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

K.S.A. § 60-4106 (2026)

Exemptions; court required to determine whether proposed forfeitures are unconstitutionally excessive

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

60-4106. Exemptions; court required to determine whether proposed forfeitures are unconstitutionally excessive. (a) Except as provided in this subsection, all property, including all interests in property, described in K.S.A. 60-4105, and amendments thereto, is subject to forfeiture subject to all mortgages, deeds of trust, financing statements or security agreements properly of record prior to the forfeiture held by an interest holder.

(1) No real property or conveyance, or an interest therein, may be forfeited under this act unless the offense or conduct giving rise to forfeiture constitutes a felony, except as provided in the Kansas land and military installation protection act, K.S.A. 48-3801 et seq., and amendments thereto.

(2) No conveyance used by any person as a common carrier in the transaction of business as a common carrier is subject to forfeiture under this act unless the owner or other person in charge of the conveyance is a consenting party or privy to a violation of this act.

(3) No property is subject to forfeiture under this act if the owner or interest holder acquired the property before or during the conduct giving rise to the property's forfeiture, and such owner or interest holder:

(A) Did not know and could not have reasonably known of the act or omission or that it was likely to occur; or

(B) acted reasonably to prevent the conduct giving rise to forfeiture.

(4) No property is subject to forfeiture if the owner or interest holder acquired the property after the conduct giving rise to the property's forfeiture, including acquisition of proceeds of conduct giving rise to forfeiture, and such owner or interest holder:

(A) Acquired the property in good faith, for value; and

(B) was not knowingly taking part in an illegal transaction.

(5) (A) An interest in property acquired in good faith by an attorney as reasonable payment or to secure payment for legal services in a criminal matter relating to violations of this act or for the reimbursement of reasonable expenses related to the legal services is exempt from forfeiture unless before the interest was acquired the attorney knew of a judicial determination of probable cause that the property is subject to forfeiture.

(B) The state bears the burden of proving that an exemption claimed under this section is not applicable. Evidence made available by the compelled disclosure of confidential communications between an attorney and a client other than nonprivileged information relating to attorney fees, is not admissible to satisfy the state's burden of proof.

(b) Notwithstanding subsection (a), property is not exempt from forfeiture, even though the owner or interest holder lacked knowledge or reason to know that the conduct giving rise to property's forfeiture had occurred or was likely to occur, if the:

(1) Person whose conduct gave rise to the property's forfeiture had authority to convey the property of the person claiming the exemption to a good faith purchaser for value at the time of the conduct;

(2) owner or interest holder is criminally responsible for the conduct giving rise to the property's forfeiture, whether or not there is a prosecution or conviction; or

(3) owner or interest holder acquired the property with notice of the property's actual or constructive seizure for forfeiture under this act, or with reason to believe that the property was subject to forfeiture under this act.

(c) Prior to final judgment in a judicial forfeiture proceeding, the court shall determine whether the proposed forfeiture is unconstitutionally excessive pursuant to K.S.A. 60-4112(g), and amendments thereto, if the court has not made such determination earlier in the proceeding as a result of a petition filed pursuant to K.S.A. 60-4112(g), and amendments thereto.

