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

K.S.A. § 21-4619 (2026)

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

21-4619.

History: L. 1978, ch. 120, § 28; L. 1979, ch. 90, § 7; L. 1980, ch. 102, § 2; L. 1980, ch. 103, § 1; L. 1981, ch. 158, § 2; L. 1982, ch. 139, § 2; L. 1984, ch. 39, § 35; L. 1985, ch. 48, § 15; L. 1986, ch. 129, § 1; L. 1987, ch. 292, § 24; L. 1988, ch. 315, § 2; L. 1989, ch. 96, § 1; L. 1990, ch. 105, § 1; L. 1992, ch. 239, § 247; L. 1993, ch. 253, § 16; L. 1993, ch. 291, § 186; L. 1994, ch. 291, § 48; L. 1995, ch. 251, § 15; L. 1996, ch. 214, § 27; L. 1998, ch. 131, § 5; L. 2001, ch. 185, § 1; L. 2002, ch. 163, § 2; L. 2004, ch. 149, § 1; L. 2005, ch. 168, § 2; L. 2005, ch. 186, § 9; L. 2005, ch. 186, § 10; L. 2006, ch. 32, § 21; L. 2006, ch. 171, § 4; L. 2007, ch. 110, § 58; L. 2008, ch. 162, § 2; L. 2009, ch. 116, § 11; L. 2010, ch. 62, § 3; Repealed, L. 2011, ch. 95, § 14; July 1.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 24 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1980–2026 · leading case: Stephens v. Van Arsdale, 608 P.2d 972 (Kan. 1980).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Stephens v. Van Arsdale, 608 P.2d 972 (Kan. 1980). · cites it 34× “22-4712 and K.S.A. 1979 Supp. 21-4619 prohibited their disclosure to these plaintiffs.”
State v. Jaben, 277 P.3d 417 (Kan. 2012). · cites it 17× “We answer the question reserved by concluding that because the legislature did not clearly indicate an intent to retrospectively apply the statute in effect at tihe time Jaben filed his petition, K.S.A. 21-4619, it applies only prospectively.”
State v. Underwood, 615 P.2d 153 (Kan. 1980). · cites it 6× “By then the statute had been replaced with the expungement statute, K.S.A. 1979 Supp. 21-4619, which has certain pronounced limitations affecting appellant's request for annulment.”
Pope v. Ransdell, 833 P.2d 965 (Kan. 1992). · cites it 8× “K.S.A. 21-4619 prohibits the district court from allowing the defendant to obtain the expunged criminal records of Sandra Juby.”
Boatright v. Kansas Racing Comm'n, 834 P.2d 368 (Kan. 1992). · cites it 4× “2d 535 (1985), this court was asked to interpret K.S.A. 21-4619 to determine whether it provided for the expungement of a diversion.”
State v. Haug, 699 P.2d 535 (Kan. 1985). · cites it 6× “” Defense counsel contended such an order was permissible under K.S.A. 21-4619 (which allows persons convicted of a crime to have their convictions expunged after meeting certain criteria) because otherwise, an accused person who successfully completed a diversion agreement…”
State v. Arculeo, 933 P.2d 122 (Kan. 1997). · cites it 6× “After examining K.S.A. 21-4619 and K.S.A. 21-4721, the Court of Appeals finally concluded the legis *289 lature meant “conditional release” to include any situation where a defendant is released by the court under restrictive conditions.”
State v. Riedel, 752 P.2d 115 (Kan. 1988). · cites it 6× “The trial court sustained defendant’s motion in limine and ruled that the State was barred from introducing evidence of the facts underlying a prior conviction which had been expunged pursuant to K.S.A. 1987 Supp. 21-4619. The State then refused to go to trial and the complaint…”
State v. Anderson, 744 P.2d 143 (Kan. Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 4× “K.S.A. 1986 Supp. 21-4619. The sole issue on appeal is whether the district court’s application of 21-4619(c)(6) to the facts of this case violates the ex post facto clause of the United States Constitution.”
State v. Gamble, 891 P.2d 472 (Kan. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 11× “These definitions would indicate that parole is not a pending proceeding for purposes of K.S.A. 1994 Supp. 21-4619. This conclusion is supported by an examination of the statutory context for the term “pending proceeding.”
State v. Yrigolla, 175 P.3d 276 (Kan. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 19× “K.S.A. 21-4619 was enacted in 1978 and in its original form did not allow for the expungement of arrest records.”
Tuten v. United States, 460 U.S. 660 (1983). “45 (West 1982); Kan. Stat. Ann. §21-4619 (1981); Minn. Stat.”
Show all 24 citing cases →
— K.S.A. § 21-4619(a) — 2 cases
State v. Arculeo, 933 P.2d 122 (Kan. 1997). “After examining K.S.A. 21-4619 and K.S.A. 21-4721, the Court of Appeals finally concluded the legis *289 lature meant “conditional release” to include any situation where a defendant is released by the court under restrictive conditions.”
State v. Gamble, 891 P.2d 472 (Kan. Ct. App. 1995). “These definitions would indicate that parole is not a pending proceeding for purposes of K.S.A. 1994 Supp. 21-4619. This conclusion is supported by an examination of the statutory context for the term “pending proceeding.”
