K.S.A. » Chapter 60
Kansas Statutes Annotated

K.S.A. § 60-31a02 (2026)

Definitions

✓ laws through the 2026 session (checked Sept. 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section KS-LEGkslegislature.org JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

60-31a02. Definitions. As used in the protection from stalking, sexual assault or human trafficking act:

(a) "Human trafficking" means any act that would constitute human trafficking or aggravated human trafficking, as defined by K.S.A. 21-5426, and amendments thereto, or commercial sexual exploitation of a child, as defined by K.S.A. 21-6422, and amendments thereto, or an act that, if committed by an adult, would constitute selling sexual relations, as defined by K.S.A. 21-6419, and amendments thereto.

(b) "Human trafficking victim" means a person who has been subjected to an act that would constitute human trafficking or aggravated human trafficking, as defined by K.S.A. 21-5426, and amendments thereto, or commercial sexual exploitation of a child, as defined by K.S.A. 21-6422, and amendments thereto, or has committed an act that, if committed by an adult, would constitute selling sexual relations, as defined by K.S.A. 21-6419, and amendments thereto.

(c) "Sexual assault" means:

(1) A nonconsensual sexual act; or

(2) an attempted sexual act against another by force, threat of force, duress or when the person is incapable of giving consent.

(d) "Stalking" means an intentional harassment of another person that places the other person in reasonable fear for that person's safety.

(1) "Harassment" means a knowing and intentional course of conduct directed at a specific person that seriously alarms, annoys, torments or terrorizes the person, and that serves no legitimate purpose. "Harassment" shall include any course of conduct carried out through the use of an unmanned aerial system over or near any dwelling, occupied vehicle or other place where one may reasonably expect to be safe from uninvited intrusion or surveillance.

(2) "Course of conduct" means conduct consisting of two or more separate acts over a period of time, however short, evidencing a continuity of purpose which would cause a reasonable person to suffer substantial emotional distress. Constitutionally protected activity is not included within the meaning of "course of conduct."

(e) "Unmanned aerial system" means a powered, aerial vehicle that:

(1) Does not carry a human operator;

(2) uses aerodynamic forces to provide vehicle lift;

(3) may fly autonomously or be piloted remotely;

(4) may be expendable or recoverable; and

(5) may carry a lethal or nonlethal payload.

History: L. 2002, ch. 141, § 2; L. 2016, ch. 58, § 3; L. 2017, ch. 66, § 4; L. 2018, ch. 110, § 5; July 1.

CASE ANNOTATIONS

1. K.S.A. 60-31a01 is not unconstitutionally overbroad and does not infringe on First Amendment speech rights. Smith v. Martens, 279 Kan. 242, 106 P.3d 28 (2005).

2. Protection from stalking act construed liberally to protect victims; preponderance of evidence applies. Wentland v. Uhlarik, 37 Kan. App. 2d 734, 736, 738, 159 P.3d 1035 (2007).

3. A protection from stalking order was an improper restraint on the defendant's constitutionally protected freedom of speech because the statement made was non-threatening and the order was not shown to serve a compelling government interest. State v. Smith, 57 Kan. App. 2d 312, 324, 452 P.3d 382 (2019).

