542.266. Search warrant defined — who may issue. — 1. A search warrant is a written order of a court commanding the search of a person, place, or thing and the seizure, or photographing or copying, of property found thereon or therein.
2. A search warrant may be issued by an appellate judge or by any judge of a court having original jurisdiction of criminal offenses within the territorial jurisdiction where the person, place, or movable or immovable thing to be searched is located at the time of the making of the application.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
6
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1985–2023 · leading case:
State v. Berkwit, 689 S.W.2d 763 (Mo. Ct. App. 1985).
State v. Berkwit, 689 S.W.2d 763 (Mo. Ct. App. 1985).
· cites it 14× “[1] Defendant's motion to quash was premised on the belief that the search was invalid because it violated § 542.266 RSMo 1978 and § 542.276 RSMo Supp.”
State v. Smith, 134 S.W.3d 35 (Mo. Ct. App. 2004).
· cites it 3× “Because it is directed only to warrantless tests authorized by law enforcement officers, it does not restrict the state’s ability to apply for a search warrant to obtain evidence in criminal cases pursuant to section 542.”
Frech v. City of Columbia, 693 S.W.2d 813 (Mo. 1985).
· cites it 3× “Section 542.266(2), RSMo 1978. Additionally, plaintiffs argue that § 542.”
Metzner v. State, 2015 Ark. 222, 462 S.W.3d 650.
“276 RSMo (2000) or a court’s power to issue a search warrant under section 542.266 RSMo (2000). 8 Cite as 2015 Ark.”
State v. Elliott, 845 S.W.2d 115 (Mo. Ct. App. 1993).
· cites it 2× “The Eastern District of this Court held the judge lacked authority under § 542.266, RSMo 1978, to do so, as the automobile was not within the judge’s territorial jurisdiction at the time the application was made.”
Joseph Evan Dunbar v. Dir. of Revenue, 677 S.W.3d 545 (Mo. Ct. App. 2023).
“The Director argues that the toxicology report was admissible because Dunbar’s blood sample was obtained pursuant to a valid search warrant under sections 542.266 and 541.2717 and not under the Missouri Implied Consent Law.”
Mo. Rev. Stat. § 542.266(2): 1 case
Frech v. City of Columbia, 693 S.W.2d 813 (Mo. 1985).
“Section 542.266(2), RSMo 1978. Additionally, plaintiffs argue that § 542.”
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.