Division of the Budget
Landon State Office Building Phone: (785) 296-2436
900 SW Jackson Street, Room 504 adam.c.proffitt@ks.gov
Topeka, KS 66612 Division of the Budget http://budget.kansas.gov
Adam Proffitt, Director Laura Kelly, Governor


March 10, 2021


The Honorable Larry Alley, Chairperson
Senate Committee on Federal and State Affairs
Statehouse, Room 136-E
Topeka, Kansas 66612
Dear Senator Alley:
SUBJECT: Fiscal Note for SB 192 by Senator Sykes, et al.
In accordance with KSA 75-3715a, the following fiscal note concerning SB 192 is
respectfully submitted to your committee.
SB 192 would require a court to issue an order requiring a defendant to relinquish all
firearms in the defendant’s control, custody, or possession and any concealed carry license if the
defendant is subject to a qualifying protection order or has been convicted of domestic battery or
misdemeanor domestic violence. If present in court at the time the order is pronounced, the
defendant must relinquish the firearms and license within 24 hours. If the defendant is not present,
a law enforcement officer must personally serve the order to the defendant.
The person to whom the firearms or license is surrendered must provide written proof of
relinquishment. The defendant must file the proof within 48 hours after relinquishment. If the
defendant fails to provide the proof, the clerk of the court would be required to notify the sheriff.
The sheriff must make a good faith effort to determine if the defendant has failed to relinquish
firearms, a license, or both. The relinquishment order would remain in place for the duration of
the qualifying protection order issued against the defendant or for the period of time during which
the defendant cannot possess a firearm.
The plaintiff, county or district attorney, or a law enforcement officer could file an affidavit
alleging the defendant still possesses firearms and/or a license. If the court finds probable cause
that the defendant still possesses, controls, or has access to firearms, the court would be required
to issue a search warrant. The defendant could request the firearms be returned after the order
terminates. A background check would be conducted before the firearms could be returned.
The bill specifies it would be unlawful for a defendant to possess a firearm or concealed
carry license issued to the defendant while there is a relinquishment order in effect. Violation
would be a severity level eight, nonperson felony.
The Honorable Larry Alley, Chairperson
Page 2—SB 192

The Office of Judicial Administration indicates enactment of SB 192 would create
additional requirements for the Judicial Branch, which would increase the workload of district
court personnel. In addition, there is not a current process or system to track whether a proof of
relinquishment has been filed, so this would most likely be a manual calendaring process
performed by district court clerks.
The Office estimates that two hours of additional work would have to be performed by
district court clerks on the cases affected by the bill’s provisions. According to the Office, case
data indicates that in calendar year 2018, there were 13,658 protection from abuse/stalking cases
filed and 2,651 criminal cases where the most serious charge was a domestic violence
misdemeanor charge. The Office states case data is not readily available concerning divorce cases
in which restraining orders are entered or the number of protections from abuse or stalking cases
that result in permanent orders. If 75.0 percent of protective orders have permanent protection
orders entered, that would result in 10,244 orders, according to the Office. Based on two additional
hours of work, for the manual work and monitoring a clerk would have to perform, the Office
estimates this would result in 25,790 additional hours spent each year ((10,244 orders+2,651
criminal cases) X 2 hours). Based on FY 2022 payroll and benefit amounts, this would require
additional expenditures of $510,000 from the State General Fund in FY 2022 for an additional
12.00 District Court Clerk FTE positions.
The Office states that it is possible that programming changes could be performed to the
current case management system to relieve manual tracking by district court clerks; however, this
would result in additional expenditures by the Judicial Branch. Additional research would have to
be done as to how these changes could be performed and the cost of these changes. The Office
states enactment of the bill could result in the collection of additional docket fees in those cases
filed under the bill’s provisions.
The Kansas Sentencing Commission estimates enactment of SB 192 could have an effect
on prison admissions and bed space; however, the Commission cannot estimate what that effect
would be. The Department of Corrections indicates enactment of the bill would not have a fiscal
effect on Department operations. Any fiscal effect associated with SB 192 is not reflected in The
FY 2022 Governor’s Budget Report.

Sincerely,

Adam Proffitt
Director of the Budget

cc: Debbie Thomas, Judiciary
Paul Weisgerber, KBI
Randy Bowman, Corrections
Scott Schultz, Sentencing Commission
Jay Hall, Association of Counties


Statutes affected:
As introduced: 22-3426, 60-3107, 60-31a06