OPINION

MAY, Judge.

Brett Zagorac appeals the denial of his motion to correct error following the summary denial of his petition to expunge his arrest record. Zagorac has not demonstrated the summary denial was an abuse of the trial court's "almost unfettered discretion" to deny his petition.1 See State ex rel. Indiana State Police v. Arnold, 906 N.E.2d 167, 169 (Ind.2009) (holding trial court's discretion to summarily deny such a petition is "almost unfettered"). Neither can Zagorac succeed with his argument the expungement statute violates the Indiana Constitution, as he waived that argument for appeal by failing to present it to the trial court. Accordingly, we affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On March 23, 2005, the Lake County prosecutor charged Zagorac with child molesting for an act that allegedly occurred "on or about May 30, 2003." (App. at 12.)2 The Probable Cause Affidavit indicates a second-grade child reported Zagorac, who was the substitute teacher, called the boy up to the teacher's desk to discuss an assignment. While the boy was at the desk, Zagorac touched the boy's buttocks, put his hand under the boy's shirt to rub his bare back, and then placed his hand "on [the boy's] penis on top of his clothing." (Id. at 13.)

On October 2, 2007, the State moved to dismiss that charge because "[t]hough the State believes it can prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, the child victim in this case has become physically ill because of his fear of testifying in the presence of the defendant and the State is unable to move forward with its case." (Id. at 19.) The trial court dismissed the case with prejudice.

On July 17, 2009, under the cause number for the dismissed molesting charge, Zagorac petitioned to expunge that arrest from his criminal record because the "arrest was in error as he did not commit the offense alleged and/or no probable cause existed." (Id. at 15.) The trial court ordered the Lake County Sheriff's Department, the Indiana Attorney General's Office, the State Central Repository for Records, and the Lake County Prosecutor to return affidavits indicating whether Zagorac had a record of arrests, whether he had criminal charges pending, and whether any of the agencies opposed expungement of the May 2003 arrest from his arrest records. See Ind.Code § 35-38-5-1(c)-(d) (requiring service of petition on agencies so they may object to expungement). The Lake County Police Department was also ordered to provide reports of Zagorac's criminal history from various sources.

The Indiana Attorney General's Office opposed expungement because:

(App. at 40.) In its memorandum opposing the motion, the Attorney General noted Zagorac admitted in his petition for expungement that he had two other "factually-related charges," (id. at 15), of which a jury found him not guilty.

The Indiana State Police opposed expungement because "the department will be severely hampered in its ability to provide full and accurate data to criminal justice agencies, non-criminal justice organizations and individuals if the requested records are expunged." (Id. at 37.)

The Lake County Prosecutor's Office filed an opposition to expungement that explained:

(Id. at 33.)

After receiving those affidavits in opposition, the trial court summarily denied Zagorac's expungement petition without holding a hearing. Zagorac filed a motion to correct error, which the court denied:

(Id. at 51.)

DISCUSSION AND DECISION

"When ruling on a Motion to Correct Errors, the trial court sits as the initial fact finder on the issues raised, and we review the trial court's determination for an abuse of discretion." Booher v. State, 773 N.E.2d 814, 817 (Ind.2002). An abuse of discretion occurs if the decision was "against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court or if the court has misinterpreted the law." James v. State, 872 N.E.2d 669, 671 (Ind. Ct.App.2007).

The issues raised require us to interpret and apply Indiana Code § 35-38-5-1 (the expungement statute). When interpreting statutes, we use the following standard:

City of Carmel v. Steele, 865 N.E.2d 612, 618 (Ind.2007).

A person may petition for expungement of records related to an arrest if:

Ind.Code § 35-38-5-1(a).3 The expungement statute is the "exclusive means" for expunging arrest records when no charges were filed or the charges were dropped. Arnold, 906 N.E.2d at 169. Thus, because charges were filed against Zagorac in relation to the arrest at issue, the arrest may be expunged from his record only if he qualifies under this statute. See id.

