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

K.S.A. § 22-3101 (2026)

Inquisitions; witnesses

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

22-3101. Inquisitions; witnesses. (1) If the attorney general, an assistant attorney general, the county attorney or the district attorney of any county is informed or has knowledge of any alleged violation of the laws of Kansas, such person may apply to a district judge to conduct an inquisition. An application for an inquisition shall be in writing, verified under oath, setting forth the alleged violation of law. Upon the filing of the application, the judge with whom it is filed, on the written praecipe of such attorney, shall issue a subpoena for the witnesses named in such praecipe commanding them to appear and testify concerning the matters under investigation. Such subpoenas shall be served and returned as subpoenas for witnesses in criminal cases in the district court.

(2) If the attorney general, assistant attorney general, county attorney or district attorney, or in the absence of the county or district attorney a designated assistant county or district attorney, is informed or has knowledge of any alleged violation in this state pertaining to terrorism, illegal use of weapons of mass destruction, gambling, intoxicating liquors, criminal syndicalism, racketeering, bribery, tampering with a sports contest, narcotic or dangerous drugs or any violation of any law where the accused is a fugitive from justice, such attorney shall be authorized to issue subpoenas for such persons as such attorney has any reason to believe or has any information relating thereto or knowledge thereof, to appear before such attorney at a time and place to be designated in the subpoena and testify concerning any such violation. For such purposes, any prosecuting attorney shall be authorized to administer oaths. If an assistant county or district attorney is designated by the county or district attorney for the purposes of this subsection, such designation shall be filed with the chief judge of such judicial district.

(3) Each witness shall be sworn to make true answers to all questions propounded to such witness touching the matters under investigation. The testimony of each witness shall be reduced to writing and signed by the witness. Any person who disobeys a subpoena issued for such appearance or refuses to be sworn as a witness or answer any proper question propounded during the inquisition, may be adjudged in contempt of court and punished by fine and imprisonment.

