Mo. Rev. Stat. » Chapter 195
Missouri Revised Statutes

Mo. Rev. Stat. § 195.140 (2026)

Forfeiture of controlled substances and drug paraphernalia, when

✓ laws through the 2026 session (checked Sept. 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MO-REVrevisor.mo.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

  195.140.  Forfeiture of controlled substances and drug paraphernalia, when — disposal — money, records in close proximity also forfeited, rebuttable presumption — procedure. — 1.  All controlled substances, imitation controlled substances or drug paraphernalia for the administration, use or manufacture of controlled substances or imitation controlled substances and which have come into the custody of a peace officer or officer or agent of the department of health and senior services as provided by this chapter or chapter 579, the lawful possession of which is not established or the title to which cannot be ascertained after a hearing as prescribed in Rule 34 of Rules of Criminal Procedure for the courts of Missouri or some other appropriate hearing, shall be forfeited, and disposed of as follows:

  (1)  Except as in this section otherwise provided, the court or associate circuit judge having jurisdiction shall order such controlled substances, imitation controlled substances, or drug paraphernalia forfeited and destroyed.  A record of the place where said controlled substances, imitation controlled substances, or drug paraphernalia were seized, of the kinds and quantities of controlled substances, imitation controlled substances, or drug paraphernalia so destroyed, and of the time, place and manner of destructions, shall be kept, and a return under oath, reporting the destruction of the controlled substances, imitation controlled substances, or drug paraphernalia shall be made to the court or associate circuit judge;

  (2)  The department of health and senior services shall keep a complete record of all controlled substances, imitation controlled substances, or drug paraphernalia received and disposed of, together with the dates of such receipt and disposal, showing the exact kinds, quantities, and forms of such controlled substances, imitation controlled substances, or drug paraphernalia; the persons from whom received and to whom delivered; and by whose authority they were received, delivered or destroyed; which record shall be open to inspection by all federal or state officers charged with the enforcement of federal and state narcotic or controlled substances laws.

  2.  (1)  Everything of value furnished, or intended to be furnished, in exchange for a controlled substance, imitation controlled substance or drug paraphernalia in violation of this chapter or chapter 579, all proceeds traceable to such an exchange, and all moneys, negotiable instruments, or securities used, or intended to be used, to facilitate any violation of this chapter or chapter 579, shall be forfeited, except that no property shall be forfeited under this subsection to the extent of the interest of an owner by reason of any act or omission established by him to have been committed without his or her knowledge or consent.

  (2)  Any moneys, coin, or currency found in close proximity to forfeitable controlled substances, imitation controlled substances, or drug paraphernalia, or forfeitable records of the importation, manufacture, or distribution of controlled substances, imitation controlled substances or drug paraphernalia are presumed to be forfeitable under this subsection.  The burden of proof shall be upon claimants of the property to rebut this presumption.

  (3)  All forfeiture proceedings shall be conducted pursuant to the provisions of sections 513.600 to 513.653.

­­--------

(RSMo 1939 § 9845, A.L. 1953 p. 628, A.L. 1971 H.B. 69, A.L. 1982 S.B. 522, A.L. 1993 S.B. 180, A.L. 2004 H.B. 1427, A.L. 2014 S.B. 491)

Effective 1-01-17

(1986) This section is neither unconstitutionally broad nor unconstitutionally vague, nor does rebuttable presumption in favor of forfeiture violate due process. State ex rel. Cook v. Saynes, 713 S.W.2d 258 (Mo. banc).

(1993) Where currency found in close proximity to contraband marijuana created rebuttable presumption that money was acquired from an illegal activity and defendant did not meet burden of proof to rebut presumption, forfeiture of money under section is not punitive because one who commits crime has no greater interest in fruits of crime than state.  Eighth Amendment of United States prohibiting excessive fines is not applicable.  State v. Meister, 866 S.W.2d 485 (Mo. App.  W.D.).

(2014) To rebut presumption of forfeitability, defendant must allege facts supporting conclusion that seized property found in close proximity to controlled substance was not furnished, nor intended to be furnished, in exchange for the controlled substance and also was not used, nor intended to be used, to facilitate the criminal activity.  State ex rel. Wegge v. Schrameyer, 448 S.W.3d 301 (Mo.App.E.D.).

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10 cases, 1984–2004 · leading case: State ex rel. Cook v. Saynes, 713 S.W.2d 258 (Mo. 1986).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State ex rel. Cook v. Saynes, 713 S.W.2d 258 (Mo. 1986). · cites it 16× “The Circuit Court of Cass County ordered forfeiture of $7,575 pursuant to § 195.140, RSMo Cum.Supp.1984. Appellant challenges the constitutionality of that section and because the validity of the statute is brought into question the cause falls within the exclusive appellate…”
State v. Goth, 682 S.W.2d 68 (Mo. Ct. App. 1984). · cites it 7× “In order to attain a better semblance of dispositional continuity, the points relied on by Goth on appeal, seven 2 in number, have been rearranged in the following order: (1) Section 195.140, RSMo Supp.1983, is “unconstitutional in that it violates due process” because it shifts…”
Chandler v. Hemeyer, 49 S.W.3d 786 (Mo. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 4× “In Eicholz , the State initiated a forfeiture proceeding pursuant to § 195.140, which provides for forfeitures in drug cases.”
City of Springfield v. Gee, 149 S.W.3d 609 (Mo. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 3× “The State initiated a forfeiture proceeding pursuant to § 195.140 RSMo (1994). Section 195.140.2(3) RSMo (1994) requires that “[a]ll forfeiture proceedings shall be conducted pursuant to the provisions of sections 513.”
State v. Eicholz, 999 S.W.2d 738 (Mo. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 6× “§ 195.140, RSMo 1994. The other is § 513.”
State ex rel. MacLaughlin v. Treon, 926 S.W.2d 13 (Mo. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 6× “645, RSMo 1986, and section 195.140, RSMo 1986. The judgment is reversed.”
State v. Hampton, 817 S.W.2d 470 (Mo. Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 5× “Both Hampton and the State cite § 195.140. This section, enacted prior to § 513.”
State ex rel. Boling v. Malone, 952 S.W.2d 308 (Mo. Ct. App. 1997). “607 1 and § 195.140 of the Narcotic Drug Act. We affirm in part, and we reverse and remand in part.”
Ware v. State, 128 S.W.3d 529 (Mo. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 2× “” Section 195.140 creates a presumption that any currency found in close proximity to forfeitable controlled substances is itself forfeitable.”
State v. Williams, 872 S.W.2d 669 (Mo. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 2× “The state filed a petition for forfeiture pursuant to the Criminal Activity Forfeiture Act and § 195.140, RSMo 1986, defendants defaulted and did not appear at any time during the proceedings, and defendants did not file a brief on appeal.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.