Missouri Revised Statutes

Mo. Rev. Stat. § 84.120 (2026)

Police force members

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MO-REVrevisor.mo.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

  84.120.  Police force members — qualifications — removal — delegation of jurisdiction of hearing officers, functions. — 1.  No person shall be appointed or employed as policeman, turnkey, or officer of police who shall have been convicted of, or against whom any indictment may be pending, for any offense, the punishment of which may be confinement in the penitentiary; nor shall any person be so appointed who is not of good character, or who is not a citizen of the United States, or who is not able to read and write the English language, or who does not possess ordinary physical strength and courage.  The patrolmen and turnkeys hereafter appointed shall serve while they shall faithfully perform their duties and possess mental and physical ability and be subject to removal only for cause after a hearing by the boards, who are hereby invested with the jurisdiction in the premises.

  2.  The board shall have the sole discretion whether to delegate portions of its jurisdiction to hearing officers.  The board shall retain final and ultimate authority over such matters and over the person to whom the delegation may be made.  In any hearing before the board under this section, the member involved may make application to the board to waive a hearing before the board and request that a hearing be held before a hearing officer.

  3.  Nothing in this section or chapter shall be construed to prohibit the board of police commissioners from delegating any task related to disciplinary matters, disciplinary hearings, or any other hearing or proceeding which could otherwise be heard by the board or concerning any determination related to whether an officer is able to perform the necessary functions of the position.  Tasks related to the preceding matter may be delegated by the board to a hearing officer under the provisions of subsection 4 of this section.

  4.  (1)  The hearing officer to whom a delegation has been made by the board may, at the sole discretion of the board, perform certain functions, including but not limited to the following:

  (a)  Presiding over a disciplinary matter from its inception through to the final hearing;

  (b)  Preparing a report to the board of police commissioners; and

  (c)  Making recommendations to the board of police commissioners as to the allegations and the appropriateness of the recommended discipline.

  (2)  The board shall promulgate rules, which may be changed from time to time as determined by the board, and shall make such rules known to the hearing officer or others.

  (3)  The board shall at all times retain the authority to render the final decision after a review of the relevant documents, evidence, transcripts, videotaped testimony, or report prepared by the hearing officer.

  5.  Hearing officers shall be selected in the following manner:

  (1)  The board shall establish a panel of not less than five persons, all who are to be licensed attorneys in good standing with the Missouri Bar.  The composition of the panel may change from time to time at the board's discretion;

  (2)  From the panel, the relevant member or officer and a police department representative shall alternatively and independently strike names from the list with the last remaining name being the designated hearing officer.  The board shall establish a process to be utilized for each hearing which will determine which party makes the first strike and the process may change from time to time;

  (3)  After the hearing officer is chosen and presides over a matter, such hearing officer shall become ineligible until all hearing officers listed have been utilized, at which time the list shall renew, subject to officers' availability.

  6.  Nothing in this section shall be construed to authorize the board of police commissioners to remove or discharge any chief, as that term is defined in section 106.273.

­­--------

(RSMo 1939 § 7692, A.L. 1943 p. 703, A.L. 1945 p. 1257, A. 1949 H.B. 2033, A.L. 2007 H.B. 41 merged with H.B. 574, A.L. 2013 H.B. 307)

Prior revisions: 1929 § 7544; 1919 § 8954; 1909 § 9806

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10 cases, 1955–2020 · leading case: McCallister v. Priest, 422 S.W.2d 650 (Mo. 1968).
McCallister v. Priest, 422 S.W.2d 650 (Mo. 1968). · cites it 5× “Qualifications of members of the Police Force are provided by § 84.120. That section then provides as follows: “The patrolmen and turnkeys hereafter appointed shall serve while they shall faithfully perform their duties and possess mental and physical ability and be subject to…”
Schuettenberg v. Bd. of Police Commissioners of the City of St. Louis, 935 S.W.2d 712 (Mo. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 3× “Section 84.120 states: “The patrolmen and turnkeys hereafter appointed shall serve while they shall faithfully perform their duties and possess mental and physical ability and be subject to removal only for cause after a hearing by the boards, who are hereby invested with the…”
Scism v. Long, 280 S.W.2d 481 (Mo. Ct. App. 1955). · cites it 3× “, it is provided that “All lawful rules and regulations of the board shall be obeyed by the police force on pain of dismissal or such lighter punishment, either by suspension, fine, reduction or forfeiture of pay, or otherwise as the boards may adjudge.”
State ex inf. Peach v. Goins, 575 S.W.2d 175 (Mo. 1978). · cites it 2× “060, — no “convicted” person to be appointed to highway patrol; Section 84.120, — municipal police force to be composed of persons not “convicted”; Section 311.”
Kell v. Sayad, 670 S.W.2d 82 (Mo. Ct. App. 1984). · cites it 4× “irming the Board’s findings because those findings were based in part on the Board's Exhibit 4, appellant’s statement given to the Internal Affairs Division; that without the statement there was insufficient evidence to support the three charges; and, the charges were themselves…”
Milani v. Miller, 515 S.W.2d 412 (Mo. 1974). “The Court also noted that under §§ 84.120 and 84.150 the Board had the power to remove “for cause” independent of Rules, and that the appellant had adequate notice of the cause for which his removal was sought.”
Ryan v. McNeal, 569 S.W.2d 361 (Mo. Ct. App. 1978). · cites it 3× “The Board, in the conduct of a disciplinary hearing pursuant to the power conferred upon it by Section 84.120 RSMo. 1969, acts as a quasi-judicial body in a proceeding involving the legal rights, duties or privileges of the appellant.”
State ex rel. McNeal v. Roach, 520 S.W.2d 69 (Mo. 1975). “The hearing procedures referred to in Finding of Fact No 14 are authorized by Sections 84.120 and 84.170, R.S.Mo.1969 [V.”
Blakeney v. City of Pine Lawn, Missouri (E.D. Mo. 2020). · cites it 5× “” Plaintiff counters by pointing to Section 84.120 RSMo, which he says gives him a property interest in his employment.”
Mandrell v. Baer, 650 F. Supp. 168 (E.D. Mo. 1987). · cites it 6× “§ 84.120 as authority that plaintiff had to be suspended.”
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.