Kansas Statutes Annotated
K.S.A. § 22-2511 (2026)
No warrant quashed for technicality
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
KS-LEGkslegislature.org
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
22-2511. No warrant quashed for technicality. No search warrant shall be quashed or evidence suppressed because of technical irregularities not affecting the substantial rights of the accused.
History: L. 1970, ch. 129, § 22-2511; July 1.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 18
cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1977–2025 · leading case: State v. Rupnick, 125 P.3d 541 (Kan. 2005).
State v. Rupnick, 125 P.3d 541 (Kan. 2005). “22-2503 as a mere "technical irregularity," relying on the following language from K.S.A. 22-2511: "No search warrant shall be quashed or evidence suppressed because of technical irregularities not affecting the substantial rights of the accused.”
State v. Patterson, 371 P.3d 893 (Kan. 2016). “at 335-36 ; see K.S.A. 22-2511 (“No search warrant shall be quashed or evidence suppressed because of technical irregularities not affecting the substantial rights of the accused.”
State v. Francis, 145 P.3d 48 (Kan. 2006). “K.S.A. 22-2511 provides: “No search warrant shall be quashed or evidence suppressed because of technical irregularities not affecting the substantial rights of the accused.”
State v. LeFort, 806 P.2d 986 (Kan. 1991). “The State refers to K.S.A. 22-2511, which states: “No search warrant shall be quashed or evidence suppressed because of technical irregularities not affecting the substantial rights of the accused.”
State v. Ames, 563 P.2d 1034 (Kan. 1977). “” K.S.A. 22-2511 was adopted verbatim from 111.”
State v. Journey, 562 P.2d 138 (Kan. Ct. App. 1977). “I see no way how this would affect the substantial rights of the defendant in this proceeding to have the Court sustain your position on the search warrant for the reason of the lack of the signature, and the Court would have to conclude that it is one of those cases…”
State v. Collier, 913 P.2d 597 (Kan. 1996). “at 441-42; see K.S.A. 22-2511. Did the judge’s failure to sign and date the notice before filing it with the clerk of the court affect Collier’s substantial rights? K.”
State v. Belt, 179 P.3d 443 (Kan. 2008). “at 926-30 (search warrant list of items to be seized left blank; lack of particularity cured when [1] affidavit contained description of items to be seized; [2] affiant, affidavit present at scene of warrant’s execution; and [3] executing officers briefed on items listed in…”
State v. Spaulding, 720 P.2d 1047 (Kan. 1986). “The only other statute having a bearing upon the issue is K.S.A. 22-2511, which provides: “22-2511.”
State v. Jackson, 597 P.2d 255 (Kan. 1979). “The appellant further states the finding of probable cause is deficient due to several irregularities in the affidavit supporting the search warrant. This argument must fail. The challenged irregularities consist of a failure of the affidavit to specifically allege similarity…”
State v. Boster, 606 P.2d 1035 (Kan. Ct. App. 1980). “As to the adequacy of the return of the search warrant and of the duplicitous nature of it, K.S.A. 22-2511 states: “No search warrant shall be quashed or evidence suppressed because of technical irregularities not affecting the substantial rights of the accused.”
State v. Holloman, 731 P.2d 294 (Kan. 1987). “” K.S.A. 22-2511 provides: *596 “No search warrant shall be quashed or evidence suppressed because of technical irregularities not affecting the substantial rights of the accused.”
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.