Montana Code Annotated

Mont. Code Ann. § 26-1-902 (2026)

Extent Of Privilege -- Definition

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MT-LEGleg.mt.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

TITLE 26. EVIDENCE

CHAPTER 1. STATUTORY PROVISIONS ON EVIDENCE

Part 9. Media Confidentiality Act

Extent Of Privilege -- Definition

26-1-902. Extent of privilege -- definition. (1) Without a person's consent, a person, including any newspaper, magazine, press association, news agency, news service, radio station, television station, or community antenna television service or any person connected with or employed by any of these for the purpose of gathering, writing, editing, or disseminating news, may not be examined as to or may not be required to disclose any information obtained or prepared or the source of that information in any legal proceeding if the information was gathered, received, or processed in the course of the person's employment or business.

(2) A person described in subsection (1) or an electronic communication service used by that person may not be adjudged in contempt by a judicial, legislative, administrative, or any other body having the power to issue subpoenas for refusing to disclose or produce the source of any information or for refusing to disclose any information obtained or prepared in gathering, receiving, or processing information in the course of the person's business.

(3) A judicial, legislative, administrative, or other governmental body may not request or require the disclosure of information otherwise protected under subsection (1) from an electronic communication service.

(4) For the purposes of this section, "electronic communication service" means a service used to send, receive, transmit, store, or facilitate electronic communications.

History: En. Sec. 2, Ch. 195, L. 1943; amd. Sec. 1, Ch. 56, L. 1951; amd. Sec. 1, Ch. 225, L. 1977; R.C.M. 1947, 93-601-2(1), (2); amd. Sec. 2, Ch. 285, L. 1979; amd. Sec. 538, Ch. 56, L. 2009; amd. Sec. 1, Ch. 215, L. 2015.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 7 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1986–2025 · leading case: State v. Kolb, 2009 MT 9 (Mont. 2009).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

State v. Kolb, 2009 MT 9 (Mont. 2009). · cites it 6× “The Missoulian moved to quash the subpoena pursuant to § 26-1-902, MCA-a provision of the Media Confidentiality Act (Act) which protects media representatives from being required to disclose information in a legal proceeding if the information was gathered, received, or…”

Sible v. Lee Enter., Inc., 729 P.2d 1271 (Mont. 1986). · cites it 17× “Section 26-1-902, MCA, provides: (1) Without his or its consent no person, including any newspaper, magazine, press association, news agency, news service, radio station, television station, or community antenna television service or any person connected with or employed by any…”

Glenn R. Funk v. Scripps Media, Inc., 570 S.W.3d 205 (Tenn. 2019). “); Mont. Code Ann. § 26-1-902 (West, through chapters effective Feb.”

State v. Slavin, 2004 MT 76 (Mont. 2004). · cites it 4× “The State also argues that § 26-1-902, MCA, provides a privilege against compelling O’Toole and Ring to testify and that, even if O’Toole and Ring’s testimony should have been allowed, any error in excluding it was harmless.”

The New York Times Co. v. Gonzales, 382 F. Supp. 2d 457 (S.D.N.Y. 2005). “; Mont.Code Ann. § 26-1-902 et seq.; Neb.Rev.”

Price v. Time, Inc., 304 F. Supp. 2d 1294 (N.D. Ala. 2004). “MontCode Ann. § 26-1-902(1) (WEST-LAW through 2003 Sess.”

Eqt Chap v. Ehs, 2025 MT 237 (Mont. 2025). · cites it 6× “Section 26-1-902(1), MCA. Montana’s Act, thus, provides broad protection for news agencies, like EHS.”

— Mont. Code Ann. § 26-1-902(1) — 2 cases

Price v. Time, Inc., 304 F. Supp. 2d 1294 (N.D. Ala. 2004). “MontCode Ann. § 26-1-902(1) (WEST-LAW through 2003 Sess.”

Eqt Chap v. Ehs, 2025 MT 237 (Mont. 2025). “Section 26-1-902(1), MCA. Montana’s Act, thus, provides broad protection for news agencies, like EHS.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.