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 21 cases (11 in the last 5 years), 2005–2026 · leading case: Smith v. Martens, 106 P.3d 28 (Kan. 2005).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Smith v. Martens, 106 P.3d 28 (Kan. 2005). · cites it 10× “Constitutionality of K.S.A. 2003 Supp. 60-31a01 et seq. Martens contends that K.”
Wentland v. Uhlarik, 159 P.3d 1035 (Kan. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 5× “The district court’s ruling, and our analysis, turn upon a reading of K.S.A. 60-31a02, which provides the following definitions: “(a) ‘Stalking’ means an intentional harassment of another person that places the other person in reasonable fear for that person’s safety.”
State v. Smith, 452 P.3d 382 (Kan. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 6× “at 254-56 (finding the predecessor to K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 60-31a02 is not unconstitutionally overbroad).”
Holick v. Burkhart, 388 F. Supp. 3d 1370 (D. Kan. 2019). · cites it 2× “K.S.A. § 60-31a02. Within 21 days of filing a PFS petition, "a hearing shall be held at which the plaintiff must prove the allegation of stalking," and "the defendant shall have the opportunity to present evidence.”
City of Lincoln Ctr. v. Farmway Co-Op, Inc., 316 P.3d 707 (Kan. 2013). “3d 28 (2005) (“[The criminal stalking statute,] K.S.A. 2003 Supp. 60-31a02[,] is not unconstitutionally vague on its face because two objective standards are used to modify the terms alarms, annoys, torments, or terrorizes .”
C.M. v. McKee, 54 Kan. App. 2d 318 (Kan. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 4× “See K.S.A. 2016 Supp. 60-31a02[d].) Based on these statutory definitions, a valid stalking claim (not involving the use of an aerial drone) would require proof of: • At least two separate acts; • Directed at a specific person; • Intentionally done; • Showing a continuity of…”
S.F. v. D.S., No. 122212 (Kan. Ct. App. Apr. 23, 2021). · cites it 10× “And K.S.A. 2017 Supp. 60-31a02, which defines stalking, states: "(b) 'Stalking' means an intentional harassment of another person that places the other person in reasonable fear for that person's safety.”
Goodman v. Loughridge, 474 P.3d 308 (Kan. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 5× “K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 60-31a05(a). "'Stalking' means an intentional harassment of another person that places the other person in reasonable fear for that person's safety.”
R.W. v. C.M., 513 P.3d 501 (Kan. Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 5× “does not specify what evidence was uncontested or why her evidence satisfied each element of stalking as defined in K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 60-31a02. And she provides no explanation as to why the district court's disregard of any uncontroverted evidence was arbitrary or based on some…”
State v. Jamil, 585 P.3d 360 (Kan. Ct. App. 2026). · cites it 5× “K.S.A. 60-31a02(d)(1) defines "harassment" as "a knowing and intentional course of conduct directed at a specific person that seriously alarms, annoys, torments or terrorizes the person, and that serves no legitimate purpose.”
B.K. v. A.P., 563 P.3d 267 (Kan. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 4× “See K.S.A. 2023 Supp. 60-31a02. Furthermore, the district court found that A.”
J.D.K. v. D.D.B., 522 P.3d 400 (Kan. Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 3× “He began by paraphrasing the definitions of the terms in K.S.A. 2021 Supp. 60-31a02 that are required to be shown to establish a claim of stalking.”
Show all 21 citing cases →
K.S.A. § 60-31a02(a): 1 case
C.M. v. McKee, 54 Kan. App. 2d 318 (Kan. Ct. App. 2017). “See K.S.A. 2016 Supp. 60-31a02[d].) Based on these statutory definitions, a valid stalking claim (not involving the use of an aerial drone) would require proof of: • At least two separate acts; • Directed at a specific person; • Intentionally done; • Showing a continuity of…”
K.S.A. § 60-31a02(b): 3 cases
S.F. v. D.S., No. 122212 (Kan. Ct. App. Apr. 23, 2021). “And K.S.A. 2017 Supp. 60-31a02, which defines stalking, states: "(b) 'Stalking' means an intentional harassment of another person that places the other person in reasonable fear for that person's safety.”
