Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Theft Possession Standard topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Judiciary committee hears proposal to allow 'reason to know' standard for possession of stolen property, law enforcement cites auto-theft spike
Summary
House Bill 2347 would change the culpability standard in theft statutes to include "having reason to know" property was stolen, a change proponents say will aid prosecutions in auto-theft cases; the House removed a separate provision that would have raised penalties for low-value motor-vehicle thefts to felony level.
The Kansas Senate Committee on the Judiciary considered House Bill 2347, which would amend the theft statute (KSA 21-58-01) to add a "having reason to know" standard for possession of stolen property and to alter language so prosecutors need only show property "was stolen from another" rather than "stolen by another." Proponents told the committee the change is intended to help prosecutors in auto-theft cases where the person found driving a stolen vehicle often is not the original taker.
Jan Jarman, deputy city attorney and legal adviser to Wichita Police, said auto thefts in the Wichita area rose from about 2,300 in 2023 to roughly 2,650 in early 2024 and that surveillance and license-plate data often show someone other than the original thief in possession of the vehicle. Jarman said the proposed wording lets a factfinder consider circumstantial signs — a broken window, a punched column, lack of keys, no obvious ownership information or a vague source such as "a guy named Bubba" — when deciding whether a reasonable person would have known the vehicle was stolen.
Ed Klump, representing Kansas law enforcement groups, said the change mirrors language already used in five other criminal statutes and one traffic statute and urged support. Private citizen witness Nick Reinicker urged stronger penalties generally; proponents and law enforcement also discussed, but did not reinsert, a House amendment that had removed language in the original bill converting theft of motor vehicles under $1,500 into a felony.
Committee members asked for data on the share of stolen vehicles valued under $1,500; witnesses estimated roughly 12 percent of reported stolen vehicles fall below that threshold but said the exact figure would be confirmed later. Law enforcement suggested a compromise of carving out operable vehicles or using a value band (for example, $500–$1,500) to exclude junk or inoperable vehicles from any felony penalty.
No vote was taken. The committee noted a fiscal-impact statement had been requested but not yet provided to the committee record.
