SB 1650 repeals and replaces Missouri’s existing statute on tampering with a judicial officer. The bill creates a new offense when a person, with the purpose of harassing, intimidating, or influencing a judicial officer in the performance of official duties, threatens or harms the officer or the officer’s family, uses force, threats, or deception, offers a benefit, engages in harassing or alarming conduct, or disseminates the officer’s or family’s personal information, including by posting it online.
The bill defines “judicial officer” broadly to include judges, commissioners, arbitrators, special masters, juvenile officers, prosecutors, public administrators, probation or parole officers, and referees. It also defines “family” for purposes of the offense and sets the penalty at a class D felony, elevated to a class B felony if the conduct results in death or bodily injury to the judicial officer or a family member.
SB 1650 would update and expand Missouri law governing interference with judicial officers by expressly covering online disclosure of personal information and by clarifying the categories of protected officials and family members. It would replace section 575.095, RSMo, and strengthen criminal penalties for conduct intended to harass, intimidate, or influence covered officers in the performance of their duties. The bill affects criminal law enforcement, judicial security, and the protection of court-related personnel and their families.
Based on the bill text and available context, the measure appears to have been introduced as a protective, security-focused bill with no recorded committee debate or votes in the provided materials. The overall tone of the legislation is preventive and punitive, aimed at deterring threats, stalking, doxxing, and other forms of intimidation directed at judicial officers. Because no transcripts or vote history are provided, there is no documented public opposition or support in the supplied record.
The main potential points of contention are the breadth of the protected class and the scope of prohibited conduct. The bill extends protection beyond judges to prosecutors, probation and parole officers, juvenile officers, and other court-related officials, which could raise questions about how far the statute should reach. Another likely issue is the inclusion of internet posting of personal information, which implicates concerns about free speech, privacy, and how to distinguish unlawful intimidation from lawful public criticism or reporting.