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

K.S.A. § 22-2515 (2026)

Authorized interception of wire, oral or electronic communications; order; application; crimes for which order may be issued; disclosure and use of contents of wire, oral or electronic communications; effect on privileged communications

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

22-2515. Authorized interception of wire, oral or electronic communications; order; application; crimes for which order may be issued; disclosure and use of contents of wire, oral or electronic communications; effect on privileged communications. (a) An ex parte order authorizing the interception of a wire, oral or electronic communication may be issued by a judge of competent jurisdiction. The attorney general, district attorney or county attorney may make an application to any judge of competent jurisdiction for an order authorizing the interception of a wire, oral or electronic communication by an investigative or law enforcement officer and agency having responsibility for the investigation of the offense regarding which the application is made, when such interception may provide evidence of the commission of any of the following offenses:

(1) Any crime directly and immediately affecting the safety of a human life which is a felony;

(2) murder;

(3) kidnapping;

(4) treason;

(5) sedition;

(6) racketeering;

(7) commercial bribery;

(8) robbery;

(9) theft, if the offense would constitute a felony;

(10) bribery;

(11) any felony violation of K.S.A. 21-5701 through 21-5717, and amendments thereto;

(12) commercial gambling;

(13) sports bribery;

(14) tampering with a sports contest;

(15) aggravated escape;

(16) aggravated failure to appear;

(17) arson;

(18) terrorism;

(19) illegal use of weapons of mass destruction;

(20) human trafficking or aggravated human trafficking;

(21) sexual exploitation of a child;

(22) commercial sexual exploitation of a child;

(23) buying sexual relations, promoting the sale of sexual relations or selling sexual relations; or

(24) any conspiracy to commit any of the foregoing offenses.

(b) Any investigative or law enforcement officer who, by any means authorized by this act or by chapter 119 of title 18 of the United States code, has obtained knowledge of the contents of any wire, oral or electronic communication, or evidence derived therefrom, may disclose such contents to another investigative or law enforcement officer to the extent that such disclosure is appropriate to the proper performance of the official duties of the officer making or receiving the disclosure.

(c) Any investigative or law enforcement officer who, by any means authorized by this act or by chapter 119 of title 18 of the United States code, has obtained knowledge of the contents of any wire, oral or electronic communication, or evidence derived therefrom, may use such contents to the extent such use is appropriate to the proper performance of such officer's official duties.

(d) Any person who has received, by any means authorized by this act or by chapter 119 of title 18 of the United States code or by a like statute of any other state, any information concerning a wire, oral or electronic communication, or evidence derived therefrom, intercepted in accordance with the provisions of this act, may disclose the contents of such communication or such derivative evidence while giving testimony under oath or affirmation in any criminal proceeding in any court, or before any grand jury, of this state or of the United States or of any other state.

(e) No otherwise privileged wire, oral or electronic communication intercepted in accordance with, or in violation of, the provisions of this act or of chapter 119 of title 18 of the United States code shall lose its privileged character.

(f) When an investigative or law enforcement officer, while engaged in intercepting wire, oral or electronic communications in the manner authorized by this act, intercepts wire, oral or electronic communications relating to offenses other than those specified in the order authorizing the interception of the wire, oral or electronic communication, the contents thereof and evidence derived therefrom may be disclosed or used as provided in subsections (b) and (c) of this section. Such contents and evidence derived therefrom may be used under subsection (d) of this section when authorized or approved by a judge of competent jurisdiction, where such judge finds on subsequent application, made as soon as practicable, that the contents were otherwise intercepted in accordance with the provisions of this act, or with chapter 119 of title 18 of the United States code.

