Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
8 Montana opinions name it 1 courts 1982–2021 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Montana courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Jonesgreen2 sentences2012See Jones, 132 S. Ct. at 950-52 (applying “the common-law trespassory test,” rather than the Katz test, where the government attached a GPS tracking device to the defendant’s vehicle and used it to monitor the vehicle’s movements on public streets); see also Jones, 132 S. Ct. at 954-55 (Sotomayor, J., concurring). 2012See Jones, 132 S. Ct. at 950-52 (applying “the common-law trespassory test,” rather than the Katz test, where the government attached a GPS tracking device to the defendant’s vehicle and used it to monitor the vehicle’s movements on public streets); see also Jones, 132 S. Ct. at 954-55 (Sotomayor, J., concurring). | 2 | 2 |
Katz v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2020When previously faced with the balancing of these interests, we have commonly applied the two-prong Katz test, see Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 , 88 S. Ct. 507 (1967). 2020When previously faced with the balancing of these interests, we have commonly applied the two-prong Katz test, see Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 , 88 S. Ct. 507 (1967). | 1 | 3 |
Smith v. Marylandred2 sentences2021See Oliver v. United States, 466 U.S. 170, 177-81 , 104 S. Ct. 1735, 1740-42 (1984) (noting post-Katz displacement of former open fields/curtilage analysis); Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735, 740-41 , 99 S. Ct. 2577, 2580 (1979). 8 In contrast, a constitutional “seizure” occurs when government action “deprives [an] individual of dominion over his or her person or property.” Loh, 275 Mont. at 468 , 914 P.2d at 597 (quoting Horton, 496 U.S. at 133 , 110 S. Ct. at 2306 ). 7 Mont. 117, 121 , 666 P.2d 747, 749 (1983) (applying threshold Fourth Amendment “search” test from Katz as threshold “search” 2021See Oliver v. United States, 466 U.S. 170, 177-81 , 104 S. Ct. 1735, 1740-42 (1984) (noting post-Katz displacement of former open fields/curtilage analysis); Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735, 740-41 , 99 S. Ct. 2577, 2580 (1979). 8 In contrast, a constitutional “seizure” occurs when government action “deprives [an] individual of dominion over his or her person or property.” Loh, 275 Mont. at 468 , 914 P.2d at 597 (quoting Horton, 496 U.S. at 133 , 110 S. Ct. at 2306 ). 7 Mont. 117, 121 , 666 P.2d 747, 749 (1983) (applying threshold Fourth Amendment “search” test from Katz as threshold “search” | 1 | 1 |
State v. Charvatgreen2 sentences2021See Oliver v. United States, 466 U.S. 170, 177-81 , 104 S. Ct. 1735, 1740-42 (1984) (noting post-Katz displacement of former open fields/curtilage analysis); Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735, 740-41 , 99 S. Ct. 2577, 2580 (1979). 8 In contrast, a constitutional “seizure” occurs when government action “deprives [an] individual of dominion over his or her person or property.” Loh, 275 Mont. at 468 , 914 P.2d at 597 (quoting Horton, 496 U.S. at 133 , 110 S. Ct. at 2306 ). 7 Mont. 117, 121 , 666 P.2d 747, 749 (1983) (applying threshold Fourth Amendment “search” test from Katz as threshold “search” 2021See Oliver v. United States, 466 U.S. 170, 177-81 , 104 S. Ct. 1735, 1740-42 (1984) (noting post-Katz displacement of former open fields/curtilage analysis); Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735, 740-41 , 99 S. Ct. 2577, 2580 (1979). 