Mont. Code Ann. » TITLE 46. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE · CHAPTER 18. SENTENCE AND JUDGMENT · Part 2. Form of Sentence
Montana Code Annotated

Mont. Code Ann. § 46-18-202 (2026)

Additional Restrictions On Sentence

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MT-LEGleg.mt.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
  1. MCA Contents
  2. TITLE 46
  3. CHAPTER 18
  4. Part 2
  5. 46-18-202 Additional restrictions on sentence

TITLE 46. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

CHAPTER 18. SENTENCE AND JUDGMENT

Part 2. Form of Sentence

Additional Restrictions On Sentence

46-18-202. Additional restrictions on sentence. (1) The sentencing judge may also impose any of the following restrictions or conditions on the sentence provided for in 46-18-201 that the judge considers necessary to obtain the objectives of rehabilitation and the protection of the victim and society:

(a) prohibition of the offender's holding public office;

(b) prohibition of the offender's owning or carrying a dangerous weapon;

(c) restrictions on the offender's freedom of association;

(d) restrictions on the offender's freedom of movement;

(e) a requirement that the defendant provide a biological sample for DNA testing for purposes of Title 44, chapter 6, part 1, if an agreement to do so is part of the plea bargain;

(f) a requirement that the offender surrender any registry identification card issued under 16-12-503 or license issued under 16-12-203;

(g) any other limitation reasonably related to the objectives of rehabilitation and the protection of the victim and society.

(2) Whenever the sentencing judge imposes a sentence of imprisonment in a state prison for a term exceeding 1 year, the sentencing judge may also impose the restriction that the offender is ineligible for parole and participation in the supervised release program while serving that term. If the restriction is to be imposed, the sentencing judge shall state the reasons for it in writing. If the sentencing judge finds that the restriction is necessary for the protection of society, the judge shall impose the restriction as part of the sentence and the judgment must contain a statement of the reasons for the restriction.

(3) If a sentencing judge requires an offender to surrender a registry identification card issued under 16-12-503 or license issued under 16-12-203, the court shall return the card or license to the department of revenue and provide the department with information on the offender's sentence. The department shall revoke the card for the duration of the sentence and shall return the card if the offender successfully completes the terms of the sentence before the expiration date listed on the card.