A petition for expungement must be forwarded to all relevant law enforcement agencies. Ind.Code § 35-38-5-1(c) & 1(d). An agency that wishes to oppose the expungement "shall file a notice of opposition with the court setting forth reasons for resisting the expungement along with any sworn statements from individuals who represent the agency that explain the reasons for resisting the expungement within thirty (30) days after the petition is filed." Id. at 1(d). Agencies are required to serve their opposition on the petitioner. Id.

Thereafter, the trial court must determine whether to:

Id.

1. Summary Denial of Petition

Zagorac asserts he was entitled to a hearing before denial of his petition. Prior to addressing his specific arguments, we note our Supreme Court has held the expungement statute gives trial courts "almost unfettered discretion . . . to deny summarily a petition for expungement without a hearing." Arnold, 906 N.E.2d at 171. The Court explained:

Id. (emphasis added). In other words, whether summary denial is appropriate based on agency affidavits was left to the discretion of the trial court. Id.

Zagorac claims "in order to give effect to the intent of the Legislature, the information in the sworn statements had to establish that there was probable cause," (Br. of Appellant at 8), but "the information contained in the statement of the agencies opposing the petition [is] . . . insufficient [to establish] that there was probable cause to try him for the charged crime." (Id.) We decline to adopt Zagorac's characterization of the Legislature's intent because it is inconsistent with the interpretation by our Supreme Court in Arnold. See Arnold, 906 N.E.2d at 171 ("The trial court's discretion is further evidenced by the Legislature's silence as to. . . when a petitioner is or is not `entitled to an expungement' based on information submitted by agency representatives.").

Neither would such an interpretation be consistent with the Legislature's instruction to state agencies in the expungement statute:

Ind.Code § 35-38-5-1(d). Zagorac is asking that we read "the reasons for resisting expungement" to mean "the facts demonstrating probable cause." But if our Legislature wanted to require that agencies show probable cause, it could have written that requirement into the statute, as it did in other statutes. See, e.g., Ind.Code § 35-33-7-2(a) ("At or before the initial hearing of a person arrested without a warrant for a crime, the facts upon which the arrest was made shall be submitted to the judicial officer, ex parte, in a probable cause affidavit."). The Legislature did not use such language, and we decline to graft such a requirement onto the statute.4 See N.D.F. v. State, 775 N.E.2d 1085, 1088 (Ind.2002) (declining to graft definition from adult criminal statute onto juvenile statute because "it is just as important to recognize what the statute does not say as it is to recognize what it does say").

Zagorac also argues: "Because the charge was dropped, no offense was committed and he satisfies that prong of the statute. Ind.Code § 35-38-5-1-(a)(2)(B)." (Br. of Appellant at 10.) The "prong of the statute" to which Zagorac refers indicates a person may petition for expungement if "all criminal charges filed against an individual are dropped because . . . no offense was in fact committed." I.C. § 35-38-5-1(a)(2)(B). We reject, as both contrary to logic and inconsistent with the statute, Zagorac's assertion that dismissal of a charge conclusively establishes innocence. A criminal charge could be dismissed for a host of reasons unrelated to the defendant's culpability.5 If Zagorac were correct that dismissal proves innocence, then expungement would be an automatic consequence of dismissal, rather than being restricted to only those defendants whose charges were dropped because identity was mistaken, no offense was committed, or probable cause was absent. See Ind.Code § 35-38-5-1(a)(2). We find no merit in Zagorac's assertion that the dismissal of the charge against him, without more, entitles him to expungement of the record of the arrest underlying that charge.

In denying Zagorac's motion to correct error, the trial court explained:

(App. at 51). Thus, the summary denial rested, ultimately, on the explanation provided in the State's motion to dismiss the charges against Zagorac, which motion also contains the signature of the trial court judge under the words "SO ORDERED," (id. at 19), making that document the court's dismissal order.

