Kansas

At a glance

Oversight body

None for crime labs. No forensic science commission or lab oversight board was found. The Kansas Bureau of Investigation keeps criminal identification records (K.S.A. 75-712) and runs the state DNA databank (21-2511(h)). Reports from the KBI, the Kansas Highway Patrol, the Johnson County Sheriff’s laboratory and the Sedgwick County Regional Forensic Science Center are listed as admissible by certificate (22-3437).

Lab accreditation

DNA profiles only. “No profile records shall be accepted for admission or comparison unless obtained in substantial compliance with the provisions of this section by an accredited forensic laboratory meeting the national DNA index system guidelines” (K.S.A. 21-2511(h)(3)). KBI rules must require compliance with national quality-assurance standards (21-2511(i)(2)). No general accreditation mandate for other forensic disciplines was found.

Analyst licensing

None. A forensic certificate under K.S.A. 22-3437 must state the analyst’s “training or experience to perform the analysis.” Breath-test operators must be certified by the Department of Health and Environment under K.S.A. 65-1,107 et seq. (22-3437(a)(1)).

Admissibility standard

K.S.A. 60-456(b), as amended by 2026 SB 398 (approved April 7, 2026; effective July 1, 2026). The proponent must now demonstrate “that it is more likely than not that” (1) the expert’s knowledge will help the trier of fact, (2) the testimony rests on sufficient facts or data, (3) it is the product of reliable principles and methods, and (4) “the expert’s opinion reflects a reliable application of the principles and methods to the facts of the case” (SB 398 enrolled). That matches the 2023 change to Federal Rule 702. The reliability conditions themselves date from 2014 (L. 2014, ch. 84). The act took effect July 1, 2026, on publication in the statute book (§ 3; L. 2026, ch. 71). As of October 20, 2026, the revisor’s page for 60-456 still shows the 2014 text; the enrolled act controls.

Post-conviction forensic relief

No changed-science statute. DNA only. A person in state custody convicted of first-degree murder or rape may petition for DNA testing of material not tested before, or that “can be subjected to retesting with new DNA techniques that provide a reasonable likelihood of more accurate and probative results” (K.S.A. 21-2512(a)(3)). Testing is ordered if it “may produce noncumulative, exculpatory evidence” (21-2512(c)). Favorable results of “such materiality that a reasonable probability exists that the new evidence would result in a different outcome” require a hearing, and the court may vacate, discharge, resentence or order a new trial (21-2512(f)(2)).

DNA database scope

Arrestee-based. Samples are required from anyone required to register under the offender registration act, and from any adult arrested or charged, or juvenile placed in custody or charged, for any felony or for listed sex-related and other misdemeanors, “regardless of the sentence imposed” (K.S.A. 21-2511(a)). Samples are taken at booking (21-2511(c)). On petition, the KBI “shall expunge” the sample and profile if a court finds no probable cause, if charges are dismissed and not appealed, or after an overturned or expunged conviction or an acquittal (21-2511(f)).

Facial recognition

No statute on police use of facial recognition found. A legislature search for “facial recognition” in the 2025–2026 biennium returned only notary and identification bills (search).

Changes, 2023 to 2026

• Jul 1, 2026

  Expert testimony statute adopts the 2023 federal Rule 702 standard

  2026 SB 398, K.S.A. 60-456Approved April 7, 2026; effective July 1, 2026, on publication in the statute book (§ 3; L. 2026, ch. 71; K.S.A. 45-311).

  Before, a qualified expert could testify “if” the testimony was based on sufficient facts or data, was the product of reliable principles and methods, and “the witness has reliably applied the principles and methods.” Now the expert may testify “if the proponent demonstrates to the court that it is more likely than not that” four conditions are met: helpfulness to the trier of fact (moved from the opening clause into the list), sufficient facts or data, reliable principles and methods, and “the expert’s opinion reflects a reliable application” of them to the facts. Lay opinion in 60-456(a) is reworded in the same style. Subsection (c), under which the finding is deemed made unless the judge excludes the testimony, and subsection (d) on ultimate issues are unchanged. The House passed the bill 124-0 on March 18, 2026, and the Senate adopted the conference report 39-0 on March 26, 2026 (bill history).

  For practitioners: The proponent of forensic expert testimony, for either side, now carries a stated preponderance burden on every condition, including whether the method was reliably applied in this case.

  SB 398 enrolled SB 398 KLRD 2026 Summary of Legislation

Pending bills

Checked and unchanged