Missouri Statutes

§ 195.140 — Forfeiture of controlled substances and drug paraphernalia, when — disposal — money, records in close proximity also forfeited, rebuttable presumption — procedure.

Missouri § 195.140
JurisdictionMissouri
Title XIIPUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE
Ch. 195Drug Regulations

This text of Missouri § 195.140 (Forfeiture of controlled substances and drug paraphernalia, when — disposal — money, records in close proximity also forfeited, rebuttable presumption — procedure.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Missouri primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Mo. Rev. Stat. § 195.140 (2026).

Text

1.  All controlled substances, imitation controlled substances or drug paraphernalia for the administration, use or manufacture of controlled substances or imitation controlled substances and which have come into the custody of a peace officer or officer or agent of the department of health and senior services as provided by this chapter or chapter 579 , the lawful possession of which is not established or the title to which cannot be ascertained after a hearing as prescribed in Rule 34 of Rules of Criminal Procedure for the courts of Missouri or some other appropriate hearing, shall be forfeited, and disposed of as follows:

(1)Except as in this section otherwise provided, the court or associate circuit judge having jurisdiction shall order such controlled substances, imitation controll

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Legislative History

(RSMo 1939 § 9845, A.L. 1953 p. 628, A.L. 1971 H.B. 69, A.L. 1982 S.B. 522, A.L. 1993 S.B. 180, A.L. 2004 H.B. 1427, A.L. 2014 S.B. 491) Effective 1-01-17 (1986) This section is neither unconstitutionally broad nor unconstitutionally vague, nor does rebuttable presumption in favor of forfeiture violate due process. State ex rel. Cook v. Saynes, 713 S.W.2d 258 (Mo. banc). (1993) Where currency found in close proximity to contraband marijuana created rebuttable presumption that money was acquired from an illegal activity and defendant did not meet burden of proof to rebut presumption, forfeiture of money under section is not punitive because one who commits crime has no greater interest in fruits of crime than state.  Eighth Amendment of United States prohibiting excessive fines is not applicable.  State v. Meister, 866 S.W.2d 485 (Mo. App.  W.D.). (2014) To rebut presumption of forfeitability, defendant must allege facts supporting conclusion that seized property found in close proximity to controlled substance was not furnished, nor intended to be furnished, in exchange for the controlled substance and also was not used, nor intended to be used, to facilitate the criminal activity.  State ex rel. Wegge v. Schrameyer, 448 S.W.3d 301 (Mo.App.E.D.).

Nearby Sections

15
View on official source ↗

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Missouri § 195.140, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/statute/mo/195.140.