21-6322.
Unlawfully tampering with electronic monitoring equipment.
(a) Unlawfully tampering with electronic monitoring equipment is, knowingly and without authorization, removing, disabling, altering, tampering with, damaging or destroying any electronic monitoring equipment used pursuant to court ordered supervision or as a condition of post-release supervision or parole.
(b) Unlawfully tampering with electronic monitoring equipment is a:
(1) Severity level 8, nonperson felony in the case of electronic monitoring equipment used pursuant to court-ordered supervision or as a condition of postrelease supervision or parole for any felony; and
(2) class A nonperson misdemeanor in the case of electronic monitoring equipment used pursuant to court-ordered supervision or as a condition of postrelease supervision or parole for any misdemeanor or used pursuant to court-ordered supervision in any civil case.
History:
L. 2010, ch. 136, § 207; L. 2021, ch. 109, § 3; July 1.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
4
cases (
3 in the last 5 years), 2019–2026 · leading case:
State v. Barnes, 563 P.3d 1255 (Kan. 2025).
State v. Barnes, 563 P.3d 1255 (Kan. 2025).
“K.S.A. 21-6322(a) defines the crime: "(a) Unlawfully tampering with electronic monitoring equipment is, knowingly and without authorization, removing, disabling, altering, tampering with, damaging or 39 destroying any electronic monitoring equipment used pursuant to court…”
State v. Collins, 583 P.3d 936 (Kan. Ct. App. 2026).
· cites it 9× “Shortly thereafter, Collins removed his GPS monitoring device without permission and was charged with a single count of illegally tampering with an electronic monitoring device in violation of K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 21-6322(a). While this case was pending before the district court,…”
State v. Terrell, 485 P.3d 730 (Kan. Ct. App. 2021).
· cites it 6× “" The State further alleged these acts occurred on or about June 25, 2018, in Sedgwick County and constituted a felony offense under K.S.A. 2017 Supp. 21-6322(a). The State's complaint properly alleged facts that, if true, would constitute a crime under Kansas law and showed the…”
State v. Gaines, 444 P.3d 373 (Kan. Ct. App. 2019).
“14-CR-2918 One count of unlawfully tampering with electronic monitoring equipment in violation of K.S.A. 2014 Supp. 21-6322(a). On May 18, 2015, Gaines filed a motion seeking a dispositional departure, which was subsequently denied by the district court.”
K.S.A. § 21-6322(a): 4 cases
State v. Barnes, 563 P.3d 1255 (Kan. 2025).
“K.S.A. 21-6322(a) defines the crime: "(a) Unlawfully tampering with electronic monitoring equipment is, knowingly and without authorization, removing, disabling, altering, tampering with, damaging or 39 destroying any electronic monitoring equipment used pursuant to court…”
State v. Collins, 583 P.3d 936 (Kan. Ct. App. 2026).
“Shortly thereafter, Collins removed his GPS monitoring device without permission and was charged with a single count of illegally tampering with an electronic monitoring device in violation of K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 21-6322(a). While this case was pending before the district court,…”
State v. Terrell, 485 P.3d 730 (Kan. Ct. App. 2021).
“" The State further alleged these acts occurred on or about June 25, 2018, in Sedgwick County and constituted a felony offense under K.S.A. 2017 Supp. 21-6322(a). The State's complaint properly alleged facts that, if true, would constitute a crime under Kansas law and showed the…”
State v. Gaines, 444 P.3d 373 (Kan. Ct. App. 2019).
“14-CR-2918 One count of unlawfully tampering with electronic monitoring equipment in violation of K.S.A. 2014 Supp. 21-6322(a). On May 18, 2015, Gaines filed a motion seeking a dispositional departure, which was subsequently denied by the district court.”
K.S.A. § 21-6322(b): 1 case
State v. Terrell, 485 P.3d 730 (Kan. Ct. App. 2021).
“" The State further alleged these acts occurred on or about June 25, 2018, in Sedgwick County and constituted a felony offense under K.S.A. 2017 Supp. 21-6322(a). The State's complaint properly alleged facts that, if true, would constitute a crime under Kansas law and showed the…”
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.