Kansas lawmakers considered dozens of bills this week in what amounts to one of the busiest weeks of the annual legislative session.

Thursday marks the last day for a bill to advance out of the chamber in which it was introduced, with some exceptions. That meant it was crunch time in the Kansas House and Kansas Senate, with a little over a month left in the session.

Members debated everything from property rights to robot delivery devices during three days of floor debate, adjourning one day early.

But lawmakers will return to Topeka next Tuesday to address a host of controversial topics that remain on the agenda. Those include finalizing the state budget, handling controversial bills on curriculum in schools and considering changes to the state's election laws.

The Kansas Senate approved a measure that would bar city and county governments from banning plastic bags, a move critics say flies in the face of giving local officials control over their own affairs.

The state's business community, including the powerful Kansas Chamber, pushed for the bill, arguing that it would help prevent a patchwork of local regulations that would be difficult for retailers to keep up with.

Eight states have banned plastic bags within their borders, as have major cities across the country. Meanwhile, 18 states have pre-empted local governments from banning plastic bags and other containers, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

The Kansas proposal would preclude regulations related plastic bags, cups and other containers, as well as other materials, such as Styrofoam, paper or cardboard.

The move is largely targeted at Wichita, where officials have recently begun considering a plastic bag ban. A local survey, conducted on behalf of a city task force considering the issue, found 72% of residents would support a plastic bag ban.

"When simple convenience for business is given more weight than home rule, it is a sad day in Kansas," Sen. Mary Ware, D-Wichita, said on the Senate floor.

Environmental concerns include the fossil-fuel intensive process used to manufacture the bags, as well as their propensity to end up in landfills or blown into streams, lakes and other natural areas.

But businesses have argued a mix of local regulations is confusing to both retailers and consumers alike. Alternative, like paper bags, are also more expensive.

Proponents argue there is nothing stopping companies from dispensing with plastic bags if they so choose.

"We need uniformity in order to provide a consistent regulatory environment for our businesses and, ultimately, consumers can decide," said Sen. Renee Erickson, R-Wichita. "And that's what this bill is about. Let consumers decide what they want."

Meanwhile, in the Kansas House, legislators failed to amend a bill lengthening the window in which a search warrant can be executed to also include a prohibition on no-knock warrants.

The practice has drawn scrutiny nationally after the death of Breonna Taylor, a Black woman in Louisville, who was killed by officers executing a no-knock warrant. In Minneapolis, Minnesota, teenager Amir Locke was killed in similar circumstances by a SWAT team earlier this month.

"Mistakes do happen and lives are lost and you can’t get them back," said Rep. Barbara Ballard, D-Lawrence. "If this amendment at least addresses that in some way, shape or form, I will support it. Because that person that was in their bed and was sleeping and was killed, I feel an obligation to that person and their family as well."

At least four states — Florida, Oregon, Connecticut and Virginia — have banned no-knock warrants. A committee considered a similar measure earlier this year, authored by Rep. Brett Fairchild, R-St. John, but decided against moving the legislation.

But Rep. Eric Smith, R-Burlington, an undersheriff in Coffey County, said there are circumstances where a no-knock warrant is needed, pointing to the example of a "crazy" resident who is cooking meth and is known to have weapons.

"I’m not knocking on that door and I’m not going to make my guys knock on that door. … It is not frequent, it is not often and it is not every (time)," Smith said. "This is absolutely something that will have unintended consequences if we allow it."

Senators passed a bill that pits private property rights against law enforcement.

Senate Bill 395 would limit law enforcement officers from the Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks from conducting surveillance on private property. Officers would need a warrant, a constitutional authorization or exceptions for exigent circumstances, consensual searches or the plain view doctrine.

The provisions also apply to wildlife biologists and bio-technicians who are tracking wildlife movement or migration, though it wouldn't apply to KDWP employees who are searching for a missing person.

"It is about someone from the Department of Wildlife and Parks coming onto your private property without your knowledge or consent, putting up a camera, leaving, then coming back and taking that camera down," said Sen. Richard Hilderbrand, R-Baxter Springs.

