K.S.A. » Chapter 21
Kansas Statutes Annotated

K.S.A. § 21-3808 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section KS-LEGkslegislature.org JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

21-3808.

History: L. 1969, ch. 180, § 21-3808; L. 1992, ch. 239, § 152; L. 1993, ch. 142, § 2; L. 1993, ch. 291, § 101; L. 1994, ch. 291, § 36; Repealed, L. 2010, ch. 136, § 307; July 1, 2011.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 81 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1973–2026 · leading case: State v. Parker, 690 P.2d 1353 (Kan. 1984).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Parker, 690 P.2d 1353 (Kan. 1984). · cites it 18× “21-3512[c]) and obstruction of official duty (K.S.A. 21-3808). The defendant Antonio R.”
State v. Hudson, 931 P.2d 679 (Kan. 1997). · cites it 16× “K.S.A. 21-3808 provides: "(a) Obstructing legal process or official duty is knowingly and intentionally obstructing, resisting or opposing any person authorized by law to serve process in the service or execution or in the attempt to serve or execute any writ, warrant, process…”
McCormick v. City of Lawrence, 325 F. Supp. 2d 1191 (D. Kan. 2004). · cites it 13× “Plaintiffs have raised an argument that Defendants could not have had probable cause to arrest them under K.S.A. § 21-3808 because the statute only applies during the commission of a misdemeanor or felony, and Defendants were investigating a traffic infraction at the time of the…”
State v. Carpenter, 642 P.2d 998 (Kan. 1982). · cites it 16× “Count 1 of the complaint charged the offense of obstructing legal process or official duty (K.S.A. 21-3808). Count 2 charged the offense of operating a vehicle with defective equipment (K.”
State v. Seabury, 985 P.2d 1162 (Kan. 1999). · cites it 16× “Seabury reasons he was contesting the State’s interpretation of K.S.A. 21-3808 and not the facts shown at the preliminary hearing.”
State v. Latimer, 687 P.2d 648 (Kan. Ct. App. 1984). · cites it 9× “Latimer appeals from his conviction of obstruction of official duty, in violation of K.S.A. 21-3808. Defendant asks us to determine whether a suspect’s *729 giving of a fictitious identity to a law enforcement officer can constitute a violation of K.”
McCormick v. City of Lawrence, Kansas, 253 F. Supp. 2d 1172 (D. Kan. 2003). · cites it 6× “2d 648 (1984), the Kansas Court of Appeals explicitly stated that section 21-3808 applies to oral statements of a defendant because “the apparent intent of the statute is to make criminal the willful obstruction by any means of an officer acting in the discharge of his official…”
McCormick v. Kline, 572 F.3d 841 (10th Cir. 2009). · cites it 3× “In September of 2000, McCormick was tried in Douglas County District Court on two charges: obstructing official duty in violation of Kan. Stat. Ann. § 21-3808 , a misdemeanor; and unlawfully possessing or controlling marijuana in violation of Kan.”
State v. Beltran, 300 P.3d 92 (Kan. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 6× “The facts known to McClay at the point he grabbed Beltran and searched his pocket established probable cause for a reasonable law enforcement officer to conclude Beltran had committed the crime of obstruction in violation of K.”
Fillmore v. Ordonez, 829 F. Supp. 1544 (D. Kan. 1993). · cites it 5× “8-244, and two counts of obstructing official duty in violation of K.S.A. 21-3808. One of the obstruction counts in the complaint was based upon plaintiffs failure to respond to defendant Croucher’s questions concerning his driver’s license, and the other on his refusal to be…”
State v. Lee, 744 P.2d 845 (Kan. 1987). · cites it 9× “K.S.A. 21-3808 provides: “Obstructing legal process or official duty is knowingly and willfully obstructing, resisting or opposing any person authorized by law to serve process in the service or execution or in the attempt to serve or execute any writ, warrant, process or order…”
Berry v. City of Phillipsburg, Kan., 796 F. Supp. 1400 (D. Kan. 1992). · cites it 8× “Obstructing Legal Process Defendants allege that plaintiff obstructed legal process within the meaning of K.S.A. § 21-3808 (1988), which provides: Obstructing legal process or official duty is knowingly and willfully obstructing, resisting or opposing any person authorized by…”
Show all 81 citing cases →
— K.S.A. § 21-3808(a) — 21 cases
McCormick v. City of Lawrence, 325 F. Supp. 2d 1191 (D. Kan. 2004). “Plaintiffs have raised an argument that Defendants could not have had probable cause to arrest them under K.S.A. § 21-3808 because the statute only applies during the commission of a misdemeanor or felony, and Defendants were investigating a traffic infraction at the time of the…”
McCormick v. City of Lawrence, Kansas, 253 F. Supp. 2d 1172 (D. Kan. 2003). “2d 648 (1984), the Kansas Court of Appeals explicitly stated that section 21-3808 applies to oral statements of a defendant because “the apparent intent of the statute is to make criminal the willful obstruction by any means of an officer acting in the discharge of his official…”
State v. Beltran, 300 P.3d 92 (Kan. Ct. App. 2013). “The facts known to McClay at the point he grabbed Beltran and searched his pocket established probable cause for a reasonable law enforcement officer to conclude Beltran had committed the crime of obstruction in violation of K.”
State v. Hudson, 931 P.2d 679 (Kan. 1997). “K.S.A. 21-3808 provides: "(a) Obstructing legal process or official duty is knowingly and intentionally obstructing, resisting or opposing any person authorized by law to serve process in the service or execution or in the attempt to serve or execute any writ, warrant, process…”
Williams v. Weber, 905 F. Supp. 1502 (D. Kan. 1995).
— K.S.A. § 21-3808(b) — 2 cases
State v. Hudson, 931 P.2d 679 (Kan. 1997). “K.S.A. 21-3808 provides: "(a) Obstructing legal process or official duty is knowingly and intentionally obstructing, resisting or opposing any person authorized by law to serve process in the service or execution or in the attempt to serve or execute any writ, warrant, process…”
State v. Lockhart, Jr., 947 P.2d 461 (Kan. Ct. App. 1997).
— K.S.A. § 21-3808(b)(1) — 5 cases
State v. Seabury, 985 P.2d 1162 (Kan. 1999). “Seabury reasons he was contesting the State’s interpretation of K.S.A. 21-3808 and not the facts shown at the preliminary hearing.”
State v. Beltran, 300 P.3d 92 (Kan. Ct. App. 2013). “The facts known to McClay at the point he grabbed Beltran and searched his pocket established probable cause for a reasonable law enforcement officer to conclude Beltran had committed the crime of obstruction in violation of K.”
In Re Millett, 241 P.3d 35 (Kan. 2010).
State v. Johnson, 190 P.3d 995 (Kan. Ct. App. 2008).
State v. Grotton, 337 P.3d 56 (Kan. Ct. App. 2014).
— K.S.A. § 21-3808(b)(2) — 2 cases
State v. Seabury, 985 P.2d 1162 (Kan. 1999). “Seabury reasons he was contesting the State’s interpretation of K.S.A. 21-3808 and not the facts shown at the preliminary hearing.”
In Re Millett, 241 P.3d 35 (Kan. 2010).
— K.S.A. § 21-3808(b)(l) — 1 case
In Re Millett, 241 P.3d 35 (Kan. 2010).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.