Kansas committee hears bill to add probation and post-release violations to obstructing apprehension statute

Senate Bill 155, which would expand the state's obstructing apprehension or prosecution law to cover people who knowingly harbor, conceal or aid persons alleged to have violated the terms of probation, assignment to a community corrections program, parole or post-release supervision, received proponent, neutral and opponent testimony in a Kansas Senate Judiciary Committee hearing.

The bill would add the new element to KSA 21-59-13 so that knowingly harboring or concealing someone alleged to have violated those supervision conditions is punished the same as current subsection (a)(1): a severity level 8 nonperson felony when the underlying allegation is a felony and a class C misdemeanor when the underlying allegation is a misdemeanor.

The bill's proponent, Missy Schoen, identified herself as the outgoing Norton County Attorney and said she submitted the proposal on behalf of the Kansas County and District Attorneys Association. She told the committee that the change responds to a gap prosecutors saw this summer, when an individual with a post-release warrant was located while officers responded to a domestic disturbance and "we found him hiding in a back room." Schoen said a gun was later found in that room and said the case illustrated public-safety concerns and the need to make harboring or concealing an alleged probation/post-release violator a specific element: "I would ask that the committee pass Senate Bill 155," she said.

Megan Milner, deputy secretary for the Kansas Department of Corrections, testified neutrally and warned of an unintended consequence: that family members or support persons who typically provide housing or reentry support might be less willing to take supervised individuals into their homes if those third parties could face criminal exposure. "One of the unintended consequences of this bill may be that family members or support persons would be less likely to accept them into their home as a part of a residence plan" because they might fear being reported, Milner said.

Jennifer Roth, a member of the BIDS (Board of Indigency/Defense Services) Legislative Committee, testified in opposition and clarified how the bill would operate. Roth said the bill does not criminalize a supervised person's failure to turn themself in; instead, it criminalizes third parties who assist or harbor that person. She cautioned that the change could punish "people that we need to be available and be supportive of people who are on supervision," and questioned how a third party would know that a person had been alleged to have violated supervision. Roth noted existing interference statutes already can cover lying to or obstructing service of a warrant and said opponents worried the bill could chill pro-social support networks.

Committee members asked about the bill's culpability language and whether the draft includes an intent element comparable to subsection (a)(1). Senator Titus asked why the new subsection did not include the "with intent" phrasing that appears elsewhere; Schoen acknowledged she pulled language from the sentencing statute (KSA 21-68-04) and that adding intent language may be necessary. The committee also explored whether the alleged violator would have notice of a bench warrant; Schoen said the new element mirrors subsection (a)(1) where a person with a warrant need not have been found guilty to trigger the statute.

The committee closed the public hearing without a committee vote on the bill.

Votes at a glance: No committee vote recorded on Senate Bill 155; the hearing closed for the bill and the committee moved to the next matter.