SESSION OF 2022
SUPPLEMENTAL NOTE ON SENATE SUBSTITUTE FOR
HOUSE BILL NO. 2495
As Recommended by Senate Committee on
Judiciary
Brief*
Senate Sub. for HB 2495 would create and amend law
related to fingerprinting for criminal history record checks,
surveillance by Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks
employees, jurisdiction of law enforcement officers, the time
period within which a search warrant must be executed, and
disclosure of information to law enforcement agencies
regarding a child alleged or adjudicated to be a child in need
of care (CINC).
Fingerprinting for Criminal History Record Check—Rap
Back Programs
The bill would create law requiring an applicant,
employee, or volunteer subject to a criminal history record
check to provide to the requesting authorized entity written
consent to obtain such person’s fingerprints to conduct a
criminal history record check and participate in the Rap Back
Program for the purpose of determining suitability or fitness
for a permit, license, employment, or volunteer service.
[Note: As defined by the bill, “authorized entity” would
mean an agency or entity with authorization under state or
federal law to conduct a fingerprint-based criminal history
record check, and “rap back” would mean the state or federal
system that enables an authorized entity to receive ongoing
____________________
*Supplemental notes are prepared by the Legislative Research
Department and do not express legislative intent. The supplemental
note and fiscal note for this bill may be accessed on the Internet at
http://www.kslegislature.org
notifications of criminal history record updates for individuals
whose fingerprints are enrolled.]
The bill would require an authorized entity to notify each
such person that fingerprints shall be retained by the Kansas
Bureau of Investigation (KBI) and the Federal Bureau of
Investigation for all current and future purposes and uses
authorized for fingerprint submission and when fingerprints
will be enrolled in the Rap Back Program.
The bill would require fingerprints and related records
obtained by the KBI for a fingerprint-based criminal history
record check to be searched against known criminal
fingerprints to determine if a criminal history record exists and
against latent fingerprints entered into the unsolved latent
fingerprint file.
The bill would specify a criminal history record check
could only be completed for the purpose for which the check
was requested and would require submission of a new set of
fingerprints for any additional record checks. An authorized
entity enrolled in the Rap Back Program would be required to
immediately notify the KBI when the entity is no longer
entitled to receive criminal history record information relating
to a particular person enrolled in the Rap Back Program. The
KBI would be required to cancel such enrollment, and
updates to criminal history record information would no longer
be provided to such entity.
The bill would limit availability of fingerprints and records
relating to fingerprints acquired by the KBI to only the
authorized entities entitled to obtain the information and
would prohibit KBI employees from disclosing any records of
or related to fingerprints acquired in the performance of duties
under the bill to any person not authorized to receive the
information pursuant to state or federal law. The bill would
prohibit a person acquiring the records of or relating to
fingerprints, or any information concerning any individual,
from disclosing such information to any person who is not
authorized to receive such information, and any intentional
2- 2495
disclosure of such information would be a class A nonperson
misdemeanor.
In addition to “authorized entity” and “rap back,” the bill
also would define “criminal history record check.”
Surveillance by Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks
Employees
The bill would create law concerning the authority of
Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks (KDWP) to conduct
surveillance on private property.
The bill would prohibit KDWP employees who are
authorized to enforce the laws of the State from conducting
surveillance on private property unless authorized pursuant to
a lawfully issued warrant, court order, or subpoena, the U.S.
Constitution, or an exception to the search warrant
requirement specified by the bill.
The bill would specify that the above prohibition on
certain KDWP employees would not apply to any activities of
an employee of KDWP when the purpose of the surveillance
is to locate and retrieve a missing person.
Definitions
The bill would define the following terms:
● “Surveillance” would mean the installation and use
of electronic equipment or devices on private
property, including, but not limited to, the
installation and use of a tracking device, video
camera, or audio recording device, to monitor
activity or collect information related to the
enforcement of the laws of the State; and
● “Tracking device” would have the same definition
as in continuing law in the Kansas Code of
3- 2495
Criminal Procedure, which defines the term to
mean an electronic or mechanical device that
permits a person to remotely determine or track the
position or movement of a person or object; it
includes, but is not limited to, a device that stores
geographic data for subsequent access or analysis
and that allows for real-time monitoring of
movement.
Jurisdiction of Law Enforcement Officers
The bill would amend law regarding the jurisdiction and
powers of law enforcement officers, as follows.