8 In contrast, a constitutional “seizure” occurs when government action “deprives [an] individual of dominion over his or her person or property.” Loh, 275 Mont. at 468 , 914 P.2d at 597 (quoting Horton, 496 U.S. at 133 , 110 S. Ct. at 2306 ). 7 Mont. 117, 121 , 666 P.2d 747, 749 (1983) (applying threshold Fourth Amendment “search” test from Katz as threshold “search” | 1 | 1 |
State v. Bennettgreen1 sentence2021See Oliver v. United States, 466 U.S. 170, 177-81 , 104 S. Ct. 1735, 1740-42 (1984) (noting post-Katz displacement of former open fields/curtilage analysis); Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735, 740-41 , 99 S. Ct. 2577, 2580 (1979). 8 In contrast, a constitutional “seizure” occurs when government action “deprives [an] individual of dominion over his or her person or property.” Loh, 275 Mont. at 468 , 914 P.2d at 597 (quoting Horton, 496 U.S. at 133 , 110 S. Ct. at 2306 ). 7 Mont. 117, 121 , 666 P.2d 747, 749 (1983) (applying threshold Fourth Amendment “search” test from Katz as threshold “search” | 1 | 1 |
State v. Scheetzgreen2 sentences2021State v. Stewart, 2012 MT 317 ¶¶ 33-34 , 367 Mont. 503 , 291 P.3d 1187 ; Allen, ¶¶ 47-61; Goetz, ¶¶ 25 and 27-37; State v. Tackitt, 2003 MT 81, ¶ 17 , 315 Mont. 59 , 67 P.3d 295 ; Boyer, ¶ 20; Hardaway, ¶ 16; State v. Scheetz, 286 Mont. 41, 46 , 950 P.2d 722, 726 (1997); State v. Loh, 275 Mont. 460, 468 , 914 P.2d 592, 597 (1996) (quoting Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128, 133-34 , 110 S. Ct. 2301, 2306 (1990));8 Bullock, 272 Mont. at 377 , 901 P.2d at 71 ; State v. Bennett, 205 7 The now-canon two-part reasonable expectation of privacy test generally referred to as the Katz test was actually 2021State v. Stewart, 2012 MT 317 ¶¶ 33-34 , 367 Mont. 503 , 291 P.3d 1187 ; Allen, ¶¶ 47-61; Goetz, ¶¶ 25 and 27-37; State v. Tackitt, 2003 MT 81, ¶ 17 , 315 Mont. 59 , 67 P.3d 295 ; Boyer, ¶ 20; Hardaway, ¶ 16; State v. Scheetz, 286 Mont. 41, 46 , 950 P.2d 722, 726 (1997); State v. Loh, 275 Mont. 460, 468 , 914 P.2d 592, 597 (1996) (quoting Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128, 133-34 , 110 S. Ct. 2301, 2306 (1990));8 Bullock, 272 Mont. at 377 , 901 P.2d at 71 ; State v. Bennett, 205 7 The now-canon two-part reasonable expectation of privacy test generally referred to as the Katz test was actually | 1 | 1 |
State v. Lohgreen2 sentences2021State v. Stewart, 2012 MT 317 ¶¶ 33-34 , 367 Mont. 503 , 291 P.3d 1187 ; Allen, ¶¶ 47-61; Goetz, ¶¶ 25 and 27-37; State v. Tackitt, 2003 MT 81, ¶ 17 , 315 Mont. 59 , 67 P.3d 295 ; Boyer, ¶ 20; Hardaway, ¶ 16; State v. Scheetz, 286 Mont. 41, 46 , 950 P.2d 722, 726 (1997); State v. Loh, 275 Mont. 460, 468 , 914 P.2d 592, 597 (1996) (quoting Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128, 133-34 , 110 S. Ct. 2301, 2306 (1990));8 Bullock, 272 Mont. at 377 , 901 P.2d at 71 ; State v. Bennett, 205 7 The now-canon two-part reasonable expectation of privacy test generally referred to as the Katz test was actually 2021State v. Stewart, 2012 MT 317 ¶¶ 33-34 , 367 Mont. 503 , 291 P.3d 1187 ; Allen, ¶¶ 47-61; Goetz, ¶¶ 25 and 27-37; State v. Tackitt, 2003 MT 81, ¶ 17 , 315 Mont. 59 , 67 P.3d 295 ; Boyer, ¶ 20; Hardaway, ¶ 16; State v. Scheetz, 286 Mont. 41, 46 , 950 P.2d 722, 726 (1997); State v. Loh, 275 Mont. 460, 468 , 914 P.2d 592, 597 (1996) (quoting Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128, 133-34 , 110 S. Ct. 2301, 2306 (1990));8 Bullock, 272 Mont. at 377 , 901 P.2d at 71 ; State v. Bennett, 205 7 The now-canon two-part reasonable expectation of privacy test generally referred to as the Katz test was actually | 1 | 1 |