C.M. v. McKee, 54 Kan. App. 2d 318 (Kan. Ct. App. 2017). “See K.S.A. 2016 Supp. 60-31a02[d].) Based on these statutory definitions, a valid stalking claim (not involving the use of an aerial drone) would require proof of: • At least two separate acts; • Directed at a specific person; • Intentionally done; • Showing a continuity of…”
J.M.D. v. L.G.H., 587 P.3d 771 (Kan. Ct. App. 2026).
K.S.A. § 60-31a02(c): 2 cases
Wentland v. Uhlarik, 159 P.3d 1035 (Kan. Ct. App. 2007). “The district court’s ruling, and our analysis, turn upon a reading of K.S.A. 60-31a02, which provides the following definitions: “(a) ‘Stalking’ means an intentional harassment of another person that places the other person in reasonable fear for that person’s safety.”
C.M. v. McKee, 54 Kan. App. 2d 318 (Kan. Ct. App. 2017). “See K.S.A. 2016 Supp. 60-31a02[d].) Based on these statutory definitions, a valid stalking claim (not involving the use of an aerial drone) would require proof of: • At least two separate acts; • Directed at a specific person; • Intentionally done; • Showing a continuity of…”
K.S.A. § 60-31a02(d): 9 cases
State v. Smith, 452 P.3d 382 (Kan. Ct. App. 2019). “at 254-56 (finding the predecessor to K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 60-31a02 is not unconstitutionally overbroad).”
R.W. v. C.M., 513 P.3d 501 (Kan. Ct. App. 2022). “does not specify what evidence was uncontested or why her evidence satisfied each element of stalking as defined in K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 60-31a02. And she provides no explanation as to why the district court's disregard of any uncontroverted evidence was arbitrary or based on some…”
J.P. v. G.S., 557 P.3d 911 (Kan. Ct. App. 2024).
T.C. v. Faler, No. 122187 (Kan. Ct. App. July 17, 2020).
Goodman v. Loughridge, 474 P.3d 308 (Kan. Ct. App. 2020). “K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 60-31a05(a). "'Stalking' means an intentional harassment of another person that places the other person in reasonable fear for that person's safety.”
K.S.A. § 60-31a02(d)(1): 8 cases
State v. Smith, 452 P.3d 382 (Kan. Ct. App. 2019). “at 254-56 (finding the predecessor to K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 60-31a02 is not unconstitutionally overbroad).”
State v. Jamil, 585 P.3d 360 (Kan. Ct. App. 2026). “K.S.A. 60-31a02(d)(1) defines "harassment" as "a knowing and intentional course of conduct directed at a specific person that seriously alarms, annoys, torments or terrorizes the person, and that serves no legitimate purpose.”
State v. Evans, 584 P.3d 646 (Kan. 2026).
Goodman v. Loughridge, 474 P.3d 308 (Kan. Ct. App. 2020). “K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 60-31a05(a). "'Stalking' means an intentional harassment of another person that places the other person in reasonable fear for that person's safety.”
R.W. v. C.M., 513 P.3d 501 (Kan. Ct. App. 2022). “does not specify what evidence was uncontested or why her evidence satisfied each element of stalking as defined in K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 60-31a02. And she provides no explanation as to why the district court's disregard of any uncontroverted evidence was arbitrary or based on some…”
K.S.A. § 60-31a02(d)(2): 6 cases
State v. Smith, 452 P.3d 382 (Kan. Ct. App. 2019). “at 254-56 (finding the predecessor to K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 60-31a02 is not unconstitutionally overbroad).”
Goodman v. Loughridge, 474 P.3d 308 (Kan. Ct. App. 2020). “K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 60-31a05(a). "'Stalking' means an intentional harassment of another person that places the other person in reasonable fear for that person's safety.”
R.W. v. C.M., 513 P.3d 501 (Kan. Ct. App. 2022). “does not specify what evidence was uncontested or why her evidence satisfied each element of stalking as defined in K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 60-31a02. And she provides no explanation as to why the district court's disregard of any uncontroverted evidence was arbitrary or based on some…”
J.D.K. v. D.D.B., 522 P.3d 400 (Kan. Ct. App. 2023). “He began by paraphrasing the definitions of the terms in K.S.A. 2021 Supp. 60-31a02 that are required to be shown to establish a claim of stalking.”
B.K. v. A.P., 563 P.3d 267 (Kan. Ct. App. 2025). “See K.S.A. 2023 Supp. 60-31a02. Furthermore, the district court found that 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.