[{"_1":2,"_112":-5,"_113":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88,100],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6640828,"mediaKeyId","2549468-d656cc00bc7911cca4d5f3ad5d899041","parentId",2549468,"title","Judiciary committee bundles criminal procedure bills, amends appearance-bond rules and passes bundled bill","audioSeconds",1606,"startMs",3918000,"endMs",5524000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2549468-d656cc00bc7911cca4d5f3ad5d899041&start=3918&end=5524","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2549468-d656cc00bc7911cca4d5f3ad5d899041/thumbnail_3918000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6640828/Kansas/Judiciary-committee-bundles-criminal-procedure-bills-amends-appearance-bond-rules-and-passes-bundled-bill","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6640828-01ffb363deec5e6a9310d43ed5833325/orig.mp4?Expires=1773773196&Signature=Ivk0MHKAhS6cg~Mwnfi5~EmeAMwRrr7mUdnuCvKvq3ttB0kqWzvMtzkLGGAx8P1IcFFmO3dSDMQtPBFN-Hbdj~lEl5l4Eh7b7XcQA9BgbgmL8vpRwGSg7CxRXcfMxP~76EeLa3wfFMq8Tng10~9M96QNQ1anS~X~MPXpnjkt1w9x2Hm8nmFEm~JRf7E8WZKTnKSt6Z1wr8bm~EBPlNGMQGMSvWXhl7iTxDJu8w8V7QvUlvoEn63rZnBSMHtf~vWhXZz9Ky4eHnYQfWtupmMmXPRskcwnBWthTTz~wWjkfopmOha8uSfLFvTzTNi6d4pwm47477GjYjP17HgfPALdAw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Committee on Judiciary","date","2025-03-11T22:44:07.763Z","article","The House Committee on Judiciary on March 5 worked a package of criminal-procedure measures, amending and combining bills related to unlawful use of laser pointers, warrants for failure to appear, appearance-bond practices and requirements for who may state facts to obtain search warrants.

What the committee did: The committee amended Senate Bill 156 (which creates the crimes for unlawful pointing of a laser at a law‑enforcement officer or an aircraft) to adjust the effective date and then voted to pass SB156 as amended. Representative Williams moved to pass SB156 as amended; Representative Osman seconded and the committee approved the bill. Representative Carmichael requested that his aye vote be recorded on the passage vote.

The committee then extensively amended Senate Bill 157, folding in provisions from other bills. Key changes included:

- Warrants and NCIC entry: An amendment clarified that, within 14 days of issuance of a warrant, the sheriff must enter the warrant into the NCIC database; courts must make copies available to a compensated surety upon request. The amendment separates the sheriff's operational duty (entry in NCIC) from the court's duty to provide copies upon request.

- Deportation and setting aside forfeiture: The amendment added a provision allowing a compensated surety to seek to set aside a forfeiture if the surety can prove, under penalty of perjury, that the defendant was deported and not held on an immigration detainer when the bond was posted. The language replaces a different deportation reference and clarifies evidentiary requirements for setting aside forfeiture.

- Partial remittance tiers: The committee adopted a tiered remittance schedule for appearance bonds returned to an obligor who returns a defendant to custody after a default judgment: 90 percent remitted if the defendant is returned within 90 days, 75 percent if returned within 180 days, and 50 percent if returned within 270 days. Proponents said the schedule provides incentives for sureties to locate and return defendants.

- Prohibition on financing arrangements (from SB244): The committee inserted the contents of Senate Bill 244 into SB157; SB244 would prohibit compensated sureties from offering financing agreements that essentially loan the premium amount that a criminal defendant must pay as part of an appearance bond.

- Search-warrant statement requirement (from SB138): The committee inserted a provision that search warrants be issued only on the statement of facts sufficient to show probable cause made by a law-enforcement officer, replacing broader language that allowed any person to present the facts.

Committee votes and process: The group voted to amend SB157 by adding the contents of SB244 and SB138 and then voted to approve SB157 as amended. Several members recorded negative or no votes on specific amendments; Representative Carmichael stated he would vote no on the final passage of SB157 because he objected to bundling bills together in a single vehicle.

Supporters and opponents: Testimony during the day included testimony from bail agents' representatives advocating for explicit access-by-surety provisions and from district attorneys and law‑enforcement representatives describing practical concerns; committee discussion reflected competing policy priorities between incentivizing the return of defendants, protecting public-safety interests, and regulating the bail industry.