Horton v. Californiagreen2 sentences2021State v. Stewart, 2012 MT 317 ¶¶ 33-34 , 367 Mont. 503 , 291 P.3d 1187 ; Allen, ¶¶ 47-61; Goetz, ¶¶ 25 and 27-37; State v. Tackitt, 2003 MT 81, ¶ 17 , 315 Mont. 59 , 67 P.3d 295 ; Boyer, ¶ 20; Hardaway, ¶ 16; State v. Scheetz, 286 Mont. 41, 46 , 950 P.2d 722, 726 (1997); State v. Loh, 275 Mont. 460, 468 , 914 P.2d 592, 597 (1996) (quoting Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128, 133-34 , 110 S. Ct. 2301, 2306 (1990));8 Bullock, 272 Mont. at 377 , 901 P.2d at 71 ; State v. Bennett, 205 7 The now-canon two-part reasonable expectation of privacy test generally referred to as the Katz test was actually 2021State v. Stewart, 2012 MT 317 ¶¶ 33-34 , 367 Mont. 503 , 291 P.3d 1187 ; Allen, ¶¶ 47-61; Goetz, ¶¶ 25 and 27-37; State v. Tackitt, 2003 MT 81, ¶ 17 , 315 Mont. 59 , 67 P.3d 295 ; Boyer, ¶ 20; Hardaway, ¶ 16; State v. Scheetz, 286 Mont. 41, 46 , 950 P.2d 722, 726 (1997); State v. Loh, 275 Mont. 460, 468 , 914 P.2d 592, 597 (1996) (quoting Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128, 133-34 , 110 S. Ct. 2301, 2306 (1990));8 Bullock, 272 Mont. at 377 , 901 P.2d at 71 ; State v. Bennett, 205 7 The now-canon two-part reasonable expectation of privacy test generally referred to as the Katz test was actually | 1 | 1 |
Oliver v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2021See Oliver v. United States, 466 U.S. 170, 177-81 , 104 S. Ct. 1735, 1740-42 (1984) (noting post-Katz displacement of former open fields/curtilage analysis); Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735, 740-41 , 99 S. Ct. 2577, 2580 (1979). 8 In contrast, a constitutional “seizure” occurs when government action “deprives [an] individual of dominion over his or her person or property.” Loh, 275 Mont. at 468 , 914 P.2d at 597 (quoting Horton, 496 U.S. at 133 , 110 S. Ct. at 2306 ). 7 Mont. 117, 121 , 666 P.2d 747, 749 (1983) (applying threshold Fourth Amendment “search” test from Katz as threshold “search” 2021See Oliver v. United States, 466 U.S. 170, 177-81 , 104 S. Ct. 1735, 1740-42 (1984) (noting post-Katz displacement of former open fields/curtilage analysis); Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735, 740-41 , 99 S. Ct. 2577, 2580 (1979). 8 In contrast, a constitutional “seizure” occurs when government action “deprives [an] individual of dominion over his or her person or property.” Loh, 275 Mont. at 468 , 914 P.2d at 597 (quoting Horton, 496 U.S. at 133 , 110 S. Ct. at 2306 ). 7 Mont. 117, 121 , 666 P.2d 747, 749 (1983) (applying threshold Fourth Amendment “search” test from Katz as threshold “search” | 1 | 1 |
Smith v. Southern Ry.green2 sentences2021See Katz, 389 U.S. at 360-61 , 88 S. Ct. at 516 (Harlan, J., concurring). 2021See Katz, 389 U.S. at 360-61 , 88 S. Ct. at 516 (Harlan, J., concurring). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Nelsongreen2 sentences2020See Malcomson v. Liberty Nw., 2014 MT 242, ¶ 20 , 376 Mont. 306 , 339 P.3d 1235 (citing Gryczan v. State, 283 Mont. 433 , 942 P.2d 112 (1997), and State v. Nelson, 283 Mont. 231 , 941 P.2d 441 (1997), as examples of the test being applied to right of privacy cases). 2020See Malcomson v. Liberty Nw., 2014 MT 242, ¶ 20 , 376 Mont. 306 , 339 P.3d 1235 (citing Gryczan v. State, 283 Mont. 433 , 942 P.2d 112 (1997), and State v. Nelson, 283 Mont. 231 , 941 P.2d 441 (1997), as examples of the test being applied to right of privacy cases). | 1 | 1 |