Nothing in the record before us suggests Zagorac objected to or challenged the validity of the State's explanation for dismissing the charge against him when that explanation was presented in the underlying criminal action. (Compare id. at 18 (order indicating hearing held on State's motion to dismiss) with id. at 19 (judge signed order containing State's explanation for dismissal).) Nor did Zagorac challenge the validity of that explanation for dismissal in his Petition for Expungement or his Memorandum in Support of Defendant's Petition for Expungement.6 (See id. at 14-17, 21-26.) As the trial court's decision to deny expungement was based on its reliance on the unchallenged explanation for dismissal contained in that court's own order dismissing the underlying action,7 we cannot characterize the summary denial of Zagorac's petition for expungement as an abuse of the trial court's "almost unfettered discretion."8 See Arnold, 906 N.E.2d at 171. Thus, the denial of Zagorac's motion to correct error also was not an abuse of discretion.9

2. Constitutional Challenge

Zagorac also invites us to invalidate the expungement statute because it violates the privileges and immunities clause of the Indiana Constitution. That clause states: "The General Assembly shall not grant to any citizen, or class of citizens, privileges or immunities, which, upon the same terms, shall not equally belong to all citizens." Ind. Const., Art. I, § 23.

We presume statutes are constitutional, and the complaining party has the burden of overcoming that presumption. Kleiman v. State, 590 N.E.2d 660, 663 (Ind.Ct.App.1992), reh'g denied. "Legislative classifications may be made and valid laws may be enacted under the police power to protect the public health, public morals, public order, public safety or public welfare." Id. (quoting Hanley v. State, 234 Ind. 326, 333, 123 N.E.2d 452, 454 (1954), reh'g denied). Legislation that distinguishes between classes of people is constitutional if the disparate treatment is "reasonably related to inherent characteristics [that] distinguish the unequally treated classes" and if the preferential treatment is "uniformly applicable and equally available to all persons similarly situated." Collins v. Day, 644 N.E.2d 72, 80 (Ind.1994).

Zagorac notes that, although he was not convicted, the expungement statute does not permit removal of the arrest from his criminal record unless the trial court finds the charge was dropped for a lack of probable cause. But at the same time, he notes Indiana Code § 35-38-5-5 permits a convicted person to limit access to any history of arrest and conviction by filing a request with the police department if more than fifteen years have passed since completing the sentence for the last conviction.10 Zagorac argues:

(Br. of Appellant at 15.)

We cannot agree with Zagorac's assertion that it is always irrational to distinguish between persons who have been convicted and those who have not. See, e.g., Lewis v. State, 898 N.E.2d 1286, 1290 (Ind. Ct.App.2009) ("Unlike the post-sentence home detainee, who has been convicted of a crime, Lewis had not been convicted at the time of his pretrial home detention. Lewis remained clothed with the precious presumption of innocence.") (emphasis in original), reh'g denied, trans. denied.

We do, however, agree with Zagorac that it seems counter-intuitive to provide a form of relief to convicted persons when that relief is unavailable to persons who have not been convicted, and we too wonder how such disparate treatment could be related rationally to the characteristics that distinguish persons with and without convictions.

Nevertheless, we do not address constitutional arguments that are raised for the first time on appeal. See Mahl v. Aaron, 809 N.E.2d 953, 958 (Ind.Ct.App. 2004) (declining to address equal protection argument under Indiana Constitution when argument at trial was based only on federal constitution). Our review of the record before us uncovered no indication that Zagorac raised this issue in his petition for expungement or in his response to the State's opposition to expungement. Accordingly, he has waived this allegation of error for appeal.11

CONCLUSION

Because Zagorac has not demonstrated the trial court abused its almost unfettered discretion in denying his petition for expungement and because Zagorac waived his equal protection argument by failing to raise it below, we affirm the denial of Zagorac's motion to correct error, which challenged the summary denial of his petition for expungement.

Affirmed.

ROBB, C.J., and BROWN, J., concur.