Mo. Rev. Stat. » Chapter 542
Missouri Revised Statutes

Mo. Rev. Stat. § 542.281 (2026)

Obscene matter, search warrant, procedure for obtaining

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

  542.281.  Obscene matter, search warrant, procedure for obtaining — application for warrant, content — adversary hearing required, when — alteration of material after notice of hearing or execution of warrant prohibited. — 1.  Any police officer, sheriff or deputy sheriff may make application for the issuance of a search warrant to search for and seize:

  (1)  Obscene matter being held or displayed for sale, exhibition, distribution, or circulation to the public;

  (2)  Matter that is pornographic for minors being held or displayed for sale, exhibition, distribution, or circulation to minors;

  (3)  Property which has been used by the owner, or used with his consent, as a raw material or as an instrument to publish or produce such matter as described in subdivisions (1) and (2) of this subsection.

  2.  A warrant to search for and seize the matters and property described in subsection 1 of this section as evidence in a criminal proceeding pursuant to chapter 573 may be issued by a judge of the circuit court in the county or judicial district in which the alleged matter or property is located.  Except as provided in this section, the issuance of a warrant to search for and seize obscene matter shall be governed by the provisions of section 542.276.  Notwithstanding subsection 3 of section 542.276, oral testimony may be considered.

  3.  The application and the warrant, if issued, shall designate precisely by title, or otherwise, each item to be searched for and seized.

  4.  No warrant shall be issued to search for and seize any item unless the judge determines there is probable cause to believe that such item is obscene as defined in section 573.010 and is being displayed, sold, exhibited, distributed, or circulated to the public or is pornographic for minors as defined in section 573.010, and is being displayed, sold, exhibited, distributed or circulated to minors.

  5.  If the item to be seized is a book, magazine, paper, or pamphlet or an item that may be photographed, a copy or photograph of the allegedly obscene item may be annexed to the application.

  6.  If the item to be seized is a motion picture film or video cassette, written affidavits verified by oath or affirmation of law enforcement officers and city or county prosecutors may supplement the application.

  7.  An officer in making his application for a warrant may rely on past viewings of a motion picture film or video cassette that is the same as the motion picture film or video cassette to be seized if the film or video cassette to be seized can be identified as the same as or a copy of, the prior viewed film or video cassette by the title of the film or video cassette or the package or label on or surrounding the film or video cassette or some other manner.

  8.  If the purpose of applying for a warrant is to search for and seize obscene material for other than evidentiary purposes, the judge shall hold an adversary hearing to determine whether such matter is obscene before issuing a warrant.  Not less than twenty-four hours before such hearing, written notice of the date, time, place and nature of the hearing, including a description of the matter sought, shall be personally served upon the dealer, exhibitor, displayer or his agent.  No warrant shall be issued without the dealer, distributor, or displayer being given a reasonable opportunity to appear in opposition to the issuance.  If the material to be seized is the same as or another copy of matter that has already been determined to be obscene in a criminal proceeding against the dealer, exhibitor, displayer or his agent, the determination of obscenity in the criminal proceeding shall constitute clear and convincing evidence that the matter to be seized pursuant to this subsection is obscene.  Except when the dealer, exhibitor, or displayer consents to a longer period, or by his actions or pleadings, willfully prevents the prompt resolution of the hearing, a decision shall be rendered no later than ten days from the date of the commencement of the hearing.  After service of notice of the hearing, or subpoena, or the execution of a search warrant, intentional alteration, destruction, or removal of any matter, or duplicate of matter, described in the notice shall be punished as contempt of court.

­­--------

(L. 1974 S.B. 366 § 5, A.L. 1987 H.B. 113, et al.)

Effective 7-15-87

(1998) Statute not constitutionally required to provide a one-copy limitation.  B.A.P., Inc. v. McCulloch, 994 F.Supp. 1131 (E.D. Mo.).

(1999) Section is not unconstitutional for vagueness in failing to distinguish between mass seizures and limited evidentiary seizures. B.A.P., Inc. v. McCulloch, 170 F.3d 804 (8th Cir.).

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9 cases, 1978–1999 · leading case: BAP, INC. v. McCulloch, 994 F. Supp. 1131 (E.D. Mo. 1998).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
BAP, INC. v. McCulloch, 994 F. Supp. 1131 (E.D. Mo. 1998). · cites it 27× “Plaintiff has filed this declaratory judgment action challenging the constitutionality of Missouri statute, § 542.281 R.S.Mo., and a search warrant that was issued and executed pursuant to this statute.”
Postscript Enter., Inc. v. Westfall, 596 F. Supp. 205 (E.D. Mo. 1984). · cites it 10× “and leased by plaintiff Postscript, pursuant to Mo.Rev.Stat. §§ 542.281 and 573.010 deprived them of their constitutional rights.”
State v. El Dorado Mgmt. Corp., 801 S.W.2d 401 (Mo. Ct. App. 1990). “We also find the warrant to be sufficient under the terms of RSMo § 542.281 which requires that the warrant “shall designate precisely by title, or otherwise, each item to be searched for and seized.”
State v. All Star News Agency, Inc., 580 S.W.2d 245 (Mo. 1979). “PER CURIAM: This appeal involves two civil proceedings, consolidated here and at trial, wherein the State seeks forfeiture and destruction, under §§ 542.281 and 542.301.3, RSMo Supp. 1975 of magazines and movies seized from appellant.”
State v. Perry, 567 S.W.2d 380 (Mo. Ct. App. 1978). · cites it 5× “First, that the transaction between the arresting officer and appellants did not constitute a sale, but rather an illegal seizure in violation of the First, Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution and § 542.”
Postscript Enter., Inc. v. Westfall, 771 F.2d 1132 (8th Cir. 1985). · cites it 2× “§ 2201 (1982) seeking a declaration that Mo.Rev. Stat. §§ 542.281, .301 and 573.010, .”
B.A.P. v. Robert P. McCulloch, 170 F.3d 804 (8th Cir. 1999). · cites it 3× “Louis County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office and decided to apply for a search warrant *806 under Mo.Rev.Stat. § 542.281. 4 The application for the search warrant, the accompanying affidavit of the investigating officer, Detective Ostendorf, and the warrant itself, all state that…”
State v. Reggins, 645 S.W.2d 113 (Mo. Ct. App. 1982). “Appellant also argues that seizure of the video tape violates the mandate of § 542.281. That section provides that officers of the law may make application for the issuance of a search warrant to search for and seize obscene materials or raw materials used for the production of…”
State v. All Star News Agency, 588 S.W.2d 494 (Mo. 1979). “PER CURIAM: This appeal involves a civil proceeding wherein the State seeks forfeiture and destruction, under §§ 542.281 and 542.301, RSMo 1978, of allegedly obscene materials.”
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.