Gryczan v. Stategreen2 sentences2020See Malcomson v. Liberty Nw., 2014 MT 242, ¶ 20 , 376 Mont. 306 , 339 P.3d 1235 (citing Gryczan v. State, 283 Mont. 433 , 942 P.2d 112 (1997), and State v. Nelson, 283 Mont. 231 , 941 P.2d 441 (1997), as examples of the test being applied to right of privacy cases). 2020See Malcomson v. Liberty Nw., 2014 MT 242, ¶ 20 , 376 Mont. 306 , 339 P.3d 1235 (citing Gryczan v. State, 283 Mont. 433 , 942 P.2d 112 (1997), and State v. Nelson, 283 Mont. 231 , 941 P.2d 441 (1997), as examples of the test being applied to right of privacy cases). | 1 | 1 |
Malcomson v. Liberty Northwestgreen2 sentences2020See Malcomson v. Liberty Nw., 2014 MT 242, ¶ 20 , 376 Mont. 306 , 339 P.3d 1235 (citing Gryczan v. State, 283 Mont. 433 , 942 P.2d 112 (1997), and State v. Nelson, 283 Mont. 231 , 941 P.2d 441 (1997), as examples of the test being applied to right of privacy cases). 2020See Malcomson v. Liberty Nw., 2014 MT 242, ¶ 20 , 376 Mont. 306 , 339 P.3d 1235 (citing Gryczan v. State, 283 Mont. 433 , 942 P.2d 112 (1997), and State v. Nelson, 283 Mont. 231 , 941 P.2d 441 (1997), as examples of the test being applied to right of privacy cases). | 1 | 1 |
Minnesota v. Cartergreen2 sentences2010Cf. Minnesota v. Carter, 525 U.S. 83, 97 , 119 S. Ct. 469, 477 (1998) (Scalia & Thomas, JJ., concurring) (“In my view, the only thing the past three decades have established about the Katz test (which has come to mean the test enunciated by Justice Harlan’s separate concurrence in Katz) is that, unsurprisingly, those ‘actual (subjective) expectations of privacy’ ‘that society is prepared to recognize as “reasonable,” ’ bear an uncanny resemblance to those expectations of privacy that this Court considers reasonable.” (citations omitted)). ¶105 Lastly, it could be argued that the cases are dist 2010Cf. Minnesota v. Carter, 525 U.S. 83, 97 , 119 S. Ct. 469, 477 (1998) (Scalia & Thomas, JJ., concurring) (“In my view, the only thing the past three decades have established about the Katz test (which has come to mean the test enunciated by Justice Harlan’s separate concurrence in Katz) is that, unsurprisingly, those ‘actual (subjective) expectations of privacy’ ‘that society is prepared to recognize as “reasonable,” ’ bear an uncanny resemblance to those expectations of privacy that this Court considers reasonable.” (citations omitted)). ¶105 Lastly, it could be argued that the cases are dist | 1 | 1 |
Kyllo v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2010“The Katz test-whether the individual has an expectation of privacy that society is prepared to recognize as reasonable-has often been criticized as circular, and hence subjective and unpredictable.” Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27, 34 , 121 S. Ct. 2038, 2043 (2001) (citing critics). 2010“The Katz test-whether the individual has an expectation of privacy that society is prepared to recognize as reasonable-has often been criticized as circular, and hence subjective and unpredictable.” Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27, 34 , 121 S. Ct. 2038, 2043 (2001) (citing critics). