Committee hears bill requiring utilities to enter pole‑attachment agreements with law enforcement

The Committee on Energy, Utilities and Telecommunications heard House Bill 21‑09, which would require public utilities — including municipal utilities and electric cooperatives — to enter into pole attachment agreements with law enforcement agencies upon request. The bill would limit the covered poles to those within the public right‑of‑way, require agreements to specify placement, device type and safety specifications, allow utilities to require that attachments be installed by the utility or an approved contractor, and require the law enforcement agency to indemnify and hold the utility harmless for liability arising from the attachment and operation of the device.

Under the bill as presented by committee staff, a law enforcement agency would also warrant that any attached device complies with applicable laws, and the agency would be responsible for determining whether a warrant or other court order is required for surveillance uses. The bill would prohibit utilities from charging for the pole space itself but would permit reasonable fees to recover costs associated with installation and operation. Any utility entering an agreement under the bill would be treated as an instrumentality of government under the Tort Claims Act for matters arising from the pole‑attachment agreement.

Law enforcement groups testified in support. Jeremy Noll, vice president of the Kansas State Fraternal Order of Police and a forensic investigator with the Sedgwick County Sheriff’s Office, said pole‑mounted cameras and related equipment “are quite invaluable for law enforcement,” providing real‑time situational awareness and cost‑effective use of existing infrastructure. Ed Klump, representing the Kansas Association of Chiefs of Police, the Kansas Sheriffs Association and other law‑enforcement groups, said the technology has long been used to address street‑level criminal activity and that utilities and law enforcement have historically worked out safety and installation concerns.

A neutral witness from the Kansas Electric Cooperatives (KEC) raised a specific drafting issue: one wholly‑owned subsidiary of a cooperative, Southern Pioneer Electric, operates like a non‑profit and KEC proposed an amendment to exclude wholly owned cooperative subsidiaries from coverage of the statute.

Committee members asked about privacy and legal limits. Representative Carmichael and others raised the possibility that pole cameras could see into private yards and discussed case law governing expectation of privacy. In response, witnesses said the typical practice is that cameras limited to public view do not require a warrant under recent Tenth Circuit decisions (the witnesses cited United States v. Jackson and related guidance), and that agencies would seek warrants when the planned camera would capture activity within a private place. Members also asked whether utilities could limit locations and whether utilities or contractors would perform installation; the bill text leaves safety and placement to the attachment agreement, and it allows the utility to specify who performs installation.

No opponents spoke at the in‑person hearing; several law‑enforcement agencies and the Wichita Police Department submitted written support. The committee closed the hearing and did not take a final vote on the bill during the session.