K.S.A. » Chapter 47
Kansas Statutes Annotated

K.S.A. § 47-1827 (2026)

Animal facilities and field crop production areas; prohibited acts; criminal penalties

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

47-1827. Animal facilities and field crop production areas; prohibited acts; criminal penalties. (a) No person shall:

(1) Without the consent of the owner, damage or destroy an animal facility or any animal or property in or on an animal facility;

(2) enter or remain upon or in any animal facility, including flying an aircraft within the airspace directly above such animal facility but below the minimum safe altitude prescribed in 14 C.F.R. 91.119(c), as in effect on July 1, 2024, without the consent of the owner; or

(3) knowingly make false statements on an employment application to gain access to an animal facility.

(b) No person shall:

(1) Without the consent of the owner, damage or destroy any field crop product that is grown in the context of a product development program in conjunction or coordination with a private research facility, a university or any federal, state or local governmental agency;

(2) enter or remain upon or in any property in a field crop production area of a product development program in conjunction or coordination with a private research facility, a university or any federal, state or local government entity, including flying an aircraft within the airspace directly above such property area but below the minimum safe altitude prescribed in 14 C.F.R. 91.119(c), as in effect on July 1, 2024, without the consent of the owner; or

(3) knowingly make false statements on an employment application to gain access to a field crop production area of a product development program in conjunction or coordination with a private research facility, a university or any federal, state or governmental agency.

(c) (1) Violation of subsection (a)(1) or (b)(1) is a:

(A) Class A nonperson misdemeanor, except as provided in subparagraph (B) or (C);

(B) severity level 9, nonperson felony if property damaged or destroyed is of a value of more than $1,000 but less than $25,000; or

(C) severity level 7, nonperson felony if the property damaged or destroyed is of a value more than $25,000.

(2) Violation of subsection (a)(2) or (b)(2) is a class A nonperson misdemeanor.

(3) Violation of subsection (a)(3) or (b)(3) is a class B nonperson misdemeanor.

(d) The provisions of this section shall not apply to lawful activities of any governmental agency or employees or agents thereof carrying out their duties under law.

History: L. 1990, ch. 192, § 3; L. 2001, ch. 90, § 3; L. 2006, ch. 194, § 32; L. 2024, ch. 109, § 3; July 1.

CASE ANNOTATIONS

1. Subsections (b), (c) and (d) held as unconstitutional because such provisions are content-based and viewpoint-discriminatory restrictions on speech. Animal Legal Defense Fund v. Kelly, 434 F. Supp. 3d 974, 1003 (D. Kan. 2019).

2. Provision prohibiting persons from entering or remaining on animal facility with intent to damage enterprise attempts to forbid speech and not merely non-expressive conduct and is not viewpoint neutral; intent to damage enterprise does not constitute harm necessary for false speech to be unprotected under the 1st amendment to the U.S. constitution. Animal Legal Defense Fund v. Kelly, 9 F.4th 1219, 1232 (10th Cir. 2021).