Powers and Authority of Law Enforcement Officers Without
Statewide Jurisdiction
The bill would amend a statute governing jurisdiction of
various law enforcement officers to provide a new subsection
consolidating and clarifying the ability of law enforcement
officers who do not otherwise have statewide jurisdiction to
exercise the powers and authority of law enforcement officers
anywhere when:
● A request for assistance has been made by law
enforcement officers from the area for which
assistance is requested;
● In fresh pursuit of a person;
● Transporting persons in custody to an appropriate
facility, wherever such facility may be located; and
● Investigating a crime that occurred within the law
enforcement officer’s jurisdiction, with appropriate
notification to and coordination with a local law
enforcement agency with jurisdiction where the
investigation is to be conducted.
4- 2495
The bill would make conforming technical amendments
to reflect the reorganization of the section. The bill also would
amend a statute governing school security officers and
campus police officers to remove redundant language
regarding the powers and authority of campus police officers
that would be included in the new subsection added by the
bill.
Powers and Authority of Law Reinforcement Officers Outside
Their Jurisdiction
In addition to the authority described above, the bill
would provide that law enforcement officers may exercise the
powers and authority of law enforcement officers when
outside their statutory jurisdiction when an activity is observed
leading the officer to reasonably suspect a person is
committing, has committed, or is about to commit a crime and
reasonably believe that a person is in imminent danger of
death or bodily injury without immediate action, subject to
conditions specified by the bill.
Search Warrant Time Limitations
The bill would amend the Code of Criminal Procedure to
extend, from 96 hours to 240 hours, the time period within
which a search warrant must be executed after it is issued.
Disclosure of CINC Information to Law Enforcement
Agencies
The bill would amend a law governing access,
exchange, and disclosure of information in the Revised
Kansas Code for Care of Children to require the Secretary for
Children and Families to disclose confidential agency records
of a child alleged or adjudicated to be a child in need of care
to the law enforcement agency investigating the alleged or
substantiated report or investigation of abuse or neglect,
regardless of the disposition of such report or investigation.
5- 2495
The bill would require the records to include, but not be
limited to:
● Any information regarding such report or
investigation;
● Records of past reports or investigations
concerning such child and such child’s siblings and
the perpetrator or alleged perpetrator; and
● The name and contact information of the reporter
or persons alleging abuse or neglect and case
managers, investigators, or contracting agency
employees assigned to or investigating such
report.
The bill would state that such records shall only be used
for the purposes of investigating the alleged or substantiated
report or investigation of abuse or neglect.
The bill would clarify that a law enforcement agency
investigating or receiving a report of a child who is alleged or
adjudicated to be in need of care would be able to freely
exchange information and the above-described records with
persons or entities specified in continuing law.
The bill also would add an investigating law enforcement
agency to the lists of persons or entities with access to the
official and social files of a CINC proceeding.
Technical Amendments
The bill also would make technical amendments to
ensure consistency in statutory references and phrasing.
Background
As referred to the Senate Committee on Judiciary on
March 29, 2022, HB 2495 contained provisions enacting the
6- 2495
Charitable Privacy Act. These provisions were passed in the
Conference Committee Report for HB 2109 and signed into
law on April 14, 2022.
On April 28, 2022, the Senate Committee on Judiciary
recommended a substitute bill containing the contents of HB
2299 as agreed to by the Conference Committee on March
30, 2022, without amendment, and repealing HB 2299 as
signed by the Governor on April 18, 2022. [Note: The bill
signed by the Governor on April 18 contained language not
included in the Conference Committee Report for HB 2299
due to an engrossing error.] As agreed to by the Conference
Committee and enacted, HB 2299 contained the House
version of the bill regarding warrant time limitations, and the
contents of the following bills:
● SB 395, as amended by the Senate Committee of
the Whole, regarding surveillance by KDWP
employees;
● SB 435, as passed by the Senate, regarding
jurisdiction of law enforcement officers, with an
amendment to clarify the jurisdiction of law
enforcement officers outside their jurisdiction;
● HB 2508, as amended by the Senate Committee of
the Whole, regarding fingerprinting and Rap Back
programs; and
● HB 2582, as further amended by the House
Committee on Judiciary, regarding disclosure of
CINC information to law enforcement agencies,
and removing the Senate Committee amendment
to the effective date.
HB 2299 (Search Warrant Time Limitations)
HB 2299 was introduced by the House Committee on
Judiciary at the request of Representative Resman.
7- 2495
House Committee on Judiciary
The House Committee on Judiciary held hearings on the
bill on February 15, 2021, and January 20, 2022.
In the 2021 House Committee hearing, Representative
Resman, a representative of the Johnson County Sheriff’s
Office, and a representative of the Kansas Association of
Chiefs of Police, Kansas Peace Officers Association, and
Kansas Sheriffs Association (law enforcement organizations)
testified as proponents, stating the bill would bring the time
allowed for execution of a search warrant in line with the
standard of many other states and would increase safety for
law enforcement and the public. A representative of the
League of Kansas Municipalities (LKM) submitted written-only
proponent testimony. No other testimony was submitted.