The Kansas Farm Bureau has supported the idea. In written testimony on the House's version in HB 2025, the Farm Bureau said it opposes "giving any person or governmental agency authority for access to private property for inspection or investigation without permission from the property owner or operator."

Several law enforcement organizations and agencies, including the Department of Wildlife and Parks, have opposed such legislation in the past. They likened the bill to a "dismantling of the tools" that game wardens have to apprehend poachers while also threatening the detection of other crimes.

The bill does not appear to permit surveillance of private property when the camera is not on the subject property. It is also unclear whether the bill's definitions apply to drones.

Sen. Tom Hawk, D-Manhattan, called the bill "anti-law enforcement." Sen. Kellie Warren, R-Leawood, said the bill is "pro-law enforcement and pro-Fourth Amendment at the same time."

The U.S. Supreme Court has established the open field doctrine, finding that Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches do not extend to open fields.

"The purpose of this bill is to make sure that those (constitutional and property) rights are a priority, not the Wildlife and Parks, not what they deem is a priority," said Sen. Dennis Pyle, R-Hiawatha.

Sen. Tom Holland, D-Baldwin City, probed the origins of the bill during floor debate. Supporters did not identify which member of the Legislature first requested the legislation. He called the legislation "a bill searching for a problem" and a chance to "talk in an abstract way about personal property rights."

Warren and Sen. Caryn Tyson, R-Parker, said said there have been cases where surveillance cameras were erected without property owner consent.

"People may not be aware that ... Wildlife and Parks do not have to have any cause, any reason, to come on your property," Tyson said.

The Senate also passed SB 161, which would create new law related to personal delivery devices. Such robots are designed to use primarily sidewalks and crosswalks to deliver packages to homes.

The bill makes laws about vehicles not apply to the robots while authorizing them to use sidewalks and highways in any town, though local government could ban them. The autonomous devices would be required to yield to all vehicles and obey traffic signals and would not be allowed to block public rights-of-way.

"It's time to unplug the robot before it's too late," said Holland, who led the opposition to the bill.

"We need to thoroughly vet this," he said. Holland claimed "there wasn't a lot of appetite to work this bill" among lawmakers until "the Amazon lobbyist has now gone around."

Sen. Renee Erickson, R-Wichita, said the bill "has been thoroughly vetted."

"The beauty of this is, if a municipality doesn't like this, they don't have to participate," she said.

Pyle, who ultimately voted against the bill, asked whether legislators who worked the bill in the Commerce Committee a year ago had a chance to observe a delivery device.

"No, and no one requested to," said Sen. Kristen O'Shea, R-Topeka.

In February 2021, Jeff Cleland, the Amazon policy lead for state and local transportation, said the statute would allow the company to operate personal delivery devices like Amazon Scout. At the time, four communities in Washington, California, Georgia and Tennessee had devices operating.

"Customers, neighbors and even local pets are at first curious about Scout, but we have seen that the device quickly becomes a normal, welcome part of the neighborhood," Cleland said.

The Scout is a fully electric, autonomous delivery system that operates on pedestrian areas, such as sidewalks. The robot is the size of a cooler. Cleland said the device is safe and an environmentally friendly option for the last mile of deliveries.

FedEx Corporation also backed the bill, citing their delivery robot Roxo.

"As e-commerce trends and COVID-19 has driven demand for delivered goods at a record pace and volume among consumers and businesses alike, advances in technology such as personal delivery devices (PDDs) have never been more timely," testified Evan Oneto, a FedEx representative.

Working Kansas Alliance and Teamsters Joint Council 56 argued against the bill, citing safety concerns and the workforce impact. Jake Miller, of the alliance, called the bill "a job killer."

"These robots will replace hardworking Kansans," Miller said. "Over the last year, we have seen huge increases in unemployed Kansans as a result of the pandemic. If this bill is passed, the Legislature will add more Kansans to unemployment list."

Andrew Bahl is a senior statehouse reporter for the Topeka Capital-Journal. He can be reached at abahl@gannett.com or by phone at 443-979-6100.

Jason Tidd is a statehouse reporter for the Topeka Capital-Journal. He can be reached by email at jtidd@gannett.com. Follow him on Twitter @Jason_Tidd.