History: L. 1970, ch. 129, § 22-3101; L. 1976, ch. 145, § 107; L. 1994, ch. 348, § 7; L. 1999, ch. 57, § 31; L. 2006, ch. 146, § 10; July 1.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 26 cases, 1977–2014 · leading case: Alpha Med. Clinic v. Anderson, 128 P.3d 364 (Kan. 2006).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Alpha Med. Clinic v. Anderson, 128 P.3d 364 (Kan. 2006). · cites it 9× “The Criminal Inquisition Statutory Scheme K.S.A. 2004 Supp. 22-3101 et seq. governs the conduct of inquisitions in criminal cases in Kansas.”
State v. Gonzalez, 234 P.3d 1 (Kan. 2010). · cites it 4× “Inquisition subpoenas under K.S.A. 22-3101 are subject to the district court’s inherent power to prevent prosecutorial abuse of the judicial process.”
State Ex Rel. Cranford v. Bishop, 640 P.2d 1271 (Kan. 1982). · cites it 14× “The question presented is: Does a district judge have authority to refuse to issue subpoenas under K.S.A. 1980 Supp. 22-3101 after an application for an inquisition has been filed? That statute states: "(1) If the attorney general, an assistant attorney general, or the county…”
State v. Cathey, 741 P.2d 738 (Kan. 1987). · cites it 6× “An inquisition, K.S.A. 22-3101 et seq., equates with routine questioning of witnesses by law enforcement officers during an investigation of a possible crime.”
State v. Hobson, 671 P.2d 1365 (Kan. 1983). · cites it 5× “The witnesses were subpoenaed by the district court upon application by the State pursuant to K.S.A. 22-3101, the inquisition statute. The appellant was not notified that the statements were to be taken and was not present or represented by counsel.”
State v. Schultz, 850 P.2d 818 (Kan. 1993). · cites it 4× “Pursuant to K.S.A. 22-3101(2) inquisition subpoenas, Christy obtained Schultz' bank records from the Bank of Commerce in Chanute, Kansas, and his telephone records from Southwestern Bell Telephone Company (SWB).”
In Re the Investigation Into the Homicide of T.H., 932 P.2d 1023 (Kan. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 9× “Further, the witness contends this court should find K.S.A. 22-3101 etseq. violates the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and § 10 of the Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights.”
State v. Dixon, 112 P.3d 883 (Kan. 2005). · cites it 2× “The trial court refused to admit Hall's sentencing journal entry on the ground "it was made quite clear to the jury" that Hall was obligated to testify in a truthful manner consistent with his inquisition testimony.”
State v. Turner, 333 P.3d 155 (Kan. 2014). · cites it 4× “2d 1023 (1997), where a Court of Appeals panel opined that pursuant to statutory language and interpretive caselaw, “a person called as a witness in an inquisition under K.S.A. 22-3101 et seq. is not provided blanket immunity from answering questions, and the district court…”
In re Crim. Investigation, 7th Dist. Court No. CS-1, 754 P.2d 633 (Utah 1988). · cites it 2× “, Kan.Stat.Ann. § 22-3101 (1981); Del.Code Ann.”
Sw. Bell Tel. Co. v. Miller, 583 P.2d 1042 (Kan. Ct. App. 1978). · cites it 5× “K.S.A. 1977 Supp. 22-3101, the “inquisition” statute, has three subsections.”
Comprehensive Health of Planned Parenthood v. Kline, 197 P.3d 370 (Kan. 2008). · cites it 2× “3d 364 (2006), which arose out of Kline's issuance of inquisition subpoenas duces tecum under K.S.A. 22-3101(1). Our decision identified three constitutional privacy interests implicated by subpoenas for patient records directed to Women's Health Care Services of Wichita, P.”
Show all 26 citing cases →
— K.S.A. § 22-3101(1) — 9 cases
Alpha Med. Clinic v. Anderson, 128 P.3d 364 (Kan. 2006). “The Criminal Inquisition Statutory Scheme K.S.A. 2004 Supp. 22-3101 et seq. governs the conduct of inquisitions in criminal cases in Kansas.”
Comprehensive Health of Planned Parenthood v. Kline, 197 P.3d 370 (Kan. 2008). “3d 364 (2006), which arose out of Kline's issuance of inquisition subpoenas duces tecum under K.S.A. 22-3101(1). Our decision identified three constitutional privacy interests implicated by subpoenas for patient records directed to Women's Health Care Services of Wichita, P.”
State v. Gonzalez, 234 P.3d 1 (Kan. 2010). “Inquisition subpoenas under K.S.A. 22-3101 are subject to the district court’s inherent power to prevent prosecutorial abuse of the judicial process.”
State Ex Rel. Cranford v. Bishop, 640 P.2d 1271 (Kan. 1982). “The question presented is: Does a district judge have authority to refuse to issue subpoenas under K.S.A. 1980 Supp. 22-3101 after an application for an inquisition has been filed? That statute states: "(1) If the attorney general, an assistant attorney general, or the county…”
In re Kline, 311 P.3d 321 (Kan. 2013).
— K.S.A. § 22-3101(2) — 7 cases
State v. Schultz, 850 P.2d 818 (Kan. 1993). “Pursuant to K.S.A. 22-3101(2) inquisition subpoenas, Christy obtained Schultz' bank records from the Bank of Commerce in Chanute, Kansas, and his telephone records from Southwestern Bell Telephone Company (SWB).”
Alpha Med. Clinic v. Anderson, 128 P.3d 364 (Kan. 2006). “The Criminal Inquisition Statutory Scheme K.S.A. 2004 Supp. 22-3101 et seq. governs the conduct of inquisitions in criminal cases in Kansas.”
State v. Cathey, 741 P.2d 738 (Kan. 1987). “An inquisition, K.S.A. 22-3101 et seq., equates with routine questioning of witnesses by law enforcement officers during an investigation of a possible crime.”
Sw. Bell Tel. Co. v. Miller, 583 P.2d 1042 (Kan. Ct. App. 1978). “K.S.A. 1977 Supp. 22-3101, the “inquisition” statute, has three subsections.”
In Re the Investigation Into the Homicide of T.H., 932 P.2d 1023 (Kan. Ct. App. 1997). “Further, the witness contends this court should find K.S.A. 22-3101 etseq. violates the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and § 10 of the Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights.”
— K.S.A. § 22-3101(3) — 4 cases
Alpha Med. Clinic v. Anderson, 128 P.3d 364 (Kan. 2006). “The Criminal Inquisition Statutory Scheme K.S.A. 2004 Supp. 22-3101 et seq. governs the conduct of inquisitions in criminal cases in Kansas.”
State v. Cathey, 741 P.2d 738 (Kan. 1987). “An inquisition, K.S.A. 22-3101 et seq., equates with routine questioning of witnesses by law enforcement officers during an investigation of a possible crime.”
State v. Turner, 333 P.3d 155 (Kan. 2014). “2d 1023 (1997), where a Court of Appeals panel opined that pursuant to statutory language and interpretive caselaw, “a person called as a witness in an inquisition under K.S.A. 22-3101 et seq. is not provided blanket immunity from answering questions, and the district court…”
In Re the Investigation Into the Homicide of T.H., 932 P.2d 1023 (Kan. Ct. App. 1997). “Further, the witness contends this court should find K.S.A. 22-3101 etseq. violates the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and § 10 of the Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights.”
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.