— K.S.A. § 21-4619(a)(2) — 1 case
State v. Yrigolla, 175 P.3d 276 (Kan. Ct. App. 2008). “K.S.A. 21-4619 was enacted in 1978 and in its original form did not allow for the expungement of arrest records.”
— K.S.A. § 21-4619(b) — 1 case
State v. Yrigolla, 175 P.3d 276 (Kan. Ct. App. 2008). “K.S.A. 21-4619 was enacted in 1978 and in its original form did not allow for the expungement of arrest records.”
— K.S.A. § 21-4619(c) — 2 cases
State v. Jaben, 277 P.3d 417 (Kan. 2012). “We answer the question reserved by concluding that because the legislature did not clearly indicate an intent to retrospectively apply the statute in effect at tihe time Jaben filed his petition, K.S.A. 21-4619, it applies only prospectively.”
State v. Anderson, 744 P.2d 143 (Kan. Ct. App. 1987). “K.S.A. 1986 Supp. 21-4619. The sole issue on appeal is whether the district court’s application of 21-4619(c)(6) to the facts of this case violates the ex post facto clause of the United States Constitution.”
— K.S.A. § 21-4619(c)(22) — 1 case
State v. Jaben, 277 P.3d 417 (Kan. 2012). “We answer the question reserved by concluding that because the legislature did not clearly indicate an intent to retrospectively apply the statute in effect at tihe time Jaben filed his petition, K.S.A. 21-4619, it applies only prospectively.”
— K.S.A. § 21-4619(c)(6) — 2 cases
State v. Jaben, 277 P.3d 417 (Kan. 2012). “We answer the question reserved by concluding that because the legislature did not clearly indicate an intent to retrospectively apply the statute in effect at tihe time Jaben filed his petition, K.S.A. 21-4619, it applies only prospectively.”
State v. Anderson, 744 P.2d 143 (Kan. Ct. App. 1987). “K.S.A. 1986 Supp. 21-4619. The sole issue on appeal is whether the district court’s application of 21-4619(c)(6) to the facts of this case violates the ex post facto clause of the United States Constitution.”
— K.S.A. § 21-4619(d) — 1 case
State v. Davis, 874 P.2d 1156 (Kan. 1994).
— K.S.A. § 21-4619(d)(1) — 1 case
State v. Underwood, 615 P.2d 153 (Kan. 1980). “By then the statute had been replaced with the expungement statute, K.S.A. 1979 Supp. 21-4619, which has certain pronounced limitations affecting appellant's request for annulment.”
— K.S.A. § 21-4619(d)(6) — 2 cases
State v. Jaben, 277 P.3d 417 (Kan. 2012). “We answer the question reserved by concluding that because the legislature did not clearly indicate an intent to retrospectively apply the statute in effect at tihe time Jaben filed his petition, K.S.A. 21-4619, it applies only prospectively.”
State v. Ebihara (Kan. Ct. App. 2026).
— K.S.A. § 21-4619(e) — 2 cases
State v. Gamble, 891 P.2d 472 (Kan. Ct. App. 1995). “These definitions would indicate that parole is not a pending proceeding for purposes of K.S.A. 1994 Supp. 21-4619. This conclusion is supported by an examination of the statutory context for the term “pending proceeding.”
State v. Ebihara (Kan. Ct. App. 2026).
— K.S.A. § 21-4619(e)(1) — 1 case
State v. Ebihara (Kan. Ct. App. 2026).
— K.S.A. § 21-4619(e)(2) — 1 case
State v. Ebihara (Kan. Ct. App. 2026).
— K.S.A. § 21-4619(e)(l) — 1 case
State v. Gamble, 891 P.2d 472 (Kan. Ct. App. 1995). “These definitions would indicate that parole is not a pending proceeding for purposes of K.S.A. 1994 Supp. 21-4619. This conclusion is supported by an examination of the statutory context for the term “pending proceeding.”
— K.S.A. § 21-4619(f) — 3 cases
Pope v. Ransdell, 833 P.2d 965 (Kan. 1992). “K.S.A. 21-4619 prohibits the district court from allowing the defendant to obtain the expunged criminal records of Sandra Juby.”
Wright v. Kansas State Bd. of Educ., 268 P.3d 1231 (Kan. Ct. App. 2012).
State v. Divine, 246 P.3d 692 (Kan. 2011).
— K.S.A. § 21-4619(f)(2) — 1 case
Wright v. Kansas State Bd. of Educ., 268 P.3d 1231 (Kan. Ct. App. 2012).
— K.S.A. § 21-4619(f)(3) — 1 case
State v. Divine, 246 P.3d 692 (Kan. 2011).
— K.S.A. § 21-4619(f)(4) — 2 cases
State v. Riedel, 752 P.2d 115 (Kan. 1988). “The trial court sustained defendant’s motion in limine and ruled that the State was barred from introducing evidence of the facts underlying a prior conviction which had been expunged pursuant to K.S.A. 1987 Supp. 21-4619. The State then refused to go to trial and the complaint…”
State v. Divine, 246 P.3d 692 (Kan. 2011).
— K.S.A. § 21-4619(g) — 1 case
State v. Underwood, 615 P.2d 153 (Kan. 1980). “By then the statute had been replaced with the expungement statute, K.S.A. 1979 Supp. 21-4619, which has certain pronounced limitations affecting appellant's request for annulment.”
— K.S.A. § 21-4619(h) — 1 case
Pope v. Ransdell, 833 P.2d 965 (Kan. 1992). “K.S.A. 21-4619 prohibits the district court from allowing the defendant to obtain the expunged criminal records of Sandra Juby.”
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.