Missouri Revised Statutes

Mo. Rev. Stat. § 544.193 (2026)

Strip searches prohibited, when

✓ current as of May 2026

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

544.193. Strip searches prohibited, when — how executed if authorized. — 1. As used in sections 544.193 to 544.197:

(1) "Body cavity search" means the inspection of a person's anus or genitalia, including but not limited to inspections conducted visually, manually or by means of any physical instrument.

(2) "Strip search" means the removal or rearrangement of some or all of the clothing of a person so as to permit an inspection of the genitals, buttocks, anus, breasts or undergarments of such person, including but not limited to inspections conducted visually, manually or by means of any physical instrument.

2. No person arrested or detained for a traffic offense or an offense which does not constitute a felony may be subject to a strip search or a body cavity search by any law enforcement officer or employee unless there is probable cause to believe that such person is concealing a weapon, evidence of the commission of a crime or contraband.

3. All strip searches and body cavity searches conducted by law enforcement officers or employees in this state shall be performed by persons of the same sex as the person being searched, and shall be conducted on premises where the search cannot be observed by any person other than the persons physically conducting the search, except that nothing herein shall be interpreted to prohibit a readily available person from being present at the request and consent of the person being searched.

4. A body cavity search of any person detained or arrested for a traffic offense or an offense which does not constitute a felony may only be conducted pursuant to a duly executed search warrant, under sanitary conditions and by a physician, registered nurse or practical nurse, licensed to practice in this state.

5. Every law enforcement officer or employee conducting a strip search or body cavity search shall:

(1) Obtain the written permission of the person in command of the law enforcement agency in which the strip search or body cavity search is to be conducted authorizing the strip search or body cavity search; and

(2) Prepare a report regarding the strip search or body cavity search. The report shall include:

(a) The written permission required in subdivision (1) above;

(b) The name of the person searched;

(d) The time, date and place of the search.

A copy of the report shall be furnished to the person who was searched.

--------

(L. 1980 H.B. 982 § 1)

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 6 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1991–2024 · leading case: State v. Esquivel, 987 S.W.2d 481 (Mo. Ct. App. 1999).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

State v. Esquivel, 987 S.W.2d 481 (Mo. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 5× “Esquivel contends that the circuit court erred in denying his motion to suppress because the evidence was seized in violation of § 544.193, RSMo 1994, and in violation of the “plain feel” doctrine.”

DaVee v. Mathis, 812 S.W.2d 816 (Mo. Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 2× “DaVee also contends that the visual body cavity search was conducted in an unreasonable manner because the search violated the provisions of § 544.193, RSMo 1986. The statute provides the proper means for conducting a body cavity search of an arrestee.”

Redding v. Safford Unified Sch. Dist. No. 1, 531 F.3d 1071 (9th Cir. 2008). “5/103-1; Mo. Rev. Stat. § 544.193 ; N.J. Stat. Ann.”

Stroud v. Steffen (E.D. Mo. 2024). · cites it 4× “In Count II, Plaintiffs also allege the strip searches violated Mo. Rev. Stat. § 544.193 because they were not conducted by a person of the same sex, Steffen never received permission from a superior to conduct the strip searches, reports of the strip searches were never…”

Jami Schmidt v. City of Bella Villa (8th Cir. 2009). · cites it 4× “§ 1983 and Missouri’s strip search law, Mo. Rev. Stat. § 544.193 . She brought claims against the City of Bella Villa, Missouri, and Chief of Police Edward Locke, Jr.”

State v. Johnson, 153 S.W.3d 352 (Mo. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 3× “The State appeals the trial court’s judgment to suppress evidence because the search was not compliant with section 544.193 RSMo. (2000). For the reasons explained in the memorandum furnished to the parties, we affirm.”

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.