No warrant quashed for technicality

22-2511. No warrant quashed for technicality. No search warrant shall be quashed or evidence suppressed because of technical irregularities not affecting the substantial rights of the accused. History: L. 1970, ch. 129, § 22-2511; July 1. Law Review and Bar Journal References: Criminal Procedure Survey, 55 K.L.R. 797 (2007). CASE ANNOTATIONS 1. Applied and discussed; technical irregularities not prejudicial to defendant subsequent to an otherwise valid search and seizure. State v. Ames, 222 Kan. 88, 93, 563 P.2d 1034. 2. Search warrant regular on face; not illegal for lack of jurat signature. State v. Journey, 1 Kan. App. 2d 150, 151, 152, 562 P.2d 138. 3. Failure to give copy of return receipt on search warrant technical irregularity; conviction under K.S.A. 65-4127a affirmed. State v. Forsyth, 2 Kan. App. 2d 44, 47, 574 P.2d 241. 4. Challenged irregularities in obtaining search warrant held too technical and not affecting substantial rights of accused. State v. Jackson, 226 Kan. 302, 304, 597 P.2d 255. 5. Search warrant not invalidated by duplicitous returns if items referred to are identified as being the same and defendant is not surprised. State v. Boster, 4 Kan. App. 2d 355, 358, 606 P.2d 1035. 6. Failure to forthwith transcribe recorded oral testimony technical irregularity only; failure to challenge warrant not deficient representation. Hearron v. State, 10 Kan. App. 2d 229, 233, 234, 696 P.2d 418 (1985). 7. Cited; where judge made probable cause finding and intentionally issued search warrant, failure to sign mere technical irregularity. State v. Spaulding, 239 Kan. 439, 441, 442, 720 P.2d 1047 (1986). 8. Cited; whether technical irregularities in execution of search warrant substantially affected rights of accused examined. State v. Holloman, 240 Kan. 589, 595, 731 P.2d 294 (1987). 9. Technical irregularities after valid search and seizure, lack of specificity in describing premises to be searched held harmless error. State v. LeFort, 248 Kan. 332, 335, 806 P.2d 986 (1991). 10. False statements and omissions in warrant did not rise to the level of deliberate falsehoods or reckless disregard for the truth. State v. Francis, 282 Kan. 120, 134, 145 P.3d 48 (2006). 11. Infirmity in arrest warrants held not to be mere irregularities which court could overlook. State v. Belt, 285 Kan. 949, 961, 179 P.3d 443 (2008). 12. Discrepancy in search warrant date and timing of placement of second tracking device constituted technical irregularities that did not affect legality of search warrant. State v. Campbell, 317 Kan. 511, 534, 532 P.3d 425 (2023). Previous | Next LEGISLATIVE COORDINATING COUNCIL General Policies 2026 Archived LCC Documents Archived LCC Meetings REVISOR OF STATUTES Archived Session Documents Archived School Finance Documents USEFUL LINKS Session Laws Kansas Administrative Regulations OTHER LEGISLATIVE SITES Kansas Legislature Administrative Services Division of Post Audit Research Department Contact Us PDF Help www.ksrevisor.gov 2026