84.440. Police officials — power to cause arrest. — In case any police official shall have reason to believe that any person has committed, or is about to commit, within the city or on public property of said city beyond the corporate limits thereof any breach of peace or violation of law and order, or that any person found within the city or on public property of said city beyond the corporate limits thereof is charged with the commission of crime in the state of Missouri, against whom criminal proceedings shall have been issued, or when any person may have committed an offense within view of a member of such police force, said police official may cause such person to be arrested by any member of the police force. In cases where officers make arrest for crime committed within their view, the offenders shall at once be conveyed before some police judge or some judge in the city and the proper complaint against him shall be filed by said officer.
Notes of Decisions
Nelson v. R. H. MacY & Co., 434 S.W.2d 767 (Mo. Ct. App. 1968).
· cites it 7× “Defendant first complains that the trial court erred in failing to direct a verdict in its favor because the arrest was lawful, as a matter of law, under the provisions of Section 84.440, RSMo 1959, V.A.M.S., because it was made by a member of the Kansas City, Missouri, police…”
Boquist v. Montgomery Ward & Co., Inc., 516 S.W.2d 769 (Mo. Ct. App. 1974).
· cites it 5× “Defendant rejoins: 1) that plaintiff cannot complain of the original initiation of prosecution, since Weir was protected in doing so under § 84.440 RSMo 1969, V.A.M.S.; and 2) that “[tjhroughout trial plaintiff insisted that the refusal by defendant to intercede with public…”
State v. Cantrell, 310 S.W.2d 866 (Mo. 1958).
· cites it 2× “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 found within the…”
Kansas City v. Fulton, 533 S.W.2d 677 (Mo. Ct. App. 1976).
· cites it 2× “The motion of the defendant to suppress the knife as evidence of a concealed weapon on the premise that the discovery of the instrument was incident to an unlawful arrest was overruled by the trial court.”
Kansas City v. Mathis, 409 S.W.2d 280 (Mo. Ct. App. 1966).
“And, this rule has been liberalized by Sections 84.440 and 84.-710, RSMo1959, V.”
United States v. Strada, 393 F. Supp. 19 (W.D. Mo. 1974).
· cites it 2× “Section 84.440, V.A.M.S., and cases cited in the annotation thereto.”
State v. Hedrick, 534 S.W.2d 578 (Mo. Ct. App. 1976).
“The state has assumed that the legality of the arrest is to be governed by the probable cause test, and it cites cases involving arrest for felony, without a warrant, in support of the position that such test is here applicable and that the facts known to the officer did…”
Palcher v. J.C. Nichols Co., 783 S.W.2d 166 (Mo. Ct. App. 1990).
“The argument the defendant makes is literal and without resort to the judicial gloss that informs the text of the statute.”
L_ N. H v. Wells, 705 S.W.2d 488 (Mo. Ct. App. 1985).
· cites it 3× “Defendants’ answers assert that Officer Burroughs was justified in arresting plaintiff under § 84.440 1 because he had probable cause to believe that plaintiff was committing or had committed an offense within his view.”
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.