State v. Coates, 286 Mont. 41 (Mont. 1997). · Go Syfert
Search
State v. Coates, 286 Mont. 41 (Mont. 1997). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
159 citation events (132 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Planned Parenthood v. State (mont, 2025-06-09)
Treatment trajectory · 1997 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1997 2011 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 14 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see" Planned Parenthood v. State
Mont. · 2025 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Scheetz, 286 Mont. 41, 46-47 , 950 P.2d 722, 724-25 (1997) (reasoning that Montana has broader privacy protections in search and seizure jurisprudence, and U.S. Supreme Court law is “not determinative” of whether a government action constitutes a search); State v. Martinez, 2003 MT 65, ¶ 51 , 314 Mont. 434 , 67 P.3d 207 (declining to adopt U.S. Supreme Court reasoning on reliability requirements for anonymous tips in the search and seizure context because this “Court has repeatedly held that the unique language of Article II, Section 10[,] of the Montana Constitution, which…
discussed Cited "see" State v. T. Staker (2×)
Mont. · 2021 · signal: see · confidence high
See Scheetz, 286 Mont. at 48-49 , 950 P.2d at 726 -27 (citing Katz, 389 U.S. at 351-52 , 88 S. Ct. at 511 ).
discussed Cited "see" State v. S. Hoover (2×)
Mont. · 2017 · signal: accord · confidence high
A search infringes upon an individual’s right to privacy while a seizure “deprives the individual of dominion over his or her person or property.” State v. Loh, 275 Mont. 460, 468 , 914 P.2d 592, 597 (1996) (quoting Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128, 133 , 110 S. Ct. 2301, 2306 (1990)); accord State v. Scheetz, 286 Mont. 41, 46 , 950 P.2d 722, 724 (1997) (government infringement of a reasonable expectation of privacy constitutes a search).
examined Cited "see" State v. Hamper (7×)
Mont. · 2008 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Scheetz, 286 Mont. 41, 46 , 950 P.2d 722, 724 (1997).
examined Cited "see" State v. Goetz (4×)
Mont. · 2008 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Scheetz, 286 Mont. 41, 46 , 950 P.2d 722, 724 (1997).
examined Cited "see" State v. Moody (4×)
Mont. · 2006 · signal: accord · confidence high
We have defined a "search" as "a visual examination, or the use of some other means of gathering evidence, which infringes upon a person's reasonable expectation of privacy." State v. Carlson, 198 Mont. 113, 119 , 644 P.2d 498, 501 (1982); accord State v. Scheetz, 286 Mont. 41, 46 , 950 P.2d 722, 724-25 (1997); State v. Elison, 2000 MT 288, ¶ 48 , 302 Mont. 228, ¶ 48 , 14 P.3d 456, ¶ 48 ; State v. Roper, 2001 MT 96, ¶ 14 , 305 Mont. 212, ¶ 14 , 26 P.3d 741, ¶ 14 ; State v. Boyer, 2002 MT 33, ¶ 39 , 308 Mont. 276, ¶ 39 , 42 P.3d 771, ¶ 39 .
discussed Cited "see" State v. a Blue in Color, 1993 Chevrolet Pickup (2×)
Mont. · 2005 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Scheetz (1997), 286 Mont. 41, 48 , 950 P.2d 722, 726 (desire to protect one’s privacy lies “at the foundation [of] the constitutional safeguards that exist to protect” it). ¶42 Our further rejection of Hill’s claim to a reasonable expectation of privacy in his duffel bags is accurately related by the Court.
discussed Cited "see" State v. Boyer (2×)
Mont. · 2002 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Scheetz (1997), 286 Mont. 41, 46 , 950 P.2d 722, 724-25 .
discussed Cited "see" People v. Haley (2×)
Colo. · 2001 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Scheetz, 286 Mont. 41 , 950 P.2d 722, 725 (1997) (noting that although states are free to grant citizens greater protection based on state constitutional provisions than the United States Supreme Court divines from the United States Constitution, most states that have addressed the use of drug-detecting canines have followed United States v. Place in holding that their use does not constitute a search); see generally Brian L.
discussed Cited "see" State v. Elison (2×)
Mont. · 2000 · signal: see · confidence high
See Scheetz, 286 Mont. at 50-51 , 950 P.2d at 727 .
discussed Cited "see" Deserly v. Department of Corrections (2×)
Mont. · 2000 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Sheetz (1997), 286 Mont. 41, 45-47 , 950 P.2d 722, 724-25 (citations omitted).
discussed Cited "see" State v. Bassett (2×)
Mont. · 1999 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Scheetz (1997), 286 Mont. 41, 51 , 950 P.2d 722, 728 .
discussed Cited "see" State v. Allen
Mont. · 1998 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Scheetz (1997), 286 Mont. 41, 44 , 950 P.2d 722, 724 ; State v. Graham (1995), 271 Mont. 510, 512 , 898 P.2d 1206, 1207-08 . ¶10 Pursuant to Miranda v. Arizona (1966), 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S. Ct. 1602 , 16 L.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." State v. Therriault (2×)
Mont. · 2000 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also State v. Scheetz (1997), 286 Mont. 41, 48-51 , 950 P.2d 722, 726-28 (holding that the use of a drug-detecting canine to inspect checked airline luggage does not offensively intrude upon or invade a person's privacy so as to constitute a search).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
STATE OF MONTANA
v.
Mark S. Coates
NO. ADC 96-169.
Montana Supreme Court.
Jun 13, 1997.
286 Mont. 41
Published

On December 11, 1996, it was ordered, adjudged and decreed that for the offense of Sexual Intercourse Without Consent, a felony, the defendant is sentenced to the Montana Department of Corrections for a period of twenty-five (25) years, with fifteen (15) years suspended, upon the conditions hereinafter set forth. The Department may place the defendant into an appropriate community based program, facility, or a State correctional institution. The Court recommends the defendant be placed under the intensive supervision program when determined to be eligible for that program by Montana Department of Corrections personnel. The Court recommends that in the event the defendant is returned to the prison from a community placement that he not be granted parole until he has successfully completed sex offender therapy at Montana State Prison, as deemed necessary by the Classification Committee at the prison. Conditions of defendant’s probation/parole are stated in the December 11, 1996 judgment.

On May 8,1997, the Defendant’s application for review of that sentence was heard by the Sentence Review Division of the Montana Supreme Court.

The Defendant was present and proceeded Pro Se. The state was not represented.

Before hearing the application, the Defendant was advised that the Sentence Review Division has the authority not only to reduce the sentence or affirm it, but also to increase it. The defendant was further advised that there is no appeal from a decision of the Sentence Review Division. The defendant acknowledged that he understood this and stated that he wished to proceed.

Rule 17 of the Rules of the Sentence Review Division provides: "The sentence imposed by the District Court is presumed correct, and the sentence will not be reduced or increased unless it is deemed clearly inadequate or excessive." (Section 45-18-904(3),[*42] MCA.) The Division finds that the reasons advanced for modification are insufficient to hold that the sentence imposed by the District Court is inadequate or excessive.

DATED this 13th day of June, 1997.

After careful consideration, it is the unanimous decision of the Sentence Review Division that the sentence shall be affirmed.

Done in open Court this 8th day of May, 1997.

Chairman, Hon. Jeffrey M. Sherlock, Member, Hon. Wm. Neis Swandal and Alternate Member, Hon. Robert Boyd.

The Sentence Review Board wishes to thank Mark S. Coates for representing himself in this matter.