In the 2022 House Committee hearing, a representative
of the law enforcement organizations again testified as a
proponent, and a representative of LKM again submitted
written-only proponent testimony. No other testimony was
provided.
House Committee of the Whole
On February 22, 2022, the House Committee of the
Whole amended the bill to update statutory references and to
change the time period from 10 days to 240 hours. [Note: The
Conference Committee on HB 2299 retained these
amendments.]
Senate Committee on Judiciary
In the Senate Committee hearing on March 17, 2022,
Representative Resman, a representative of law enforcement
organizations, and a representative of the Johnson County
Sheriff’s Office testified as proponents on the bill. Written-
only proponent testimony was submitted by a representative
of LKM. No other testimony was provided.
8- 2495
On March 18, 2022, the Senate Committee amended
the bill to make it effective upon publication in the Kansas
Register. [Note: The Conference Committee on HB 2299 did
not retain this amendment.]
HB 2508 (Fingerprinting and Rap Back Programs)
HB 2508 was introduced by the House Committee on
Judiciary at the request of Representative Patton on behalf of
the KBI.
House Committee on Judiciary
In the House Committee hearing on February 3, 2022, a
representative of the KBI testified as a proponent of the bill,
stating the bill would clarify and codify requirements for
participation in and usage of the state and federal Rap Back
programs. No other testimony was provided.
Senate Committee on Judiciary
In the Senate Committee hearing on March 10, 2022,
the same conferee provided proponent testimony as in the
House Committee hearing. No other testimony was provided.
Senate Committee of the Whole
On March 17, 2022, the Senate Committee of the Whole
amended the bill to make intentional disclosure of the records
of fingerprints, records relating to fingerprints, or any
information concerning any individual a class A nonperson
misdemeanor. [Note: The Conference Committee on HB 2299
retained this amendment.]
9- 2495
SB 395 (Surveillance by KDWP Employees)
SB 395 was introduced by the Senate Committee on
Federal and State Affairs at the request of Senator Olson.
[Note: The bill, as introduced, contained provisions
similar to those in 2021 HB 2025, as further amended by the
House Committee on Federal and State Affairs.]
Senate Committee on Judiciary
In the Senate Committee hearing on February 1, 2022,
Representative Corbet and representatives of Americans for
Prosperity–Kansas and the Kansas Livestock Association
provided proponent testimony. Proponents stated enactment
of the bill is needed to limit the use of a legal doctrine that has
upheld warrantless searches of private property not otherwise
protected by the U.S. Constitution. Written-only proponent
testimony was provided by a representative of the Kansas
Farm Bureau.
A representative of KDWP provided opponent
testimony, stating the bill would hinder its agency’s officers’
ability to protect wildlife and private property and would create
a disparity in jurisdiction between KDWP officers and other
law enforcement officers. Written-only opponent testimony
was provided by a representative of the Kansas State Lodge
Fraternal Order of Police. No other testimony was provided.
On February 15, 2022, the Senate Committee amended
the bill to clarify the definition of “surveillance,” to further
clarify when surveillance may be be conducted pursuant to
the bill, and to exclude the activities of certain persons from
the prohibition on surveillance under the bill. [Note: The
Conference Committee on HB 2299 retained these
amendments.]
10- 2495
Senate Committee of the Whole
On February 22, 2022, the Senate Committee of the
Whole amended the bill to remove a provision excluding
certain persons from the bill’s prohibitions on surveillance and
to clarify when an employee of KDWP may conduct
surveillance on private property. [Note: The Conference
Committee on HB 2299 retained these amendments.]
House Committee on Judiciary
In the House Committee hearing on March 7, 2022, the
same proponents testified as in the Senate Committee
hearing. A representative of Kansas Farm Bureau and the
Kansas Justice Institute provided written-only proponent
testimony.
The Secretary of Wildlife and Parks testified as a neutral
conferee. No other testimony was provided.
SB 435 (Jurisdiction of Law Enforcement Officers)
SB 435 was introduced by the Senate Committee on
Judiciary at the request of a representative of the Kansas
Association of Chiefs of Police, Kansas Peace Officers
Association, and Kansas Sheriffs’ Association.
Senate Committee on Judiciary
In the Senate Committee hearing on February 9, 2022,
the association representative described above and a
representative of the Blue Valley Campus Police Department
testified as proponents of the bill, stating the current general
jurisdiction statute for l