WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

HB 2697

Modifying the crime of unlawful acts involving theft detection shielding devices to include possessing, with the intent to commit theft, a computer program, application, software or other device adapted, designed or commonly used to operate a lock or locks on or start a motor vehicle without an ignition key or key fob, or to copy, store information relating to, or interfere with those functions and providing for exceptions.

2025-2026 Regular Session

Kansas bill criminalizes possession of vehicle-unlocking software/devices intended for theft, targeting digital methods criminals use to bypass modern keyless car systems.

Died in Committee
#crimes #punishmentandcriminalprocedure
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · HB 2697

Legislative bill overview

HB 2697 expands Kansas's existing theft detection device laws to criminalize possession of software, applications, or devices designed to unlock vehicles or copy/interfere with vehicle lock and ignition systems when possessed with intent to commit theft. The bill adds these digital tools to the same legal category as physical theft-detection bypass devices, with specific exceptions for authorized use.

Why is this important

Vehicle theft has increasingly shifted to digital methods, with thieves using relay attacks, signal boosters, and software exploits to bypass modern keyless entry systems. This bill attempts to close a legal gap by criminalizing the tools used in these tech-enabled thefts before they're deployed, potentially deterring organized theft rings and protecting vehicle owners from rising "relay theft" incidents.

Potential points of contention

  • Overbroad language: Terms like "adapted, designed or commonly used" could potentially capture legitimate security research tools, diagnostic software, or automotive repair equipment if the intent threshold isn't clearly proven in prosecution
  • Intent requirement challenges: Proving someone possessed software "with the intent to commit theft" before any theft occurs creates evidentiary burdens and raises questions about when possession becomes criminal versus exploratory
  • Exception specificity: The bill mentions exceptions but doesn't detail them in the provided text—unclear whether legitimate uses (vehicle owners, mechanics, security researchers) are adequately protected from prosecution

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.