: holding that to invoke our jurisdiction a petitioner must allege at least a colorable constitutional violation
B: holding that defendant is entitled to qualified immunity because plaintiff failed to allege the violation of a clearly established constitutional right
C: holding that an information alleging the defendant abused the petitioner by coming to her apartment failed to allege a criminal violation of  455085
D: holding that criminal faffing to appear requires not coming to court as directed by a notice subpoena summons or other legal process
C.