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

Mo. Rev. Stat. § 43.200 (2026)

Search and seizure powers of highway patrol

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MO-REVrevisor.mo.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

  43.200.  Search and seizure powers of highway patrol — authority to serve warrants, participation of sheriff — instruction of officers. — 1.  The members of the patrol shall have the right and power of search and seizure to take from any person under arrest or about to be arrested deadly or dangerous weapons in the possession of such person, and to search and seize on a public highway of this state, or off the public highways of this state as an incident to an arrest made following a hot pursuit from a public highway.

  2.  When ordered to any county or municipality in this state by the governor because of civil disorder, members of the patrol during that time may exercise all powers of search and seizure in the same manner and to the same extent as any sheriff in this state.

  3.  The members of the highway patrol may request that the prosecuting or circuit attorney apply for, and members of the highway patrol may serve, search warrants anywhere within the state of Missouri, provided the sheriff of the county in which the warrant is to be served, or his designee, shall be notified upon application by the applicant of the search warrant except for offenses pertaining to driving while intoxicated.  The sheriff or his or her designee shall participate in serving the search warrant except for offenses pertaining to driving while intoxicated and the investigation of motor vehicle traffic accidents.  Any designee of the sheriff shall be a deputy sheriff or other person certified as a peace officer under chapter 590.  The sheriff shall always have a designee available.

  4.  The superintendent of the highway patrol shall see that every member of the highway patrol is thoroughly instructed in the powers of police officers to arrest for misdemeanors and felonies and to search and seize in order that no person or citizen traveling in this state shall be hindered, stopped, or arrested or his person or property searched or seized without constitutional grounds existing therefor.

­­--------

(RSMo 1939 § 8362, A.L. 1958 2d Ex. Sess. p. 174, A.L. 1969 3d Ex. Sess. H.B. 18, A.L. 1985 H.B. 671, A.L. 1992 H.B. 852, A.L. 1995 H.B. 461, A.L. 2009 H.B. 685)

CROSS REFERENCE:

Animal protection, highway patrol's powers and duties, 578.030

(1984) The fact that members of the Missouri State Highway Patrol had no authority to conduct a search and seizure beyond the jurisdiction of state highways was irrelevant in a federal trial charging possession of marijuana with intent to distribute, since the actions of state officers are to be judged as if they were federal officers. United States v. Eng (8th Cir.) 753 F.2d 683.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases, 1974–2010 · leading case: Missouri v. Welch, 755 S.W.2d 624 (Mo. Ct. App. 1988).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Missouri v. Welch, 755 S.W.2d 624 (Mo. Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 7× “Article I, § 15; (e) that said evidence was obtained in violation of § 43.200, § 577.041, and § 577.037.4, RSMo 1986; and (f) that the entry of judgment against him was erroneous, because the evidence in support thereof was obtained by reason of a roadblock.”
State v. Walker, 330 S.W.3d 122 (Mo. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 7× “DISCUSSION In Defendant’s first point on appeal he argues that the trial court erred when it denied Defendant’s motion to quash the search warrants and when it allowed the search and seizure of (1) the Defendant’s blood and urine samples, and (2) the SDM in Defendant’s vehicle.…”
State v. Marshell, 825 S.W.2d 341 (Mo. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 4× “Defendant’s second point contends that the trial court erred in finding defendant guilty because the evidence of marijuana used to convict defendant was illegally seized in that the “pretextual nature of the traffic stop” that was used to obtain *347 defendant’s consent to the…”
State v. Stark, 506 S.W.2d 1 (Mo. Ct. App. 1974). · cites it 3× “Although the power of search and seizure possessed by members of the Missouri State Highway Patrol is clearly circumscribed by Section 43.200, RSMo 1969, V.A.M.S., the referred to statutory provision, nevertheless, specifically provides, in part, “, .”
State v. Morse, 542 S.W.2d 365 (Mo. Ct. App. 1976). · cites it 2× “arrest for driving without headlights had been made on the public highway, the troopers had the right to impound his motor vehicle; however, defendant argues that he was arrested by pretextual arrest and that the seizure of his motor vehicle, was beyond the statutory power of…”
State v. Harry, 712 S.W.2d 415 (Mo. Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 2× “The power of the State Patrol to search and seize is specifically limited by statute, § 43.200, RSMo Supp.1985.”
Hollis v. Bailey, 524 F. Supp. 565 (E.D. Mo. 1981). “Defendant’s affidavit evidences its good faith belief that plaintiff was exceeding the speed limit.”
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.