44-11-101. Mutual assistance authorized -- powers and duties of assisting officers. A peace officer or any law enforcement entity of any county or municipality or a state government law enforcement entity may request the assistance of a peace officer from another law enforcement entity within the state of Montana. A peace officer, while in the jurisdiction of the requesting officer or entity and while on such request for assistance, has the same powers, duties, rights, privileges, and immunities as a peace officer of the requesting entity and is under the authority of the requesting officer or entity.
Montana Code Annotated
Mont. Code Ann. § 44-11-101 (2026)
Mutual Assistance Authorized -- Powers And Duties Of Assisting Officers
✓ laws through the 2025 session (checked Sept. 2026)
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
MT-LEGleg.mt.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
TITLE 44. LAW ENFORCEMENT
CHAPTER 11. MUTUAL ASSISTANCE RIGHTS OF ASSISTING OFFICERS
Part 1. General Provisions
Mutual Assistance Authorized -- Powers And Duties Of Assisting Officers
History: En. 11-1851 by Sec. 1, Ch. 337, L. 1977; R.C.M. 1947, 11-1851; amd. Sec. 1, Ch. 22, L. 1985.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4
cases, 1991–2011 · leading case: State v. Williams, 904 P.2d 1019 (Mont. 1995).
State v. Williams, 904 P.2d 1019 (Mont. 1995). “Section 44-11-101, MCA, provides: A peace officer or any law enforcement entity of any county or municipality or a state government law enforcement entity may request the assistance of a peace officer from another law enforcement entity within the state of Montana.”
State v. Updegraff, 2011 MT 321, 267 P.3d 28. “” 6 Aside from § 7-32-4301(2), MCA (granting a city or town council power to authorize arrests within five miles of the city or town limits), we note that §44-11-101, MCA, provides, in part, that a peace officer or law enforcement entity of any county or municipality may request…”
City of Missoula v. O'NEILL, 2004 MT 328, 102 P.3d 21. “The District Court concluded Blazevich had jurisdiction to stop O’Neill’s vehicle and arrest him pursuant to both § 20-25-322, MCA, and § 44-11-101, MCA. O’Neill asserts that the District Court’s conclusion is erroneous.”
Scott v. State, 808 P.2d 451 (Mont. 1991). “In this regard, § 44-11-101, MCA, as amended, provides in pertinent part: “44-11-101.”
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.