The House Committee on Judiciary heard testimony Thursday on House Bill 2347, a proposal that would alter Kansas theft law to let prosecutors rely on an objective "reason to know" standard for possession of stolen property and make motor vehicles stolen at values below $1,500 a severity level 10 nonperson felony.

Supporters said the bill targets common theft scenarios in which a person is found inside a vehicle taken from another person but there are no witnesses to the original theft. The change to the knowledge requirement would allow juries to consider outward evidence — broken glass, a punched steering column or lack of keys — when determining whether someone “had reason to know” the vehicle was stolen.

"The prosecutor shouldn't have to prove what's in the mind of the thief," said Jan Jarman, deputy city attorney for the City of Wichita and one of the bill's proponents. She told the committee that changing the standard from knowing to "having reason to know" lets jurors weigh objective indicators when direct proof of the thief's state of mind is unavailable.

Ed Klump, appearing for the Kansas Association of Chiefs of Police, the Kansas Sheriffs Association and the Kansas Peace Officers Association, said auto theft is a continuing problem in Kansas and that many stolen vehicles are later used in other crimes. "The auto theft problem is a continuing problem in Kansas," he said, adding the state averaged roughly 8,373 motor vehicle thefts per year from 2020 through 2023.

The bill's second change would treat motor vehicles stolen with a value under $1,500 as a severity level 10 nonperson felony rather than a misdemeanor. Proponents said the change recognizes the disproportionate harm vehicle loss inflicts on households that rely on low‑value cars for work and daily needs.

Committee members questioned how the bill would treat inoperable or scrap vehicles. Representative John Carmichael asked whether a 1988 Blazer worth $150 in scrap would be classified as a motor vehicle under the proposal and therefore subject to felony prosecution if taken. Jason Thompson of the reviser's office told the panel there is no single definition of "motor vehicle" in the referenced criminal statute and that common usage — not operability — typically controls; he recommended adding a clear statutory definition.

Proponents signaled willingness to work on a definition that would focus the felony provision on vehicles that function as transportation. "I do think that it would be a good idea to drop a definition into this statute of motor vehicle," Jarman said.

No formal vote was taken on HB 2347; the committee closed the hearing and the chair said the committee planned to "work" the bill at a Monday session, meaning committee members will consider amendments and possible action then.

If the committee advances the bill, sponsors said they expect to add language limiting the felony provision to vehicles used for transportation rather than toall self‑propelled machinery or scrap that would better fit scrap‑metal laws.

Ending: The committee did not take final action Thursday; staff and proponents agreed to draft clarifying definitions for further consideration when the bill returns to committee.