History: L. 1994, ch. 339, § 6; L. 2018, ch. 26, § 4; L. 2024, ch. 79, § 2; L. 2025, ch. 68, § 11; July 1.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1998–2026 · leading case: State Ex Rel. Topeka Police Dep't v. $895.00 U.S. Currency, 133 P.3d 91 (Kan. 2006).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State Ex Rel. Topeka Police Dep't v. $895.00 U.S. Currency, 133 P.3d 91 (Kan. 2006). · cites it 21× “60-4111(a) as an “interest holder,” subject to conditions enumerated in K.S.A. 60-4106, to file a claim in the forfeiture action.”
Kansas High. Patrol ex rel. Settle v. 1985 Chevrolet Astro Van VinIGCDM15NOFB177466, 954 P.2d 718 (Kan. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 4× ““(h) If the plaintiff’s attorney fails to meet the burden of proof for forfeiture, or a claimant establishes by a preponderance of the evidence that the claimant has an interest that is exempt under the provisions of K.S.A. 60-4106, the court shall order the interest in the…”
State Ex Rel. Kansas High. Patrol v. One 1995 Chevrolet Caprice Classic/Impala SS VIN 31G1BL52P8SR191732, 382 P.3d 476 (Kan. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 4× “Exemptions to forfeiture are listed in K.S.A. 60-4106. Requiring a timely, written, sworn claim that specifies the claimed exemption fulfills three purposes: (1) it gives the forfeiting agency time to see if the property is exempt; (2) it deters false claims; and (3) it gives…”
El-Ali v. State, 428 S.W.3d 824 (Tex. 2014). “); Kan. Stat. Ann. § 60-4106 (a) (West, Westlaw through 2013 Reg.”
City of Hoisington v. $2,044 in U.S. Currency, 8 P.3d 58 (Kan. Ct. App. 2000). “K.S.A. 60-4106(c) lists the factors that are to be considered in determining whether a forfeiture is grossly disproportionate: “(1) The gain received or expected to be received by an owner from conduct that allows forfeiture; “(2) die value of the property subject to forfeiture;…”
State v. Black 1999 Lexus Es300, 244 P.3d 1274 (Kan. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 15× “The forfeiture of Wurtz’ Lexus was not grossly disproportionate to his conduct, and K.S.A. 60-4106 is not unconstitutionally vague.”
United States v. Chandler, 18 F. Supp. 2d 1240 (D. Kan. 1998). · cites it 4× “The affiant, therefore, concluded that the leased vehicle was shielded from forfeiture pursuant to K.S.A. § 60-4106(a)(3)(A). It noted the previous seizure of the cash and jewelry and stated a remaining forfeiture balance of $11,-937.”
State Ex Rel. Lawrence/Douglas Cnty. Drug Enf't Unit v. $17,023 in U.S. Currency, 321 P.3d 551 (Kan. Ct. App. 2014). “Exemptions to forfeiture are listed in K.S.A. 60-4106. “The plaintiff s attorney may make an opportunity to file a petition for recognition of exemption available.”
State ex rel. Kansas High. Patrol v. $381,620 in U.S. Currency (Kan. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 2× “The Claimant, Bryce Robert Fuleki, asserts exemption from forfeiture as expressed in K.S.A. 60-4106, or any other provisions of K.”
Michael Lerner (Bankr. D. Kan. 2019). “That act contains its own exemptions, codified at K.S.A. 60-4106; they bear no resemblance to the exemptions codified in K.”
State v. $59,000 in U.S. Currency (Kan. Ct. App. 2026). “Because the district court did not comply with the mandates of the Act, its forfeiture order was invalid.”
— K.S.A. § 60-4106(a) — 1 case
State Ex Rel. Topeka Police Dep't v. $895.00 U.S. Currency, 133 P.3d 91 (Kan. 2006). “60-4111(a) as an “interest holder,” subject to conditions enumerated in K.S.A. 60-4106, to file a claim in the forfeiture action.”
— K.S.A. § 60-4106(a)(3) — 1 case
Kansas High. Patrol ex rel. Settle v. 1985 Chevrolet Astro Van VinIGCDM15NOFB177466, 954 P.2d 718 (Kan. Ct. App. 1998). ““(h) If the plaintiff’s attorney fails to meet the burden of proof for forfeiture, or a claimant establishes by a preponderance of the evidence that the claimant has an interest that is exempt under the provisions of K.S.A. 60-4106, the court shall order the interest in the…”
— K.S.A. § 60-4106(a)(3)(A) — 2 cases
Kansas High. Patrol ex rel. Settle v. 1985 Chevrolet Astro Van VinIGCDM15NOFB177466, 954 P.2d 718 (Kan. Ct. App. 1998). ““(h) If the plaintiff’s attorney fails to meet the burden of proof for forfeiture, or a claimant establishes by a preponderance of the evidence that the claimant has an interest that is exempt under the provisions of K.S.A. 60-4106, the court shall order the interest in the…”
United States v. Chandler, 18 F. Supp. 2d 1240 (D. Kan. 1998). “The affiant, therefore, concluded that the leased vehicle was shielded from forfeiture pursuant to K.S.A. § 60-4106(a)(3)(A). It noted the previous seizure of the cash and jewelry and stated a remaining forfeiture balance of $11,-937.”
— K.S.A. § 60-4106(a)(5)(A) — 1 case
State Ex Rel. Topeka Police Dep't v. $895.00 U.S. Currency, 133 P.3d 91 (Kan. 2006). “60-4111(a) as an “interest holder,” subject to conditions enumerated in K.S.A. 60-4106, to file a claim in the forfeiture action.”
— K.S.A. § 60-4106(b)(3) — 1 case
State Ex Rel. Topeka Police Dep't v. $895.00 U.S. Currency, 133 P.3d 91 (Kan. 2006). “60-4111(a) as an “interest holder,” subject to conditions enumerated in K.S.A. 60-4106, to file a claim in the forfeiture action.”
— K.S.A. § 60-4106(c) — 2 cases
City of Hoisington v. $2,044 in U.S. Currency, 8 P.3d 58 (Kan. Ct. App. 2000). “K.S.A. 60-4106(c) lists the factors that are to be considered in determining whether a forfeiture is grossly disproportionate: “(1) The gain received or expected to be received by an owner from conduct that allows forfeiture; “(2) die value of the property subject to forfeiture;…”
State v. Black 1999 Lexus Es300, 244 P.3d 1274 (Kan. Ct. App. 2011). “The forfeiture of Wurtz’ Lexus was not grossly disproportionate to his conduct, and K.S.A. 60-4106 is not unconstitutionally vague.”
— K.S.A. § 60-4106(c)(l) — 1 case
State v. Black 1999 Lexus Es300, 244 P.3d 1274 (Kan. Ct. App. 2011). “The forfeiture of Wurtz’ Lexus was not grossly disproportionate to his conduct, and K.S.A. 60-4106 is not unconstitutionally vague.”
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.