Mo. Rev. Stat. » Chapter 43
Missouri Revised Statutes

Mo. Rev. Stat. § 43.150 (2026)

Removal or discipline of members of patrol, procedure

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

  43.150.  Removal or discipline of members of patrol, procedure. — 1.  After a probation period of one year the members of the patrol shall be subject to removal, reduction in rank or suspension of more than three days only for cause after a formal charge has been filed in writing before or by the superintendent and upon a finding by a majority of a board of six members randomly selected from troops or divisions other than that of the accused.  The board shall be composed of six unbiased members including one nonvoting captain, one sergeant and four members of the same rank as the accused member.  The randomly selected captain shall serve as presiding officer at the hearing.  Within thirty days after the petition is filed, unless the accused consents to an extension of time, the board shall conduct a hearing and report to the superintendent the finding by the majority of the board, whether the charges are true and what discipline, if any, should be imposed.  All lawful rules, regulations, and orders of the superintendent shall be obeyed by the members of the patrol who shall be subject to dismissal as provided or to one or more of the following:

  (1)  Suspension not to exceed thirty days;

  (2)  Fine;

  (3)  Reduction in rank; or

  (4)  Disciplinary transfer at the member's expense;

­­

­

as the superintendent may adjudge.  Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent nondisciplinary transfers of members if the superintendent determines that such transfers are for the good of the patrol.  No hearings shall be required in the case of reprimands or suspensions of three days or less which may be imposed at the discretion of the superintendent.

  2.  Subject to the exceptions set forth in subsection 3, if a complaint is filed against a member, the member will be provided a copy of the complaint promptly after the complaint is filed by or received by the patrol.  Unless the member consents in writing to an earlier time, the member will not be interrogated by the patrol or ordered to respond in writing in connection with the complaint until forty-eight hours after the member has received a copy of the complaint.  The member will be entitled to reasonable opportunity to have counsel present during any interrogation related to the complaint.  Prior to the superintendent or the patrol making an initial recommendation of discipline, the member shall be entitled to a copy of any investigation reports and any other written or recorded information or other evidence reviewed by the patrol which relates to the complaint; and the member will be afforded an opportunity to present a written response thereto.

  3.  Notwithstanding any provisions in the preceding subsection, the superintendent may postpone notifying the member that a complaint has been filed and may withhold the complaint and part or all of the investigation report and other evidence if the superintendent determines that such disclosures will seriously interfere with the investigation regarding that complaint or any other investigation being conducted by the patrol or will likely jeopardize the health or safety of any person.  Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to limit the rights of parties to discovery in civil or criminal litigation.

­­--------

(RSMo 1939 § 8353, A.L. 1949 p. 293, A.L. 1955 p. 615, A.L. 1992 S.B. 550, A.L. 1998 S.B. 659, A.L. 1999 H.B. 661)

(1987) Hearing board's dismissal of state highway patrolman was within its discretion in proceeding pursuant to this section.  Gamble v. Hoffman, 732 S.W.2d 890 (Mo. banc).

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13 cases, 1982–2019 · leading case: Gamble v. Hoffman, 695 S.W.2d 503 (Mo. Ct. App. 1985).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Gamble v. Hoffman, 695 S.W.2d 503 (Mo. Ct. App. 1985). · cites it 22× “The Patrol filed formal charges, and at Gamble's request a disciplinary hearing board was convened pursuant to § 43.150. At the hearing, Gamble's attorney attempted to impeach Ms.”
Gardner v. Missouri State High. Patrol Superintendent, 901 S.W.2d 107 (Mo. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 17× “In his first point on appeal, Corporal Gardner focuses on the statutory provisions of § 43.150, RSMo 1986, which outline the procedure for removal or discipline of members of the Highway Patrol.”
Gamble v. Hoffman, 732 S.W.2d 890 (Mo. 1987). · cites it 5× “A hearing board was convened pursuant to § 43.150, RSMo 1986, and Gamble was dismissed from the Patrol on December 9, 1982.”
State ex rel. Wilhoit v. Seay, 248 S.W.3d 135 (Mo. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 8× “Thereafter, in accordance with section 43.150, 1 an administrative hearing was scheduled before the Disciplinary Board for October 11, 2000, by a personal order issued by Colonel Wilhoit, acting in his official capacity as Superintendent of the Missouri State Highway Patrol.”
Medley v. Missouri State High. Patrol, 776 S.W.2d 405 (Mo. Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 6× “On May 18, 1981, Medley requested a Patrol disciplinary board (board) convene pursuant to § 43.150 to hear charges against him. A hearing was conducted on June 25,1981.”
State ex rel. Crowe v. Missouri State High. Patrol, 168 S.W.3d 122 (Mo. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 2× “” Finally, Section 43.150 sets forth the procedures for discipline of the members of the highway patrol and provides, in pertinent part, that “[n]o hearings shall be required in the case of reprimands or suspensions of three days or less which may be imposed at the discretion of…”
Hughes v. Whitmer, 537 F. Supp. 93 (W.D. Mo. 1982). · cites it 3× “HEARING BOARD: POLICY AND PROCEDURE Members of a hearing board will be selected and will act as prescribed in Section 43.150, RSMo., and as provided in this general order.”
Pleasant v. Missouri State High. Patrol, 181 S.W.3d 243 (Mo. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 3× “Section 43.150 RSMo. (2000), does not require intentional misconduct as a justification for a patrol member's removal.”
Ehler v. Missouri State High. Patrol, 254 S.W.3d 99 (Mo. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 2× “The board is to consist of “six unbiased members including one nonvoting captain, one sergeant, and four members of the same rank as the accused member.”
Anthony Piercy v. Missouri State High. Patrol & Eric T. Olson, 583 S.W.3d 132 (Mo. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 33× “" Section 43.150, RSMo. 1978 (emphasis added).”
Mitchell v. Missouri State High. Patrol, 809 S.W.2d 67 (Mo. Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 2× “He *68 was discharged for misconduct by order of the acting superintendent of the Missouri State Highway Patrol, following a recommendation for dismissal by a review board convened pursuant to § 43.150. 1 The circuit court reversed the decision of the acting superintendent and…”
Medley v. Missouri State High. Patrol, 672 S.W.2d 169 (Mo. Ct. App. 1984). · cites it 7× “1983) the court construed § 43.150, § 43.120 and Patrol General Order V-16-104, § V(A) and noted that a trooper can demand a formal hearing only when the Patrol recommends removal or when the trooper “is accused by a violation that is of such a nature that dismissal may be the…”
Show all 13 citing cases →
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.