SB 1150 creates a new criminal offense called “masked intimidation” and revises Missouri’s existing hate-crime enhancement statute. Under the bill, a person commits masked intimidation if they intentionally harass, intimidate, or threaten another person while concealing their face with a mask, hood, or similar covering for the purpose of hiding identity and causing reasonable fear for physical safety. The offense is graded as a class E felony for a first offense, class D for a second, and class C for a third or subsequent offense.
The bill also repeals and reenacts section 557.035 to preserve and expand Missouri’s ability to charge certain underlying offenses as hate crimes when the state believes they were motivated by protected characteristics. The covered motivations include race, color, religion, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, disability, and, in the new masked intimidation definition, ethnicity, gender, gender identity, and gender expression. The bill states that courts must assess punishment when the state pleads and proves the listed motivating factors.
SB 1150 would amend Missouri criminal law by adding a standalone felony offense for masked intimidation and by updating the state’s hate-crime enhancement framework. It would affect prosecutors, courts, and defendants by creating new charging options and increasing penalties for conduct involving concealed identity and threatening or harassing behavior. The bill also includes broad exceptions for costume use, occupational or safety coverings, weather protection, winter sports, theatrical or artistic use, emergency and medical masking, and religious garb, and it expressly preserves First Amendment protections.
The available record shows the bill was prefiled and referred to the Senate Judiciary and Civil and Criminal Jurisprudence Committee, but there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes in the provided materials. As a result, there is no documented public debate or vote history here to indicate support or opposition. Based on the text alone, the bill appears aimed at addressing intimidation and bias-motivated conduct while trying to avoid sweeping in ordinary mask use.
The main points of potential contention are the scope of the new masked intimidation offense and the breadth of the exceptions. Supporters would likely view the bill as a tool to deter anonymous threats, harassment, and hate-motivated conduct, while critics may question whether the language could be applied too broadly or overlap with protected speech and lawful protest activity. The inclusion of explicit carveouts for health masking, religious coverings, costumes, and emergency use suggests an effort to address concerns about ordinary face coverings and constitutional rights.