Ending and next steps: The committee passed both SB156 (as amended) and the bundled SB157 (as amended) out of committee. Members asked staff to circulate final redlines and indicated the bills will proceed to the full House calendar. Representative Carmichael asked that his negative vote on SB157 be recorded.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","House Committee on Judiciary 03/11/2025","oneSentenceSummary","The House Committee on Judiciary on March 5 amended and passed a bundle of criminal-procedure measures, including changes to appearance-bond procedures and a prohibition on certain financing arrangements for bail agents, advancing the package as Senate Bill 157; the committee also passed Senate Bill 156 as amended.","taxTitle","Committee on Judiciary, Standing, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Committees, Legislative, Kansas","taxId",18817,"location","Kansas","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6640831,"Committee considers narrower disclosure rules for third‑party litigation funding after multi‑year talks",1243,2683000,3926000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2549468-d656cc00bc7911cca4d5f3ad5d899041&start=2683&end=3926","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2549468-d656cc00bc7911cca4d5f3ad5d899041/thumbnail_2683000.jpg","/articles/6640831/Kansas/Committee-considers-narrower-disclosure-rules-for-thirdparty-litigation-funding-after-multiyear-talks","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6640831-1dfe1c88fa96016b67061b63005cd84b/orig.mp4?Expires=1773773196&Signature=RrJ8uMPPQ8xNcajfwoCommhv2O3XFP7Pqj0~YJeQZAMC~TQ544OIeUS22Ohfv96qHUlEAyWXyzyiuTA1h5xmPasGaIFWPeJc0dYZUWjyl2xboAoZzm-R~w6ELIDcOzSQz3~cFixAuRTmdL6oAybyqbF4g-OgSdCSUHWoswwml~qu~H8eXIbg95mNZ1zRz759V-PettDdtS6fVFObnSF48yCwHGKOeisvq-7uFElCu9HOjHAliLe~vCuC-noxztZ6tJj0bnvey6TovJ5st8WkJOJtnPh8G8ATik4Vgf4FBpN9e9o7QC1YaBEh-3~sEbdcIHx-lKHEZ3ILQAOOK3x6XQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The House Committee on Judiciary on March 5 took testimony on Senate Bill 54, a measure that would require disclosure of third‑party litigation funding agreements to the court for in‑camera review and limited disclosure to opposing parties and would instruct the Judicial Council to study aggregated, non‑identifying information about such agreements.

Jason Thompson of the Revisor's Office described the bill as an amendment to KSA 60-226, the civil discovery statute. \"If you have one of these agreements you're required to notify the court and the court will review it in camera,\" he said, summarizing the in‑camera review and a subsequent requirement that a party deliver a sworn statement to the opposing parties describing the arrangement and specific enumerated items in the bill brief.

Supporters framed Senate Bill 54 as a transparency measure, not a ban. Eric Stafford, vice president of government affairs for the Kansas Chamber, said the bill reflects a negotiated compromise reached with opponents after several years of debate and that disclosure helps opposing counsel and the court evaluate potential conflicts or nonparty control over litigation decisions.

\"We are not trying to ban them,\" Stafford said. \"Out of fairness for the judiciary, disclosure is good. If there is somebody that has a financial interest in the outcome in the case, ... the defense needs to know that to make informed decisions about negotiation and trial strategy.\"

The bill defines third‑party litigation funding agreements as contracts where a person other than a party, an attorney, the attorney's firm, or a family/household member agrees to pay litigation‑related expenses and has a contingent right to receive compensation based on the outcome; minor exceptions for mere loans with interest (defined in the bill as not greater than 11.1%) are included.

Proponents said the current text includes protections for nonprofits and donors: the bill would not be construed to require a nonprofit corporation or association to disclose its members or donors. The bill also contains limitations on admissibility and redisclosure of funding information and a reporting pathway for courts to submit aggregated information for study by the Judicial Council.

Opponents: The Kansas Trial Lawyers Association and the Kansas Bar Association filed written opposition; proponents said they negotiated with opponents and the International Litigation Funding Association to narrow prior proposals. Committee members indicated they expect technical amendments when the bill is worked.

No vote: Committee closed the hearing after oral and written testimony. Members acknowledged the multi‑year negotiations that produced the compromise language and signaled they would consider amendments recommended in written submissions.

