84.090. Board of police — duties, powers. — The duties of the boards of police hereby created shall be as follows: They shall, at all times of the day and night, within the boundaries of said cities, as well on water as on land,
(1) Preserve the public peace, prevent crime and arrest offenders;
(2) Protect the rights of persons and property;
(3) Guard the public health;
(4) Preserve order at every public election, and at all public meetings and places, and on all public occasions;
(5) Prevent and remove nuisances on all streets, highways, waters and other places;
(6) Provide a proper police force at every fire for the protection of firemen and property;
(7) Protect emigrants and travelers at steamboat landings and railway stations;
(8) See that all laws relating to elections and to the observance of Sunday, and regulating pawnbrokers, gamblers, intemperance, lotteries and lottery policies, vagrants, disorderly persons, and the public health are enforced;
(9) They shall also enforce all laws and all ordinances passed or which may hereafter be passed by the common council or municipal assembly of said cities, not inconsistent with the provisions of sections 84.010 to 84.340, or any other law of the state, which may be properly enforceable by a police force;
(10) In case they shall have any reason to believe that any person within said cities intends to commit any breaches of the peace, or violation of the law or order beyond the city limits, any person charged with the commission of crime in said cities and against whom criminal process shall have issued, may be arrested upon the same in any part of this state by the police force created or authorized by sections 84.010 to 84.340; provided, however, that before the person so arrested shall be removed from the county in which such arrest is made he shall be taken before some judge, to whom the papers authorizing such arrest shall be submitted; and the person so arrested shall not be removed from said county, but shall forthwith be discharged, unless such judge shall endorse and approve said papers;
(11) The said police commissioners, or either of them, shall have the power to administer oaths or affirmations in the premises, to any person appearing or called before them;
(12) They shall also have the power to summon and compel the attendance of witnesses before them, whenever it may be necessary for the more effectual discharge of their duties.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
17
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1958–2024 · leading case:
State v. Kilgore, 771 S.W.2d 57 (Mo. 1989).
State v. Kilgore, 771 S.W.2d 57 (Mo. 1989).
· cites it 4× “Later that day, the defendant detailed and reenacted his participation in the crime in a videotaped confession. During the taping of the confession, officers readvised the defendant of his Miranda rights at least four times.”
State v. Boyd, 999 S.W.2d 276 (Mo. Ct. App. 1999).
· cites it 14× “On September 2, 1998, defendant filed his motion to dismiss, arguing that, pursuant to section 84.090(10) and State v. Kilgore, 771 S.”
State Ex Rel. Sayad v. Zych, 642 S.W.2d 907 (Mo. 1982).
· cites it 2× “[1] Duties and powers are clearly defined in § 84.090, including the power to appoint a police force.”
State v. Jefferson, 391 S.W.2d 885 (Mo. 1965).
· cites it 2× “The essential question for determination is whether the arrest of the defendant was lawful in these particular circumstances. An arrest by a police officer of the City of St.”
State v. Sampson, 408 S.W.2d 84 (Mo. 1966).
· cites it 3× “Section 84.090, RSMo 1959, V.A.M.S. When a person has been lawfully arrested, a search without a warrant may be made of the person.”
State v. Cantrell, 310 S.W.2d 866 (Mo. 1958).
· cites it 2× “Louis is § 84.090. Section 84.440, also pertaining to Kansas City, provides: “In case any police official shall have reason to believe that any person has committed, or is about to commit within the city ⅜ * * any breach of peace or violation of law and order, or that any person…”
State Ex Rel. Priest v. Gunn, 326 S.W.2d 314 (Mo. 1959).
· cites it 2× “” We do not rule that the Board may not perform this function as a state police function with proper personnel under the broad protective powers granted under section 84.090; paragraph (9) thereof specifically provides that it may enforce city ordinances not inconsistent with…”
State v. Hill, 419 S.W.2d 46 (Mo. 1967).
· cites it 3× “2d 84, 87 ; Section 84.090, RSMo 1959, V.A.M.S. Following a lawful arrest the *48 officers could have, of course, searched defendant for weapons and thus discovered the gun, although under the facts the gun was actually disclosed by defendant’s own act in dropping it on the…”
State v. Moomey, 581 S.W.2d 899 (Mo. Ct. App. 1979).
· cites it 2× “§ 84.090(10) RSMo 1969. See also State v.”
State v. Vollmar, 389 S.W.2d 20 (Mo. 1965).
“And the rule has been liberalized by § 84.090 (all statutory references are to RSMo 1959, V.”
City of St. Louis v. Penrod, 332 S.W.2d 34 (Mo. Ct. App. 1960).
· cites it 2× “§ 7691, (now Section 84.090 R.S.Mo. 1949, 6 V.A.M.S.) is lawful when the police officers have reasonable grounds to believe that an offense against the law has been committed by the person arrested.”
State v. Edmonson, 371 S.W.2d 273 (Mo. 1963).
“The motion to suppress was based on two grounds: (1) that the officers under the circumstances surrounding this arrest “had no reasonable suspicion that any crime had been committed nor that defendant had committed any crime whatsoever,” and (2) that defendant was detained…”
Mo. Rev. Stat. § 84.090(10): 4 cases
State v. Kilgore, 771 S.W.2d 57 (Mo. 1989).
“Later that day, the defendant detailed and reenacted his participation in the crime in a videotaped confession. During the taping of the confession, officers readvised the defendant of his Miranda rights at least four times.”
State v. Boyd, 999 S.W.2d 276 (Mo. Ct. App. 1999).
“On September 2, 1998, defendant filed his motion to dismiss, arguing that, pursuant to section 84.090(10) and State v. Kilgore, 771 S.”
State v. Moomey, 581 S.W.2d 899 (Mo. Ct. App. 1979).
“§ 84.090(10) RSMo 1969. See also State v.”
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.