State Codes and Statutes

Statutes > Missouri > T37 > C544 > 544_190

Rights of officer in making arrests.

544.190. If, after notice of the intention to arrest thedefendant, he either flee or forcibly resist, the officer may useall necessary means to effect the arrest.

(RSMo 1939 § 3960)

Prior revisions: 1929 § 3571; 1919 § 3914; 1909 § 5121

(1976) This section and § 559.040 held unconstitutional as a violation of due process as guaranteed by the fifth and fourteenth amendments to the Constitution of the United States. Caveat, this is a four to three decision and may be considered by the supreme court. Mattis v. Schnarr (C.A. Mo.), 547 F.2d 1007.

(1980) A jury is fully capable of understanding the term "necessary means" without further definition. Davis v. Moore (A.), 601 S.W.2d 316.

State Codes and Statutes

Statutes > Missouri > T37 > C544 > 544_190

Rights of officer in making arrests.

544.190. If, after notice of the intention to arrest thedefendant, he either flee or forcibly resist, the officer may useall necessary means to effect the arrest.

(RSMo 1939 § 3960)

Prior revisions: 1929 § 3571; 1919 § 3914; 1909 § 5121

(1976) This section and § 559.040 held unconstitutional as a violation of due process as guaranteed by the fifth and fourteenth amendments to the Constitution of the United States. Caveat, this is a four to three decision and may be considered by the supreme court. Mattis v. Schnarr (C.A. Mo.), 547 F.2d 1007.

(1980) A jury is fully capable of understanding the term "necessary means" without further definition. Davis v. Moore (A.), 601 S.W.2d 316.


State Codes and Statutes

State Codes and Statutes

Statutes > Missouri > T37 > C544 > 544_190

Rights of officer in making arrests.

544.190. If, after notice of the intention to arrest thedefendant, he either flee or forcibly resist, the officer may useall necessary means to effect the arrest.

(RSMo 1939 § 3960)

Prior revisions: 1929 § 3571; 1919 § 3914; 1909 § 5121

(1976) This section and § 559.040 held unconstitutional as a violation of due process as guaranteed by the fifth and fourteenth amendments to the Constitution of the United States. Caveat, this is a four to three decision and may be considered by the supreme court. Mattis v. Schnarr (C.A. Mo.), 547 F.2d 1007.

(1980) A jury is fully capable of understanding the term "necessary means" without further definition. Davis v. Moore (A.), 601 S.W.2d 316.