Ending: Supporters described the bill as a transparency tool intended to give judges and opposing counsel relevant information without broadly exposing proprietary details; critics asked for more protections for proprietary funding information and clarified access rules.","Senate Bill 54 would require parties to disclose third‑party litigation funding agreements to the court (in camera) and to opposing parties; proponents say the compromise balances transparency and proprietary concerns; opponents filed written testimony.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6640836,"Judiciary committee weighs sealing arrest-warrant and subpoena information to protect victims and officer safety",1882,776000,2658000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2549468-d656cc00bc7911cca4d5f3ad5d899041&start=776&end=2658","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2549468-d656cc00bc7911cca4d5f3ad5d899041/thumbnail_776000.jpg","/articles/6640836/Kansas/Judiciary-committee-weighs-sealing-arrest-warrant-and-subpoena-information-to-protect-victims-and-officer-safety","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6640836-ab81d9e227d5aaab66a94048f4d33935/orig.mp4?Expires=1773773196&Signature=JYfQuhu7VSstaHvhFCJ-OxOFLjBcxYBUx1WFIuRwd9hDixrpihOGa7mrHY6GXFt1ywG~aEREhYl7h-32Nw4YmJVt7d6CsSi3706n3H2ZlAqmK7dnx-RH8goBv-LuCMPIP-JB3477N9lh1WOFouFRO764S79SG2GS7KbQVdyk~dBpYHvmtU~h3H7BijuXk1lU-qupu1CqJAd7dIzOhO3Ybnbu06b7meOu0RB67TJqjycS64hiPqVoo0OU8ZF3X6cpbTVAihQEnMhz3E0SsmmbQXkcsW-35g62c~hMqSaQJm9-Qpnl6RtNoLdl3L1C2ygcEjw0sc6riPVjPYslYvzoiQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The House Committee on Judiciary heard detailed proponent testimony March 5 on Senate Bill 204, which would seal case and warrant information in criminal and juvenile offender cases — including subpoenas — until a warrant is executed or the request for a warrant is denied.

Jason Thompson, Revisor's Office, said the bill would add a new subsection to KSA 60-2617 providing that when a criminal or juvenile offender case is filed and an arrest warrant is sought, the case shall be sealed until execution of the warrant or denial of the request. The bill also includes a provision that disclosure to law enforcement for the purpose of executing a warrant or serving a subpoena would be allowed and that some warrants (those issued under KSA 22-2807 related to appearance bonds) are excluded from the sealing requirement.

Proponents framed the bill as a public-safety and victim-protection measure. Sheriff Jeff Easter told the committee that under the statewide Odyssey case-management system, warrants and related affidavits became visible to the public in some jurisdictions and that sealing is necessary to prevent defendants or others from learning of pending warrants.

\"The sealing of arrest warrants and related affidavits is not only necessary due to the juvenile nature of the case, but also critical for officer safety, that this information not be made public prior to service of the warrant,\" said Sheriff Jeff Easter, who represented the Kansas Sheriffs Association and Kansas Chiefs of Police Association.

Johnson County District Attorney Steve Howe and Sedgwick County District Attorney Mark Bennett also testified for the bill. DA Howe said prosecutors and social-service victim-support groups raised safety concerns after the Odyssey rollout exposed case-level information that had previously been inaccessible to the public. \"When we issued a subpoena, your name and address could be visible; victims who had relocated feared exposure,\" Howe said. He and other prosecutors said sealing subpoenas and return-of-service documents would protect victims' personal-identifying information that can include dates of birth, Social Security numbers and medical records.

Mark Bennett emphasized the proposal would not prevent defense counsel or a defendant from seeing evidence needed for trial and said the bill \"is simply the outward facing information\" — the public view — that the measure would limit.

Committee members asked detailed questions about how bail agents and compensated sureties would obtain warrant information in bond-related cases, whether sealing would be applied retroactively to pending cases, and whether the statute and Odyssey's permission system would ensure defense access. The reviser and testifying prosecutors explained the bill includes an in-camera process for courts to review third-party requests for unsealing and that Odyssey provides enhanced access to attorneys and judges.

Neutral/written testimony and stakeholder balance: The committee heard written neutral testimony and recorded no in-person opponents. Supporters listed included domestic-violence and victim-support organizations and law enforcement associations; written opponents included the Kansas Trial Lawyers Association and the Kansas Bar Association (filed as written-only).

No immediate vote: The committee closed the hearing on SB204 after proponent testimony and written neutral submissions; members asked staff to circulate written testimony and technical drafting fixes for clarification.

