Missouri Revised Statutes

Mo. Rev. Stat. § 544.170 (2026)

Twenty hours detention on arrest without warrant

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MO-REVrevisor.mo.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

544.170. Twenty hours detention on arrest without warrant — twenty-four hours detention for certain offenses, rights of confinee — violations, penalty. — 1. All persons arrested and confined in any jail or other place of confinement by any peace officer, without warrant or other process, for any alleged breach of the peace or other criminal offense, or on suspicion thereof, shall be discharged from said custody within twenty-four hours from the time of such arrest, unless they shall be charged with a criminal offense by the oath of some credible person, and be held by warrant to answer to such offense.

2. In any confinement to which the provisions of this section apply, the confinee shall be permitted at any reasonable time to consult with counsel or other persons acting on the confinee's behalf.

3. Any person who violates the provisions of this section, by refusing to release any person who is entitled to release pursuant to this section, or by refusing to permit a confinee to consult with counsel or other persons, or who transfers any such confinees to the custody or control of another, or to another place, or who falsely charges such person, with intent to avoid the provisions of this section, is guilty of a class A misdemeanor.

--------

(RSMo 1939 § 4346, A.L. 2001 H.B. 80, A.L. 2005 H.B. 353)

Prior revisions: 1929 § 3952; 1919 § 3200; 1909 § 4418

CROSS REFERENCES:

Concealment of prisoners to avoid service of habeas corpus writ, penalty, 532.650

Custodian to furnish prisoners copy of process within six hours after demand, penalty for failure, 532.630

Police in city of St. Louis may refuse access to prisoners by shysters or attorneys soliciting business, 84.230

Rearrest of person discharged on habeas corpus, penalty, 532.660

(1961) The fact that a peace officer violates a statute by holding a person in excess of the time provided by law without charging him with a criminal offense does not, as a matter of law, render the prisoner's confession involuntary. State v. Bridges (Mo.), 349 S.W.2d 214.

(1963) Failure to release a prisoner in the time prescribed by this section without having him charged with a criminal offense does not, as a matter of law, render the prisoner's confession involuntary, but such facts together with long period of interrogation were evidence of mental duress and coercion necessitating inclusion in instruction governing voluntariness of defendant's confessions the submission of issue of mental coercion. State v. Williams (Mo.), 369 S.W.2d 408.

(1966) A prisoner's confession is not rendered involuntary as a matter of law by the fact that a peace officer violates a statute by holding a person in excess of the time provided by law without charging him with a criminal offense. State v. Paghe (Mo.), 403 S.W.2d 635.

(1972) Detention beyond statutory limit, standing alone, is not sufficient to make an otherwise voluntary statement involuntary. Roberts v. State (Mo.), 476 S.W.2d 490.

(1976) Held that confinement for more than twenty hours is not a wrongful confinement in a constitutional sense and violation of the statute would not be grounds for suppressing a confession. United States v. Rose (C.A. Mo.), 541 F.2d 750.

(1996) Statute is not intended to be an investigative tool for police, but sets a limit on the time a suspect may be detained, whose arrest was otherwise lawful, while determining whether there is sufficient evidence of a crime to take to a judge or prosecutor. "Therefore, any interpretation of section 544.170 which includes authority for making investigative arrests would clearly be unconstitutional." U.S. v. Roberts, 928 F.Supp. 910 (W.D. Mo.).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 59 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1955–2021 · leading case: State v. Pate, 469 S.W.3d 904 (Mo. Ct. App. 2015).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

State v. Pate, 469 S.W.3d 904 (Mo. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 21× “In Point III, he argues in addition that these statements should have been suppressed because he was unlawfully detained for more than 24 hours without an arrest warrant, in violation of Section 544.170, RSMo. (CurmSupp. 2014). We disagree with both arguments.”

In Re Conard, 944 S.W.2d 191 (Mo. 1997). · cites it 20× “Charles police department to hold persons arrested for domestic violence for twenty hours as allowed by section 544.170, RSMo 1994. [1] After the attorney related the facts of the arrest and detention to Judge Conard, the Judge determined that continued detention was not…”

Staggs v. Dir. of Revenue, 223 S.W.3d 866 (Mo. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 6× “020 should be read in pari materia with other relevant statutes, such as section 544.170 and the cases applicable to that statute.”

United States v. Nygard, 324 F. Supp. 863 (W.D. Mo. 1971). · cites it 10× “17 and Section 544.170, V.A.M.S., unless they had an apparently good reason to do so.”

State v. Tyler, 587 S.W.2d 918 (Mo. Ct. App. 1979). · cites it 3× “The police did secure defendant’s plaid coat and a daily activities ledger from defendant’s place of residence after he was arrested and while he was being held.”

James v. Dir. of Revenue, 767 S.W.2d 604 (Mo. Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 5× “James objected in the circuit court to the receipt in evidence of the results of the breath analysis arguing, inter alia, that the ■ results were obtained in violation of his right to consult counsel conferred by § 544.170 6 and his right to refuse to submit to the test…”

State v. Ard, 11 S.W.3d 820 (Mo. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 3× “) Appellant’s brief refers to § 544.170, which provides that all persons arrested without warrant shall be discharged within twenty hours unless formally charged with a criminal offense and held by warrant.”

State v. Ikerman, 698 S.W.2d 902 (Mo. Ct. App. 1985). · cites it 3× “Section 544.170 RSMo.1969 and Rules 21.14 and 37.”

State v. Taggert, 443 S.W.2d 168 (Mo. 1969). · cites it 4× “After the further hearings were had, and the findings were made by the trial court concerning the voluntariness of appellants' confessions, they were granted additional time to file a supplemental brief and argument. By Point I of this brief, appellants say that "The trial court…”

State v. Matney, 721 S.W.2d 189 (Mo. Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 4× “” and that a failure to allow a defendant to do so is a misdemean- or. Section 575.320.1(5)(b) provides that a law enforcement officer commits the class A misdemeanor of Misconduct in the administration of justice if he violates § 544.”

State v. Smith, 747 S.W.2d 678 (Mo. Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 3× “Defendant’s remaining contention regarding the statements is that he was held for over twenty hours without being allowed to consult with an attorney in violation of § 544.170, RSMo 1978. The record is not clear that the statements complained of were made more than twenty hours…”

Gooch v. Spradling, 523 S.W.2d 861 (Mo. Ct. App. 1975). · cites it 3× “Section 544.170 RSMo 1969, V.A.M.S., the so-called “20 hour rule”, contains substantially the same language as Rule 37.”

Show all 59 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.