History: L. 1974, ch. 150, § 2; L. 1976, ch. 165, § 3; L. 1988, ch. 117, § 2; L. 1992, ch. 239, § 250; L. 1993, ch. 291, § 187; L. 2006, ch. 146, § 9; L. 2009, ch. 32, § 41; L. 2013, ch. 120, § 24; July 1.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9 cases, 1979–2012 · leading case: United States v. Gary Savaiano, & Gary McPherson & Bill Crummey, 843 F.2d 1280 (10th Cir. 1988).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
United States v. Gary Savaiano, & Gary McPherson & Bill Crummey, 843 F.2d 1280 (10th Cir. 1988). · cites it 8× “First, McPherson contends the court erroneously determined that probable cause existed “for belief that a person is committing, has committed, or is about to commit a particular offense enumerated in subsection (1) of Kan.Stat.Ann. § 22-2515.” Kan. Stat.Ann. § 22-2516(3)(a).”
State v. Bruce, 287 P.3d 919 (Kan. 2012). · cites it 12× “ix signed the following written delegation of authority to then Assistant Attorney General Barry Disney: “I, Steve Six, the duly elected Attorney General of the State of Kansas, do hereby delegate the authority to exercise the power of the Attorney General to make application…”
State v. Roudybush, 686 P.2d 100 (Kan. 1984). · cites it 3× “” K.S.A. 22-2515 requires an ex parte court order to intercept a wire or oral communication.”
State v. Kuchinsky, 592 P.2d 144 (Kan. Ct. App. 1979). · cites it 11× “On April 6, 1978, the trial court sustained defendants’ motions to suppress on the ground that the State had failed to comply with K.S.A. 22-2515(6). The State filed this interlocutory appeal of that order.”
State v. Gibson, 874 P.2d 1122 (Kan. 1994). · cites it 11× “K.S.A. 1993 Supp. 22-2515 limits applications for authorization to investigations of certain serious crimes and provides for the use and disclosure of the contents of intercepted communications.”
State v. Irving, 644 P.2d 389 (Kan. 1982). · cites it 2× “The Kansas statute, K.S.A. 22-2515, provides in part as follows: *264 “22-2515.”
State Ex Rel. Cranford v. Bishop, 640 P.2d 1271 (Kan. 1982). · cites it 2× “It is apparent to me that the legislature intended to restrict the power to commence these proceedings to the principal prosecuting attorneys of this state and its counties, similar to the manner in which the applications for wire-interception are restricted by K.S.A. 1980 Supp.…”
State v. Maley & Witt, 662 P.2d 269 (Kan. Ct. App. 1983). · cites it 10× “Original orders (K.S.A. 22-2515[3] and [4]), retroactive orders (K.”
State v. Andrews, 176 P.3d 245 (Kan. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 5× “) Andrews again argues on appeal that the only way the intercepted communications may be utilized is where an ex parte court order has been obtained under K.S.A. 22-2515. A review of our previous Kansas decisions does not support this argument, and no Kansas case has been…”
— K.S.A. § 22-2515(1) — 1 case
United States v. Gary Savaiano, & Gary McPherson & Bill Crummey, 843 F.2d 1280 (10th Cir. 1988). “First, McPherson contends the court erroneously determined that probable cause existed “for belief that a person is committing, has committed, or is about to commit a particular offense enumerated in subsection (1) of Kan.Stat.Ann. § 22-2515.” Kan. Stat.Ann. § 22-2516(3)(a).”
— K.S.A. § 22-2515(3) — 2 cases
State v. Roudybush, 686 P.2d 100 (Kan. 1984). “” K.S.A. 22-2515 requires an ex parte court order to intercept a wire or oral communication.”
State v. Andrews, 176 P.3d 245 (Kan. Ct. App. 2008). “) Andrews again argues on appeal that the only way the intercepted communications may be utilized is where an ex parte court order has been obtained under K.S.A. 22-2515. A review of our previous Kansas decisions does not support this argument, and no Kansas case has been…”
— K.S.A. § 22-2515(4) — 1 case
State v. Maley & Witt, 662 P.2d 269 (Kan. Ct. App. 1983). “Original orders (K.S.A. 22-2515[3] and [4]), retroactive orders (K.”
— K.S.A. § 22-2515(6) — 4 cases
United States v. Gary Savaiano, & Gary McPherson & Bill Crummey, 843 F.2d 1280 (10th Cir. 1988). “First, McPherson contends the court erroneously determined that probable cause existed “for belief that a person is committing, has committed, or is about to commit a particular offense enumerated in subsection (1) of Kan.Stat.Ann. § 22-2515.” Kan. Stat.Ann. § 22-2516(3)(a).”
State v. Kuchinsky, 592 P.2d 144 (Kan. Ct. App. 1979). “On April 6, 1978, the trial court sustained defendants’ motions to suppress on the ground that the State had failed to comply with K.S.A. 22-2515(6). The State filed this interlocutory appeal of that order.”
State v. Gibson, 874 P.2d 1122 (Kan. 1994). “K.S.A. 1993 Supp. 22-2515 limits applications for authorization to investigations of certain serious crimes and provides for the use and disclosure of the contents of intercepted communications.”
State v. Maley & Witt, 662 P.2d 269 (Kan. Ct. App. 1983). “Original orders (K.S.A. 22-2515[3] and [4]), retroactive orders (K.”
— K.S.A. § 22-2515(a) — 1 case
State v. Bruce, 287 P.3d 919 (Kan. 2012). “ix signed the following written delegation of authority to then Assistant Attorney General Barry Disney: “I, Steve Six, the duly elected Attorney General of the State of Kansas, do hereby delegate the authority to exercise the power of the Attorney General to make application…”
— K.S.A. § 22-2515(a)(l) — 1 case
State v. Bruce, 287 P.3d 919 (Kan. 2012). “ix signed the following written delegation of authority to then Assistant Attorney General Barry Disney: “I, Steve Six, the duly elected Attorney General of the State of Kansas, do hereby delegate the authority to exercise the power of the Attorney General to make application…”
— K.S.A. § 22-2515(c) — 1 case
State v. Andrews, 176 P.3d 245 (Kan. Ct. App. 2008). “) Andrews again argues on appeal that the only way the intercepted communications may be utilized is where an ex parte court order has been obtained under K.S.A. 22-2515. A review of our previous Kansas decisions does not support this argument, and no Kansas case has been…”
— K.S.A. § 22-2515(f) — 1 case
State v. Gibson, 874 P.2d 1122 (Kan. 1994). “K.S.A. 1993 Supp. 22-2515 limits applications for authorization to investigations of certain serious crimes and provides for the use and disclosure of the contents of intercepted communications.”
— K.S.A. § 22-2515(l)(k) — 1 case
United States v. Gary Savaiano, & Gary McPherson & Bill Crummey, 843 F.2d 1280 (10th Cir. 1988). “First, McPherson contends the court erroneously determined that probable cause existed “for belief that a person is committing, has committed, or is about to commit a particular offense enumerated in subsection (1) of Kan.Stat.Ann. § 22-2515.” Kan. Stat.Ann. § 22-2516(3)(a).”
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.