K.S.A. » Chapter 22
Kansas Statutes Annotated

K.S.A. § 22-2513 (2026)

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

22-2513.

History: L. 1970, ch. 129, § 22-2513; Repealed, L. 1974, ch. 150, § 7; July 1.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases, 1973–2012 · leading case: State v. Farha, 544 P.2d 341 (Kan. 1975).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Farha, 544 P.2d 341 (Kan. 1975). · cites it 18× “All but one of the electronic search warrants were issued pursuant to K.S.A. 1971 Supp. 22-2513 (repealed and superseded effective July 1, 1974).”
In Re Olander, 515 P.2d 1211 (Kan. 1973). · cites it 9× “Ireland, Assistant County Attorney of Shawnee County, Kansas, for an Order Authorizing Eavesdropping Pursuant to K.S.A. 1972 Supp. 22-2513. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellant, v.”
State v. Bruce, 287 P.3d 919 (Kan. 2012). · cites it 3× “The State also argued that the cases relied upon by Bruce dealt specifically with the validity of a prior version of the Kansas statute, see K.S.A. 1972 Supp. 22-2513 (repealed 1974), and did not control the interpretation of the current interaction between K.”
State v. Roudybush, 686 P.2d 100 (Kan. 1984). “949 (1976), we held invalid K.S.A. 1971 Supp. 22-2513(1) because the procedure for obtaining eavesdropping orders contained therein was more permissive than that authorized by the federal act.”
Daniels v. State, 381 So. 2d 707 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979). “Inasmuch as K.S.A. 1971 Supp. 22-2513(1) was more permissive than 18 U.”
People v. O'HARA, 240 P.3d 283 (Colo. Ct. App. 2010). “Compare Kan. Stat. Ann. § 22-2513 (1972 Supp.) (repealed 1974), with § 16-15-102.”
State v. Stein, 515 P.2d 1211 (Kan. 1973). · cites it 2× “Moreover, Section 22-2513 is permeated with numerous requirements which reiterate established constitutional safeguards.”
— K.S.A. § 22-2513(1) — 3 cases
State v. Roudybush, 686 P.2d 100 (Kan. 1984). “949 (1976), we held invalid K.S.A. 1971 Supp. 22-2513(1) because the procedure for obtaining eavesdropping orders contained therein was more permissive than that authorized by the federal act.”
State v. Bruce, 287 P.3d 919 (Kan. 2012). “The State also argued that the cases relied upon by Bruce dealt specifically with the validity of a prior version of the Kansas statute, see K.S.A. 1972 Supp. 22-2513 (repealed 1974), and did not control the interpretation of the current interaction between K.”
Daniels v. State, 381 So. 2d 707 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979). “Inasmuch as K.S.A. 1971 Supp. 22-2513(1) was more permissive than 18 U.”
— K.S.A. § 22-2513(l) — 1 case
State v. Bruce, 287 P.3d 919 (Kan. 2012). “The State also argued that the cases relied upon by Bruce dealt specifically with the validity of a prior version of the Kansas statute, see K.S.A. 1972 Supp. 22-2513 (repealed 1974), and did not control the interpretation of the current interaction between K.”
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.