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Whitegreen2 sentences2010See id. at 790 , 91 S. Ct. at 1145 . ¶118 I disagree with this approach for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that it is even more arbitrary and subjective than the original formulation of the Katz test. 2010See id. at 790 , 91 S. Ct. at 1145 . ¶118 I disagree with this approach for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that it is even more arbitrary and subjective than the original formulation of the Katz test. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Montana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Mancusi v. DeForte
green
2 sentences1995The controlling view, then, seems to be that expressed in Mancusi v. DeForte (1968), 392 U.S. 364 , 88 S.Ct. 2120 , 20 L.Ed.2d 1154 , in which the Court said that the Katz test of “ ‘legitimate expectation of privacy’ makes it clear that capacity to claim the protection of the Fourth Amendment depends not upon a property right in the invaded place, but upon whether the area was one in which there was a reasonable expectation of freedom from governmental intrusion.” See Mancusi, 392 U.S. at 368 , 88 S.Ct. at 2124 . 1995The controlling view, then, seems to be that expressed in Mancusi v. DeForte (1968), 392 U.S. 364 , 88 S.Ct. 2120 , 20 L.Ed.2d 1154 , in which the Court said that the Katz test of “ ‘legitimate expectation of privacy’ makes it clear that capacity to claim the protection of the Fourth Amendment depends not upon a property right in the invaded place, but upon whether the area was one in which there was a reasonable expectation of freedom from governmental intrusion.” See Mancusi, 392 U.S. at 368 , 88 S.Ct. at 2124 . | 2 | 1982–1995 |
State v. Coates
green
2 sentences2021State v. Stewart, 2012 MT 317 ¶¶ 33-34 , 367 Mont. 503 , 291 P.3d 1187 ; Allen, ¶¶ 47-61; Goetz, ¶¶ 25 and 27-37; State v. Tackitt, 2003 MT 81, ¶ 17 , 315 Mont. 59 , 67 P.3d 295 ; Boyer, ¶ 20; Hardaway, ¶ 16; State v. Scheetz, 286 Mont. 41, 46 , 950 P.2d 722, 726 (1997); State v. Loh, 275 Mont. 460, 468 , 914 P.2d 592, 597 (1996) (quoting Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128, 133-34 , 110 S. Ct. 2301, 2306 (1990));8 Bullock, 272 Mont. at 377 , 901 P.2d at 71 ; State v. Bennett, 205 7 The now-canon two-part reasonable expectation of privacy test generally referred to as the Katz test was actually 2021State v. Stewart, 2012 MT 317 ¶¶ 33-34 , 367 Mont. 503 , 291 P.3d 1187 ; Allen, ¶¶ 47-61; Goetz, ¶¶ 25 and 27-37; State v. Tackitt, 2003 MT 81, ¶ 17 , 315 Mont. 59 , 67 P.3d 295 ; Boyer, ¶ 20; Hardaway, ¶ 16; State v. Scheetz, 286 Mont. 41, 46 , 950 P.2d 722, 726 (1997); State v. Loh, 275 Mont. 460, 468 , 914 P.2d 592, 597 (1996) (quoting Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128, 133-34 , 110 S. Ct. 2301, 2306 (1990));8 Bullock, 272 Mont. at 377 , 901 P.2d at 71 ; State v. Bennett, 205 7 The now-canon two-part reasonable expectation of privacy test generally referred to as the Katz test was actually | 1 | 2021–2021 |
State v. Bullock
green
