K.S.A. » Chapter 65
Kansas Statutes Annotated

K.S.A. § 65-4151 (2026)

Repealed

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

65-4151.

History: L. 1981, ch. 140, § 2; L. 2006, ch. 211, § 9; L. 2007, ch. 169, § 7; Repealed, L. 2009, ch. 32, § 64; July 1.

CASE ANNOTATIONS

1. Factors provide adequate guidelines to prevent arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement. State v. Dunn, 233 Kan. 411, 419, 427, 428, 429, 662 P.2d 1286 (1983).

2. Not error to allow cross-examination if defendant testified as to factors hereunder. State v. Walter, 234 Kan. 78, 82, 670 P.2d 1354 (1983).


Previous | Next

www.ksrevisor.gov 2026
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10 cases, 1983–2019 · leading case: State v. Mallard, 40 S.W.3d 473 (Tenn. 2001).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Mallard, 40 S.W.3d 473 (Tenn. 2001). “§ 329-1 (Michie 1993); Idaho Code § 37-2701 (n) (1994); Kan.Stat.Ann. § 65-4151 (1992); Ky.Rev.Stat.”
State v. Dunn, 662 P.2d 1286 (Kan. 1983). · cites it 2× “K.S.A. 1982 Supp. 65-4152 states that “[no] person shall use or possess with intent to use” drug paraphernalia.”
State v. McAdam, 83 P.3d 161 (Kan. 2004). “65-4161(g) indicates it was the legislature’s intent to make K.S.A. 65-4151 a general statute, which only applies when no other statute will.”
United States v. Almanza-Vigil, 912 F.3d 1310 (10th Cir. 2019). “3d at 1145 (discussing Kan. Stat. Ann. §§ 65-4151 (a), 65-4163(a)(3) ).”
State v. Landis, 156 P.3d 675 (Kan. Ct. App. 2007). “Other Issues Raised by Landis In addition, Landis raises the following two arguments in his brief: (1) that he should be granted a new trial because the State failed to disclose an agreement of leniency with one of its witnesses; *424 (2) that the trial court abused its…”
State v. Lundquist, 55 P.3d 928 (Kan. Ct. App. 2002). “K.S.A. 65-4151 lists 14 factors to consider in determining whether an object is drug paraphernalia.”
State v. Walter, 670 P.2d 1354 (Kan. 1983). “K.S.A. 1982 Supp. 65-4151, relative to drug paraphernalia, provides in part: “In determining whether an object is drug paraphernalia, a court or other authority shall consider, in addition to all other logically relevant factors, the following: “(a) Statements by an owner or…”
State v. Daniels, 17 P.3d 373 (Kan. Ct. App. 2000). “In light of the proper limiting instruction given when the testimony was elicited and reviewing the instructions as a whole, the instruction given at the end of the trial cannot be said to amount to reversible error.”
State v. Hill, 823 P.2d 201 (Kan. Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 2× “K.S.A. 65-4151 lists 14 factors to consider in determining whether an object is drug paraphernalia.”
State v. McMillan, 242 P.3d 203 (Kan. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 2× “65-4150(c)(12); K.S.A.2007 Supp. 65-4151(d), (n). The Zig Zag papers were found in a locked box that contained other items of drug paraphernalia.”
— K.S.A. § 65-4151(d) — 1 case
State v. McMillan, 242 P.3d 203 (Kan. Ct. App. 2010). “65-4150(c)(12); K.S.A.2007 Supp. 65-4151(d), (n). The Zig Zag papers were found in a locked box that contained other items of drug paraphernalia.”
— K.S.A. § 65-4151(e) — 1 case
State v. Hill, 823 P.2d 201 (Kan. Ct. App. 1991). “K.S.A. 65-4151 lists 14 factors to consider in determining whether an object is drug paraphernalia.”
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.