Missouri Revised Statutes

Mo. Rev. Stat. § 211.059 (2026)

Rights of child when taken into custody (Miranda warning)

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MO-REVrevisor.mo.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

211.059. Rights of child when taken into custody (Miranda warning) — rights of child in custody in abuse and neglect cases. — 1. When a child is taken into custody by a juvenile officer or law enforcement official, with or without a warrant for an offense in violation of the juvenile code or the general law which would place the child under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court pursuant to subdivision (2) or (3) of subsection 1 of section 211.031, the child shall be advised, orally and in writing, prior to questioning:

(1) That the child has the right to remain silent;

(2) That any statement the child does make to anyone can be and may be used against the child in subsequent juvenile court proceedings;

(3) That the child has a right to have a parent, guardian or custodian present during questioning;

(4) That the child has a right to consult with an attorney and that one will be appointed and paid for him if he cannot afford one;

(5) That the child has the right to stop talking at any time; and

(6) That any statement the child does make to law enforcement can be and may be used against the child if the child is transferred to a court of general jurisdiction to be prosecuted under the general law.

2. The juvenile officer shall halt or discontinue any questioning by law enforcement upon notice from the child that the child wishes to stop being questioned.

3. The juvenile officer shall ensure a child is advised of the limited role of the juvenile officer during questioning by law enforcement and specifically advise the child that the juvenile officer is not legal counsel for the child or an advocate for the child during questioning by law enforcement.

4. The juvenile officer shall not participate in the questioning by law enforcement by asking any questions or soliciting any information from the child regarding the alleged offense or offenses.

5. When a child is taken into custody by a juvenile officer or law enforcement official which places the child under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court under subdivision (1) of subsection 1 of section 211.031, including any interactions with the child by the children's division, the following shall apply:

(1) If the child indicates in any manner at any stage during questioning involving the alleged abuse and neglect that the child does not wish to be questioned any further on the allegations, or that the child wishes to have his or her parent, legal guardian, or custodian if such parent, guardian, or custodian is not the alleged perpetrator, or his or her attorney present during questioning as to the alleged abuse, the questioning of the child shall cease on the alleged abuse and neglect until such a time that the child does not object to talking about the alleged abuse and neglect unless the interviewer has reason to believe that the parent, legal guardian, or custodian is acting to protect the alleged perpetrator. Nothing in this subdivision shall be construed to prevent the asking of any questions necessary for the care, treatment, or placement of a child; and

(2) Notwithstanding any prohibition of hearsay evidence, all video or audio recordings of any meetings, interviews, or interrogations of a child shall be presumed admissible as evidence in any court or administrative proceeding involving the child if the following conditions are met:

(a) Such meetings, interviews, or interrogations of the child are conducted by the state prior to or after the child is taken into the custody of the state; and

(b) Such video or audio recordings were made prior to the adjudication hearing in the case. Nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to prohibit the videotaping or audiotaping of any such meetings, interviews, or interrogations of a child after the adjudication hearing; and

(3) Only upon a showing by clear and convincing evidence that such a video or audio recording lacks sufficient indicia of reliability shall such recording be inadmissible.

The provisions of this subsection shall not apply to statements admissible under section 491.075 or 492.304 in criminal proceedings.

--------

(L. 1989 H.B. 502, et al., A.L. 2004 H.B. 1453, A.L. 2017 S.B. 160)

(2016) Section requires law enforcement officers to give a juvenile the specified warnings before engaging in a custodial interrogation, even if the circumstances would otherwise fall within the "public safety" exception. In Interest of J.L.H., 488 S.W.3d 689 (Mo.App.W.D.).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 12 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1997–2022 · leading case: In the Interest of: J.L.H. Juv. Officer v. J.L.H., 488 S.W.3d 689 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

In the Interest of: J.L.H. Juv. Officer v. J.L.H., 488 S.W.3d 689 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 300× “motion to suppress his statement to the police in response to custodial interrogation conducted in violation of section 211.059. We agree and reverse. This appeal requires us to resolve an issue of first impression.”

State v. Werner, 9 S.W.3d 590 (Mo. 2000). · cites it 2× “d Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, and article 1, section 15 of the Missouri Constitution; (2) police officers seized appellant without probable cause in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, and article 1,…”

State v. Lewis, 431 S.W.3d 7 (Mo. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 4× “Appellant claims the trial court’s decision not to suppress the statement or to grant a new trial because of the statement’s admission violated his privilege against self-incrimination and rights to due process and counsel, in that although Krebs advised him of his Miranda…”

State v. Woodworth, 941 S.W.2d 679 (Mo. Ct. App. 1997). “Mark alleges violations of numerous provisions of the Juvenile Code, including §§ 211.059, 211.061, 211.141, and 211.271(3), and several Missouri Supreme Court Rules, including Rules 111.”

Juv. Officer v. A.G.R., 359 S.W.3d 103 (Mo. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 2× “argues that his rights under section 211.059 were violated when the police officers failed to inform him of his Miranda rights and refused to allow him to speak to his mother.”

State v. Barrett, 514 S.W.3d 46 (Mo. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 2× “Regarding statements made by juveniles ("children”), section 211.059 requires that law enforcement officers must advise the juvenile of the following rights: (1) That he has the right to remain silent; and (2) That any statement he does make to anyone can be and may be used…”

State v. Barnaby, 950 S.W.2d 1 (Mo. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 2× “In a subsequent interview with Detective Chris Jefferson, he was given his Miranda 1 warn *3 ing and, because of his juvenile status, those warnings required by § 211.059, RSMo 1994, all of which he waived.”

State v. Burris, 32 S.W.3d 583 (Mo. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 4× “Point II relates to § 211.059. Point I asserts the trial court erred in denying defendant’s motion to suppress evidence and admitting his statements in evidence because defendant was 15 years old, was not provided an “adult friend” during his interrogation, was not advised that…”

Sweatt v. Dir. of Revenue, 940 S.W.2d 540 (Mo. Ct. App. 1997). “Petitioner argues in his brief that he was entitled to a “Miranda” warning because of the provisions of § 211.059. 6 He acknowledges, however, that the juvenile code is not applicable under these facts.”

In Re Agr, 359 S.W.3d 103 (Mo. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 2× “argues that his rights under section 211.059 were violated when the police officers failed to inform him of his Miranda rights and refused to allow him to speak to his mother.”

State of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent v. Justin A. Lewis (Mo. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 4× “statement or to grant a 8 new trial because of the statement’s admission violated his privilege against self- incrimination and rights to due process and counsel, in that although Krebs advised him of his Miranda rights before he asked him the question, he did not advise him…”

State of Missouri v. Keyshawn Omari Burton (Mo. Ct. App. 2022). “The trial court found, inter alia, that the requirements of Sections 211.059 and 211.061 were not violated and that “Defendant knowingly and intelligently 3 waived his rights and elected to give a statement.”

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.