2 sentences2021State v. Stewart, 2012 MT 317 ¶¶ 33-34 , 367 Mont. 503 , 291 P.3d 1187 ; Allen, ¶¶ 47-61; Goetz, ¶¶ 25 and 27-37; State v. Tackitt, 2003 MT 81, ¶ 17 , 315 Mont. 59 , 67 P.3d 295 ; Boyer, ¶ 20; Hardaway, ¶ 16; State v. Scheetz, 286 Mont. 41, 46 , 950 P.2d 722, 726 (1997); State v. Loh, 275 Mont. 460, 468 , 914 P.2d 592, 597 (1996) (quoting Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128, 133-34 , 110 S. Ct. 2301, 2306 (1990));8 Bullock, 272 Mont. at 377 , 901 P.2d at 71 ; State v. Bennett, 205 7 The now-canon two-part reasonable expectation of privacy test generally referred to as the Katz test was actually 2021State v. Stewart, 2012 MT 317 ¶¶ 33-34 , 367 Mont. 503 , 291 P.3d 1187 ; Allen, ¶¶ 47-61; Goetz, ¶¶ 25 and 27-37; State v. Tackitt, 2003 MT 81, ¶ 17 , 315 Mont. 59 , 67 P.3d 295 ; Boyer, ¶ 20; Hardaway, ¶ 16; State v. Scheetz, 286 Mont. 41, 46 , 950 P.2d 722, 726 (1997); State v. Loh, 275 Mont. 460, 468 , 914 P.2d 592, 597 (1996) (quoting Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128, 133-34 , 110 S. Ct. 2301, 2306 (1990));8 Bullock, 272 Mont. at 377 , 901 P.2d at 71 ; State v. Bennett, 205 7 The now-canon two-part reasonable expectation of privacy test generally referred to as the Katz test was actually | 1 | 2021–2021 |
State v. Tackitt
green
2 sentences2021State v. Stewart, 2012 MT 317 ¶¶ 33-34 , 367 Mont. 503 , 291 P.3d 1187 ; Allen, ¶¶ 47-61; Goetz, ¶¶ 25 and 27-37; State v. Tackitt, 2003 MT 81, ¶ 17 , 315 Mont. 59 , 67 P.3d 295 ; Boyer, ¶ 20; Hardaway, ¶ 16; State v. Scheetz, 286 Mont. 41, 46 , 950 P.2d 722, 726 (1997); State v. Loh, 275 Mont. 460, 468 , 914 P.2d 592, 597 (1996) (quoting Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128, 133-34 , 110 S. Ct. 2301, 2306 (1990));8 Bullock, 272 Mont. at 377 , 901 P.2d at 71 ; State v. Bennett, 205 7 The now-canon two-part reasonable expectation of privacy test generally referred to as the Katz test was actually 2021State v. Stewart, 2012 MT 317 ¶¶ 33-34 , 367 Mont. 503 , 291 P.3d 1187 ; Allen, ¶¶ 47-61; Goetz, ¶¶ 25 and 27-37; State v. Tackitt, 2003 MT 81, ¶ 17 , 315 Mont. 59 , 67 P.3d 295 ; Boyer, ¶ 20; Hardaway, ¶ 16; State v. Scheetz, 286 Mont. 41, 46 , 950 P.2d 722, 726 (1997); State v. Loh, 275 Mont. 460, 468 , 914 P.2d 592, 597 (1996) (quoting Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128, 133-34 , 110 S. Ct. 2301, 2306 (1990));8 Bullock, 272 Mont. at 377 , 901 P.2d at 71 ; State v. Bennett, 205 7 The now-canon two-part reasonable expectation of privacy test generally referred to as the Katz test was actually | 1 | 2021–2021 |
State v. Stewart
green
2 sentences2021State v. Stewart, 2012 MT 317 ¶¶ 33-34 , 367 Mont. 503 , 291 P.3d 1187 ; Allen, ¶¶ 47-61; Goetz, ¶¶ 25 and 27-37; State v. Tackitt, 2003 MT 81, ¶ 17 , 315 Mont. 59 , 67 P.3d 295 ; Boyer, ¶ 20; Hardaway, ¶ 16; State v. Scheetz, 286 Mont. 41, 46 , 950 P.2d 722, 726 (1997); State v. Loh, 275 Mont. 460, 468 , 914 P.2d 592, 597 (1996) (quoting Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128, 133-34 , 110 S. Ct. 2301, 2306 (1990));8 Bullock, 272 Mont. at 377 , 901 P.2d at 71 ; State v. Bennett, 205 7 The now-canon two-part reasonable expectation of privacy test generally referred to as the Katz test was actually 2021State v. Stewart, 2012 MT 317 ¶¶ 33-34 , 367 Mont. 503 , 291 P.3d 1187 ; Allen, ¶¶ 47-61; Goetz, ¶¶ 25 and 27-37; State v. Tackitt, 2003 MT 81, ¶ 17 , 315 Mont. 59 , 67 P.3d 295 ; Boyer, ¶ 20; Hardaway, ¶ 16; State v. Scheetz, 286 Mont. 41, 46 , 950 P.2d 722, 726 (1997); State v. Loh, 275 Mont. 460, 468 , 914 P.2d 592, 597 (1996) (quoting Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128, 133-34 , 110 S. Ct. 2301, 2306 (1990));8 Bullock, 272 Mont. at 377 , 901 P.2d at 71 ; State v. Bennett, 205 7 The now-canon two-part reasonable expectation of privacy test generally referred to as the Katz test was actually | 1 | 2021–2021 |
