Mo. Rev. Stat. » Chapter 513
Missouri Revised Statutes

Mo. Rev. Stat. § 513.647 (2026)

Transfer of property seized by state to federal agency, procedure

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

  513.647.  Transfer of property seized by state to federal agency, procedure — transfer not to be made unless violation is a felony — property owner may challenge, procedure. — 1.  No state or local law enforcement agency may transfer any property seized by the state or local agency to any federal agency for forfeiture under federal law until the prosecuting attorney and the circuit judge of the county in which the property was seized first review the seizure and approve the transfer to a federal agency, regardless of the identity of the seizing agency.  The prosecuting attorney and the circuit judge shall not approve any transfer unless it reasonably appears the activity giving rise to the investigation or seizure involves more than one state or unless it is reasonably likely to result in federal criminal charges being filed, based upon a written statement of intent to prosecute from the United States attorney with jurisdiction.  No transfer shall be made to a federal agency unless the violation would be a felony under Missouri law or federal law.

  2.  Prior to transfer, in an ex parte proceeding, the prosecuting attorney shall file with the court a statement setting forth the facts and circumstances of the event or occurrence which led to the seizure of the property and the parties involved, if known.  The court shall certify the filing, and notify by mailing to the last known address of the property owner that his property is subject to being transferred to the federal government and further notify the property owner of his right to file a petition stating legitimate grounds for challenging the transfer.  If within ninety-six hours after the filing of the statement by the prosecuting attorney, the property owner by petition shows by a preponderance of the evidence that the property should not be transferred to the federal government for forfeiture, the court shall delay such transfer until a hearing may be held.  If the court orders a delay in transfer, no later than ten days after the filing of a petition under this section and sections 513.649 and 513.651, a hearing shall be held unless the court deems, for good cause shown, that a continuance should be granted.  At the hearing, if the prosecutor has proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the investigation or seizure involved more than one state or that the nature of the investigation or seizure would be better pursued under the federal forfeiture statutes, the court shall order that the transfer shall be made.

­­--------

(L. 1993 H.B. 562 § 6 subsecs. 1, 2, A.L. 2001 S.B. 5 & 21)

(1997) Section does not require a conviction for transfer to federal agency of seized property.  The application for transfer must cite the specific felony statute with the elements of the offense as well as sufficient evidence to find by a preponderance of the evidence that the property is sufficiently connected to the felony.  State v. Sledd, 949 S.W.2d 643 (W.D.Mo.).

(2000) Seizure occurred when city police stopped and arrested claimant for traffic violations and took possession of money found in car; divestment of claimant's possessory interests occurred at that point and not when money was transferred to federal agents. Also, transfer was improper without first obtaining approval from circuit judge and prosecutor.  Karpierz v. Easley, 31 S.W.3d 505 (Mo.App.W.D.).

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11 cases, 1995–2011 · leading case: State v. Sledd, 949 S.W.2d 643 (Mo. Ct. App. 1997).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Sledd, 949 S.W.2d 643 (Mo. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 23× “This appeal concerns whether the transfer by state authorities to federal authorities of $9,481 seized by Missouri state authorities during a search was permitted by section 513.647, RSMo 1994. Christopher Sledd claims that Callaway County made an unauthorized transfer of the…”
Karpierz v. Easley, 68 S.W.3d 565 (Mo. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 7× “2000), the trial court found that Kar-pierz was entitled to relief against Appellants in his action to recover money seized from him and transferred to the federal government for forfeiture under his cause of action for assumpsit for money had and received, where Appellants had…”
Investors Title Co., Inc. v. Hammonds, 217 S.W.3d 288 (Mo. 2007). · cites it 3× “Section 513.647, RSMo 1994. 4 . Jury Instruction Seven reads in its entirety: “On the claim of plaintiff Investors Title Co.”
State ex rel. Missouri State High. Patrol v. Atwell, 119 S.W.3d 188 (Mo. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 6× “The petitioner also claims that the cash was given to federal authorities by relator in violation of Missouri’s Criminal Activity Forfeiture Act, Section 513.647, RSMo.2000. 1 Respondent denied relator’s motion to dismiss on the grounds of sovereign immunity.”
Yahne v. Pettis Cnty. Sheriff Dep't, 73 S.W.3d 717 (Mo. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 2× “Yahne’s petition alleges that a civil forfeiture action under CAFA was not filed, but rather on March 7, 1995, the Pettis County Prosecutor filed a request under § 513.647 of CAFA to transfer the money to federal authorities.”
Terry L. Madewell v. Mike Downs, Anthony P. Grootens, & John Prine, 68 F.3d 1030 (8th Cir. 1995). “Missouri recently passed Mo.Rev.Stat. § 513.647, which states as follows: 513.”
Ivester v. Lee, 991 F. Supp. 1113 (E.D. Mo. 1998). · cites it 6× “§ 513.647 (1994), before the seized property was transferred to federal authorities.”
Williams v. Greene Cnty. Sheriff's Dep't, 94 S.W.3d 450 (Mo. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 3× “§ 513.647. 1 No forfeiture petition under R.”
State v. Gray, 21 S.W.3d 847 (Mo. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 18× “Appellants contend the trial court erred in granting the application for transfer because (1) neither the application nor the statement of facts contained an allegation of the specific felony statute violated as required by Section 513.647, RSMo 1994, and (2) the prosecuting…”
In Re Seizure Warrant for $374,100 in United States Currency, 825 F. Supp. 2d 1002 (W.D. Mo. 2011). · cites it 3× “2000), prevents it from complying with the warrant because in Karpierz , the court found that section 513.647 must be strictly followed.”
United States v. Michael Timley (8th Cir. 2006). “Mo. Rev. Stat. § 513.647 (1). -4- Timley then filed a motion to suppress evidence seized during the April 17, 2003 search of his residence, which the district court referred to a magistrate.”
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.