Notes of Decisions
Cited in
32
cases (
5 in the last 5 years), 1983–2025 · leading case:
State v. Courville, 2002 MT 330 (Mont. 2002).
State v. Courville, 2002 MT 330 (Mont. 2002).
· cites it 6× “Section 46-13-302, MCA. ¶ 25 Accordingly, we reaffirm Ottwell .”
State v. Dow, 844 P.2d 780 (Mont. 1992).
· cites it 12× “Were Dow’s constitutional rights violated by application of Section 46-13-302(4), MCA (1989), which places the burden of proof upon a defendant moving to suppress evidence? 3.”
State v. Roberts, 943 P.2d 1249 (Mont. 1997).
· cites it 7× “” Pursuant to § 46-13-302, MCA, a criminal defendant may move a district court to suppress any evidence which was obtained during an unlawful search and seizure.”
State v. Thomas Tucker Jr., 2008 MT 273 (Mont. 2008).
· cites it 23× “Tucker claims that “[cjounsel for Defendant failed to object and request a suppression hearing pursuant to Mont. Code Ann. § 46-13-302 (2).” Tucker argues that as the suppression hearing would have been his strongest chance to demonstrate the “ill will and motives” of the two…”
State v. Strand, 951 P.2d 552 (Mont. 1997).
· cites it 6× “Section 46-13-302, MCA. We have recently made it clear that "suppression" is a term used where otherwise relevant evidence is excluded because it has been illegally obtained.”
State v. Strizich, 952 P.2d 1365 (Mont. 1997).
· cites it 6× “Section 46-13-302, MCA, permits the suppression of evidence gathered as the result of an unlawful search or seizure.”
State v. Schulke, 2005 MT 77 (Mont. 2005).
· cites it 3× “An evidentiary hearing is required on a suppression motion under Section 46-13-302(2), MCA, “if the [suppression] motion states facts that, if true, would show that the evidence should be suppressed, the court shall hear the merits of the motion at the omnibus hearing or at a…”
State v. Baldwin, 789 P.2d 1215 (Mont. 1990).
· cites it 6× “Secondly, appellant asserts certain information included in the search warrant was stale and therefore insufficient to establish probable cause.”
State v. Sundberg, 765 P.2d 736 (Mont. 1988).
· cites it 3× “Section 46-13-302(4), MCA. The defendant has not met this burden.”
State v. O'NEILL, 679 P.2d 760 (Mont. 1984).
· cites it 3× “Section 46-13-302(4) MCA. The parties agreed that Fitzgibbons was not present in the initial stages of the search.”
State v. Parker, 1998 MT 6 (Mont. 1998).
· cites it 3× “Section 46-13-302, MCA. Parker asserts that the evidence seized by Officer Campbell when he searched the Audi and the fanny pack should have been suppressed because the evidence was obtained without a war *157 rant and does not fall within a valid exception to the warrant…”
State v. J. Carrywater, 2022 MT 131 (Mont. 2022).
· cites it 3× “¶13 The government’s “interest in effective law enforcement demands that officers in the field have some latitude to reach, follow up on, and confirm or dispel initial suspicions of criminal activity.”
— Mont. Code Ann. § 46-13-302(1) — 6 cases
State v. Thomas Tucker Jr., 2008 MT 273 (Mont. 2008).
“Tucker claims that “[cjounsel for Defendant failed to object and request a suppression hearing pursuant to Mont. Code Ann. § 46-13-302 (2).” Tucker argues that as the suppression hearing would have been his strongest chance to demonstrate the “ill will and motives” of the two…”
— Mont. Code Ann. § 46-13-302(2) — 8 cases
State v. Thomas Tucker Jr., 2008 MT 273 (Mont. 2008).
“Tucker claims that “[cjounsel for Defendant failed to object and request a suppression hearing pursuant to Mont. Code Ann. § 46-13-302 (2).” Tucker argues that as the suppression hearing would have been his strongest chance to demonstrate the “ill will and motives” of the two…”
State v. Schulke, 2005 MT 77 (Mont. 2005).
“An evidentiary hearing is required on a suppression motion under Section 46-13-302(2), MCA, “if the [suppression] motion states facts that, if true, would show that the evidence should be suppressed, the court shall hear the merits of the motion at the omnibus hearing or at a…”
State v. Roberts, 943 P.2d 1249 (Mont. 1997).
“” Pursuant to § 46-13-302, MCA, a criminal defendant may move a district court to suppress any evidence which was obtained during an unlawful search and seizure.”
— Mont. Code Ann. § 46-13-302(4) — 7 cases
State v. Dow, 844 P.2d 780 (Mont. 1992).
“Were Dow’s constitutional rights violated by application of Section 46-13-302(4), MCA (1989), which places the burden of proof upon a defendant moving to suppress evidence? 3.”
State v. Baldwin, 789 P.2d 1215 (Mont. 1990).
“Secondly, appellant asserts certain information included in the search warrant was stale and therefore insufficient to establish probable cause.”
State v. Sundberg, 765 P.2d 736 (Mont. 1988).
“Section 46-13-302(4), MCA. The defendant has not met this burden.”
State v. O'NEILL, 679 P.2d 760 (Mont. 1984).
“Section 46-13-302(4) MCA. The parties agreed that Fitzgibbons was not present in the initial stages of the search.”
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.