Previous | Next

www.ksrevisor.gov 2026
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases, 2020–2020 · leading case: Animal Legal Def. Fund v. Kelly (D. Kan. 2020).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Animal Legal Def. Fund v. Kelly (D. Kan. 2020). · cites it 146× “2 In relevant part, K.S.A. § 47-1827 provides as follows: (a) No person shall, without the effective consent of the owner and with the intent to damage the enterprise conducted at the animal facility, damage or destroy an animal facility or any animal or property in or on an…”
Animal Legal Def. Fund v. Kelly (D. Kan. 2020). · cites it 49× “On cross-motions for summary judgment, the Court determined that defendants were entitled to summary judgment on their argument that plaintiffs did not have standing to challenge K.S.A. § 47-1827(a) and K.S.A. § 47-1828, and that plaintiffs were entitled to summary judgment on…”
Animal Legal Def. Fund v. Kelly (D. Kan. 2020). · cites it 6× “On January 22, 2020, the Court held that as a matter of law, plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge K.S.A. § 47-1827(a) and K.S.A. § 47-1828, but had standing to challenge K.”
— K.S.A. § 47-1827(a) — 3 cases
Animal Legal Def. Fund v. Kelly (D. Kan. 2020). “2 In relevant part, K.S.A. § 47-1827 provides as follows: (a) No person shall, without the effective consent of the owner and with the intent to damage the enterprise conducted at the animal facility, damage or destroy an animal facility or any animal or property in or on an…”
Animal Legal Def. Fund v. Kelly (D. Kan. 2020). “On cross-motions for summary judgment, the Court determined that defendants were entitled to summary judgment on their argument that plaintiffs did not have standing to challenge K.S.A. § 47-1827(a) and K.S.A. § 47-1828, and that plaintiffs were entitled to summary judgment on…”
Animal Legal Def. Fund v. Kelly (D. Kan. 2020). “On January 22, 2020, the Court held that as a matter of law, plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge K.S.A. § 47-1827(a) and K.S.A. § 47-1828, but had standing to challenge K.”
— K.S.A. § 47-1827(b) — 3 cases
Animal Legal Def. Fund v. Kelly (D. Kan. 2020). “2 In relevant part, K.S.A. § 47-1827 provides as follows: (a) No person shall, without the effective consent of the owner and with the intent to damage the enterprise conducted at the animal facility, damage or destroy an animal facility or any animal or property in or on an…”
Animal Legal Def. Fund v. Kelly (D. Kan. 2020). “On cross-motions for summary judgment, the Court determined that defendants were entitled to summary judgment on their argument that plaintiffs did not have standing to challenge K.S.A. § 47-1827(a) and K.S.A. § 47-1828, and that plaintiffs were entitled to summary judgment on…”
Animal Legal Def. Fund v. Kelly (D. Kan. 2020). “On January 22, 2020, the Court held that as a matter of law, plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge K.S.A. § 47-1827(a) and K.S.A. § 47-1828, but had standing to challenge K.”
— K.S.A. § 47-1827(c) — 2 cases
Animal Legal Def. Fund v. Kelly (D. Kan. 2020). “2 In relevant part, K.S.A. § 47-1827 provides as follows: (a) No person shall, without the effective consent of the owner and with the intent to damage the enterprise conducted at the animal facility, damage or destroy an animal facility or any animal or property in or on an…”
Animal Legal Def. Fund v. Kelly (D. Kan. 2020). “On cross-motions for summary judgment, the Court determined that defendants were entitled to summary judgment on their argument that plaintiffs did not have standing to challenge K.S.A. § 47-1827(a) and K.S.A. § 47-1828, and that plaintiffs were entitled to summary judgment on…”
— K.S.A. § 47-1827(c)(4) — 1 case
Animal Legal Def. Fund v. Kelly (D. Kan. 2020). “2 In relevant part, K.S.A. § 47-1827 provides as follows: (a) No person shall, without the effective consent of the owner and with the intent to damage the enterprise conducted at the animal facility, damage or destroy an animal facility or any animal or property in or on an…”
— K.S.A. § 47-1827(d) — 2 cases
Animal Legal Def. Fund v. Kelly (D. Kan. 2020). “2 In relevant part, K.S.A. § 47-1827 provides as follows: (a) No person shall, without the effective consent of the owner and with the intent to damage the enterprise conducted at the animal facility, damage or destroy an animal facility or any animal or property in or on an…”
Animal Legal Def. Fund v. Kelly (D. Kan. 2020). “On cross-motions for summary judgment, the Court determined that defendants were entitled to summary judgment on their argument that plaintiffs did not have standing to challenge K.S.A. § 47-1827(a) and K.S.A. § 47-1828, and that plaintiffs were entitled to summary judgment on…”
— K.S.A. § 47-1827(d)(1) — 1 case
Animal Legal Def. Fund v. Kelly (D. Kan. 2020). “2 In relevant part, K.S.A. § 47-1827 provides as follows: (a) No person shall, without the effective consent of the owner and with the intent to damage the enterprise conducted at the animal facility, damage or destroy an animal facility or any animal or property in or on an…”
— K.S.A. § 47-1827(d)(1)(A) — 1 case
Animal Legal Def. Fund v. Kelly (D. Kan. 2020). “2 In relevant part, K.S.A. § 47-1827 provides as follows: (a) No person shall, without the effective consent of the owner and with the intent to damage the enterprise conducted at the animal facility, damage or destroy an animal facility or any animal or property in or on an…”
— K.S.A. § 47-1827(d)(2)(C) — 1 case
Animal Legal Def. Fund v. Kelly (D. Kan. 2020). “2 In relevant part, K.S.A. § 47-1827 provides as follows: (a) No person shall, without the effective consent of the owner and with the intent to damage the enterprise conducted at the animal facility, damage or destroy an animal facility or any animal or property in or on an…”
— K.S.A. § 47-1827(g) — 1 case
Animal Legal Def. Fund v. Kelly (D. Kan. 2020). “2 In relevant part, K.S.A. § 47-1827 provides as follows: (a) No person shall, without the effective consent of the owner and with the intent to damage the enterprise conducted at the animal facility, damage or destroy an animal facility or any animal or property in or on an…”
— K.S.A. § 47-1827(g)(2) — 1 case
Animal Legal Def. Fund v. Kelly (D. Kan. 2020). “2 In relevant part, K.S.A. § 47-1827 provides as follows: (a) No person shall, without the effective consent of the owner and with the intent to damage the enterprise conducted at the animal facility, damage or destroy an animal facility or any animal or property in or on an…”
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.