State v. Ellis
green
2 sentences2020While children enjoy the same fundamental right to privacy that is guaranteed to adults, State v. Ellis, 2009 MT 192, ¶ 35 , 351 Mont. 95 , 210 P.3d 144 , the “mutual use of property by virtue of joint access” may reduce the privacy interests of the parties sharing a device. 2020While children enjoy the same fundamental right to privacy that is guaranteed to adults, State v. Ellis, 2009 MT 192, ¶ 35 , 351 Mont. 95 , 210 P.3d 144 , the “mutual use of property by virtue of joint access” may reduce the privacy interests of the parties sharing a device. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Hastetter v. Behan
green
2 sentences2014This Court first adopted the test set forth in Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 , 88 S. Ct. 507 (1967), in Hastetter v. Behan, 196 Mont. 280 , 639 P.2d 510 . 2014This Court first adopted the test set forth in Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 , 88 S. Ct. 507 (1967), in Hastetter v. Behan, 196 Mont. 280 , 639 P.2d 510 . | 1 | 2014–2014 |
State v. Martinez
green
2 sentences2012Since the federal Constitution establishes the floor of constitutional rights, State v. Ariegwe, 2007 MT 204, ¶ 35 , 338 Mont. 442 , 167 P.3d 815 , and because we must guarantee the minimum rights established by the United States Constitution, State v. Martinez, 2003 MT 65, ¶ 51 , 314 Mont. 434 , 67 P.3d 207 , it is important to acknowledge the foregoing clarification in Jones. 2012Since the federal Constitution establishes the floor of constitutional rights, State v. Ariegwe, 2007 MT 204, ¶ 35 , 338 Mont. 442 , 167 P.3d 815 , and because we must guarantee the minimum rights established by the United States Constitution, State v. Martinez, 2003 MT 65, ¶ 51 , 314 Mont. 434 , 67 P.3d 207 , it is important to acknowledge the foregoing clarification in Jones. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
State v. Ariegwe
green
2 sentences2012Since the federal Constitution establishes the floor of constitutional rights, State v. Ariegwe, 2007 MT 204, ¶ 35 , 338 Mont. 442 , 167 P.3d 815 , and because we must guarantee the minimum rights established by the United States Constitution, State v. Martinez, 2003 MT 65, ¶ 51 , 314 Mont. 434 , 67 P.3d 207 , it is important to acknowledge the foregoing clarification in Jones. 2012Since the federal Constitution establishes the floor of constitutional rights, State v. Ariegwe, 2007 MT 204, ¶ 35 , 338 Mont. 442 , 167 P.3d 815 , and because we must guarantee the minimum rights established by the United States Constitution, State v. Martinez, 2003 MT 65, ¶ 51 , 314 Mont. 434 , 67 P.3d 207 , it is important to acknowledge the foregoing clarification in Jones. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Town of Ennis v. Stewart
green
2 sentences1997As to Palko , this Court applied a Pai&o-derived test in Town of Ennis v. Stewart (1991), 247 Mont. 355 , 807 P.2d 179 , along with the Katz test. 1997As to Palko , this Court applied a Pai&o-derived test in Town of Ennis v. Stewart (1991), 247 Mont. 355 , 807 P.2d 179 , along with the Katz test. | 1 | 1997–1997 |
State v. Isom
green
2 sentences1995Isom, 641 P.2d at 420 . 1995Isom, 641 P.2d at 420 . | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.