Missouri House Bill HJR195

Missouri 2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/26/26

Caption

Proposes a constitutional amendment on wildlife enforcement, conservation commission and department of conservation agents ability to enter on privately owned property and makes the rule promulgation subject to the requirements for executive agencies under general law

Summary

HJR 195 proposes a Missouri constitutional amendment to revise how wildlife enforcement is carried out and how the Conservation Commission’s authority is structured. It would repeal and replace Section 40(a) of Article IV to keep the Conservation Commission vested with control over the state’s wildlife resources, but it adds language making commission rulemaking subject to general law requirements that apply to executive agencies. The measure also sets out a new Section 40(c) with detailed definitions and procedures governing wildlife seizures, retention, forfeiture, notice, and judicial review. The resolution is aimed at creating stronger due process protections for people whose wildlife is seized by conservation officers. It requires written notice at the time of seizure, limits how long wildlife may be retained without court authorization, places the burden on the Department of Conservation in hearings, and requires clear and convincing evidence for continued retention or forfeiture. It also restricts warrantless entry onto protected private land for wildlife enforcement, generally requiring a warrant or consent unless exigent circumstances exist, and makes evidence obtained in violation of those rules inadmissible in wildlife enforcement proceedings.

Impact

If approved by voters, the amendment would change the Missouri Constitution and directly affect the powers and procedures of the Conservation Commission and Department of Conservation. It would not eliminate the commission’s core authority over wildlife management, but it would impose constitutional limits on enforcement practices, especially seizures of wildlife, retention pending adjudication, and entry onto private property. The measure would also require legislative oversight of certain enforcement regulations by making rule promulgation subject to general law requirements for executive agencies.

Sentiment

The available record shows no committee transcript or vote history, so there is no documented floor or committee debate to gauge broad legislative sentiment. Based on the bill text, the proposal is framed as a balance between preserving conservation authority and strengthening property rights and due process protections. The official summary language emphasizes judicial oversight, private-property limits, and restored legislative oversight while stating that conservation authority is preserved.

Contention

The main points of contention are likely to be the limits on conservation officers’ enforcement powers and the added judicial process requirements. Supporters would likely favor the bill’s protections for landowners, hunters, and wildlife owners, including warrant requirements, notice, and rapid court review. Opponents may argue that the amendment could hinder wildlife enforcement, complicate investigations, and constrain the Conservation Commission’s constitutional independence, particularly by subjecting rulemaking to general law requirements and restricting warrantless access to private land.