Ending: Committee members signaled bipartisan concern for victim safety while probing statutory language and Odyssey's access controls; several members asked the proponents to supply revised drafting and specific redlines for future consideration.","Law enforcement and prosecutors urged the House Committee on Judiciary to pass legislation (Senate Bill 204) to seal arrest-warrant and subpoena information in criminal and juvenile cases until warrants are executed; proponents cited risks to victims and officer safety caused by public visibility in the Odyssey court system.",{"_33":101,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":102,"_41":103,"_43":104,"_45":105,"_47":106,"_49":107,"_51":108,"_53":109,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":110,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":111,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6640841,"Committee reviews bill to ensure law enforcement gets probable-cause affidavits before warrants are served",798,29000,827000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2549468-d656cc00bc7911cca4d5f3ad5d899041&start=29&end=827","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2549468-d656cc00bc7911cca4d5f3ad5d899041/thumbnail_29000.jpg","/articles/6640841/Kansas/Committee-reviews-bill-to-ensure-law-enforcement-gets-probable-cause-affidavits-before-warrants-are-served","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6640841-520d528aa3dd25177b07011113f3e32a/orig.mp4?Expires=1773773196&Signature=hfsUNjF0dy406yoS~nvzVuYISZ2WHEbmxWE7XgBiAs57WG54x6X-4P5pOq52ynbv0NYnzuvcBHVUKWMfr-W4daQ0iUR1-eQoUAUyF1d81AjBKk1E~9i0-Xg4bZAN0IeobHCC2YR4cv7dyJYHA0WHpOBN937M-irKB-SAZX64A9VJaff8VVGuP04LrQWqD~jitlchRKV9G1YmkExdYkouuNlrz4LHjEo7l-w3Mh8IYK6FtDLfvAqGRIHa12ZNINF8XziroJriEyQ1Gu4ok4Op02~BCCjDdYdA5u5gTZ9d0pehkpU106TPyKRgaX-sad638PcU-ngfzsYM3DVY1pQYwQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The House Committee on Judiciary on March 5 heard from the Revisor's office and law enforcement on Senate Bill 186, a measure that would require affidavits or sworn testimony supporting probable cause to be made available to law enforcement prior to execution of a warrant or summons.

Jason Thompson of the Revisor's Office told the committee the bill would amend KSA 22-2302, the statute governing issuance of arrest warrants, by inserting language that makes clear affidavits and sworn testimony must be provided to law enforcement prior to execution. \"So the bill provides there with the changes on lines 28 and 29 that those affidavits and sworn testimony shall be made available to law enforcement agencies prior to execution of the warrant or summons,\" Thompson said in his briefing.

Why it matters: Proponents say the change resolves an access problem created after the state adopted a new statewide court-management system. Sheriff Jeff Easter, representing the Kansas Sheriffs Association and Kansas Chiefs of Police Association, said the Office of Judicial Administration's rollout of the Odyssey system removed access platforms local agencies previously used to share affidavit information with law enforcement and that some jurisdictions now effectively have the same access as the general public.

\"We are simply asking that OJA opens that portal to law enforcement so that we can electronically get the affidavit to do what we're required to do by statute,\" said Sheriff Jeff Easter, describing a workaround he had to create in Sedgwick County to fetch affidavits from the district attorney's office.

Committee discussion focused on whether the bill should be limited to the agency executing the warrant or available to all law enforcement statewide. Representative Carmichael asked whether the bill's wording — \"law enforcement agencies\" plural — would give unrelated agencies access to a county's warrants. Sheriff Easter said statewide access is necessary because warrants filed by one agency sometimes must be executed by another and because the Odyssey system is configured as a statewide platform.

No vote: The committee heard the reviser's briefing and proponent testimony and closed the hearing on Senate Bill 186 with no formal motion recorded to advance the bill during the meeting.

Ending: Committee members said they would ask further questions later if needed; the reviser stood by to answer technical questions about the statute's drafting and effective date.","The House Committee on Judiciary heard testimony on Senate Bill 186, which would require that affidavits or sworn testimony supporting probable cause be made available to law enforcement before execution of a warrant or summons; no formal vote was taken.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Judiciary committee bundles criminal procedure bills, amends appearance-bond rules and passes bundled bill

Committee considers narrower disclosure rules for third‑party litigation funding after multi‑year talks

Judiciary committee weighs sealing arrest-warrant and subpoena information to protect victims and officer safety

Committee reviews bill to ensure law enforcement gets probable-cause affidavits before warrants are served