History: En. 95-2206 by Sec. 1, Ch. 196, L. 1967; rep. and re-en. by Sec. 31, Ch. 513, L. 1973; amd. Sec. 36, Ch. 184, L. 1977; amd. Sec. 1, Ch. 436, L. 1977; amd. Sec. 1, Ch. 580, L. 1977; amd. Sec. 12, Ch. 584, L. 1977; R.C.M. 1947, 95-2206(3); amd. Sec. 22, Ch. 116, L. 1979; amd. Sec. 10, Ch. 583, L. 1981; amd. Sec. 2, Ch. 392, L. 1987; amd. Sec. 44, Ch. 262, L. 1993; amd. Sec. 11, Ch. 125, L. 1995; amd. Sec. 17, Ch. 350, L. 1995; amd. Sec. 6, Ch. 550, L. 1995; amd. Sec. 4, Ch. 52, L. 1999; amd. Sec. 5, Ch. 147, L. 1999; amd. Sec. 2, Ch. 22, Sp. L. August 2002; amd. Sec. 14, Ch. 483, L. 2007; amd. Sec. 29, Ch. 419, L. 2011; amd. Sec. 2, I.M. No. 182, approved Nov. 8, 2016; amd. Sec. 77, Ch. 576, L. 2021.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 168 cases (26 in the last 5 years), 1979–2026 · leading case: State v. Garrymore, 2006 MT 245 (Mont. 2006).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Garrymore, 2006 MT 245 (Mont. 2006). · cites it 174× “¶ 2 We consider the following issues on appeal: ¶ 3 (1) Does Garrymore's failure to object to the District Court's imposition of sentence preclude our review on appeal? ¶ 4 (2) Did the District Court's imposition of the parole eligibility restriction pursuant to § 46-18-202(2),…”
State v. Holt, 2011 MT 42 (Mont. 2011). · cites it 116× “We review the reasonableness of conditions or restrictions imposed in a sentence under § 46-18-202, MCA, for abuse of discretion, if the conditions are objected to at sentencing.”
State v. Muhammad, 2002 MT 47 (Mont. 2002). · cites it 56× “The record reflects that protection of the victim was a consideration in the District Court's decision, and I would specifically hold that the victim's protection can justify a properly imposed banishment condition under the broad authority granted to sentencing courts in §…”
State v. Stiles, 2008 MT 390 (Mont. 2008). · cites it 64× “3d 1106 , we observed that “in order to be ‘reasonably related to the objectives of rehabilitation and protection of the victim and society,’ as required by § 46-18-202(1)(e), MCA, a sentencing limitation or condition must have some correlation to the underlying offense for…”
State v. Christopher Lewis, 2012 MT 157 (Mont. 2012). · cites it 39× “The prosecutor also responded to Lewis’ sentencing memorandum and stated that § 46-18-202(2), MCA, authorizes a district court to reasonably restrict a defendant’s parole eligibility, but made no recommendation to the court regarding Lewis’ parole eligibility.”
State v. Essig, 2009 MT 340 (Mont. 2009). · cites it 32× “Section 46-18-202(1), MCA. We review for abuse of discretion a sentencing judge's conclusion that a condition of a probationary sentence, which is specifically authorized by statute, is necessary.”
Cavanaugh v. Crist, 615 P.2d 890 (Mont. 1980). · cites it 50× “This is an original application for a writ of habeas corpus in which petitioners James Cavanaugh and James Mesler jointly challenge the constitutionality of section 46-18-202(2), MCA. That section permits district judges to sentence persons convicted of felonies to imprisonment…”
State v. Kirkbride, 2008 MT 178 (Mont. 2008). · cites it 27× “Did the District Court err by imposing a restriction on Kirkbride’s parole eligibility for fifty-five (55) years? Judges may impose partial parole restrictions ¶17 Section 46-18-202(2), MCA, in pertinent part, says, “the sentencing judge may also impose the restriction that the…”
State v. Burch, 2008 MT 118 (Mont. 2008). · cites it 15× “For instance, the State maintains that § 46-18-202(1), MCA, provides a statutory basis for a sentencing judge to impose conditions on parole.”
State v. Dunfee, 2005 MT 147 (Mont. 2005). · cites it 14× “¶ 54 Montana's statutes provide that a sentencing judge may impose conditions and restrictions on the offender's freedom of association, § 46-18-202(1)(c), MCA, restrictions on the offender's freedom of movement, § 46-18-202(1)(d), MCA, and "any other limitation reasonably…”
State v. Olivares-Coster, 2011 MT 196 (Mont. 2011). · cites it 30× “Section 46-18-202(2), MCA. We should not speculate whether the District Court would have imposed a discretionary parole restriction when in fact the District Court explicitly declined to do so in the oral pronouncement of sentence.”
State v. Zimmerman, 2010 MT 44 (Mont. 2010). · cites it 18× “Here, the District Court apparently imposed the challenged condition pursuant to § 46-18-201(4)( o ), MCA, and § 46-18-202(1)(f), MCA. With these provisions, the legislature has granted district courts legal authority to exercise discretion in imposing conditions on deferred…”
Show all 168 citing cases →
— Mont. Code Ann. § 46-18-202(1) — 24 cases
State v. Essig, 2009 MT 340 (Mont. 2009). “Section 46-18-202(1), MCA. We review for abuse of discretion a sentencing judge's conclusion that a condition of a probationary sentence, which is specifically authorized by statute, is necessary.”
State v. Holt, 2011 MT 42 (Mont. 2011). “We review the reasonableness of conditions or restrictions imposed in a sentence under § 46-18-202, MCA, for abuse of discretion, if the conditions are objected to at sentencing.”
State v. Burch, 2008 MT 118 (Mont. 2008). “For instance, the State maintains that § 46-18-202(1), MCA, provides a statutory basis for a sentencing judge to impose conditions on parole.”
Montana Cannabis Indus. Ass'n v. State, 2016 MT 44 (Mont. 2016).
State v. Herd, 2004 MT 85 (Mont. 2004).
— Mont. Code Ann. § 46-18-202(1)(b) — 3 cases
State v. Liefert, 2002 MT 48 (Mont. 2002).
State v. Essig, 2009 MT 340 (Mont. 2009). “Section 46-18-202(1), MCA. We review for abuse of discretion a sentencing judge's conclusion that a condition of a probationary sentence, which is specifically authorized by statute, is necessary.”
State v. Fadness, 2012 MT 12 (Mont. 2012).
— Mont. Code Ann. § 46-18-202(1)(c) — 8 cases
State v. Muhammad, 2002 MT 47 (Mont. 2002). “The record reflects that protection of the victim was a consideration in the District Court's decision, and I would specifically hold that the victim's protection can justify a properly imposed banishment condition under the broad authority granted to sentencing courts in §…”
State v. Dunfee, 2005 MT 147 (Mont. 2005). “¶ 54 Montana's statutes provide that a sentencing judge may impose conditions and restrictions on the offender's freedom of association, § 46-18-202(1)(c), MCA, restrictions on the offender's freedom of movement, § 46-18-202(1)(d), MCA, and "any other limitation reasonably…”
State v. Meyers, 2007 MT 230 (Mont. 2007).
State v. Rozell R. Cook, 2012 MT 34 (Mont. 2012).
State v. Bullplume, 2013 MT 169 (Mont. 2013).
— Mont. Code Ann. § 46-18-202(1)(d) — 2 cases
State v. Muhammad, 2002 MT 47 (Mont. 2002). “The record reflects that protection of the victim was a consideration in the District Court's decision, and I would specifically hold that the victim's protection can justify a properly imposed banishment condition under the broad authority granted to sentencing courts in §…”
State v. Dunfee, 2005 MT 147 (Mont. 2005). “¶ 54 Montana's statutes provide that a sentencing judge may impose conditions and restrictions on the offender's freedom of association, § 46-18-202(1)(c), MCA, restrictions on the offender's freedom of movement, § 46-18-202(1)(d), MCA, and "any other limitation reasonably…”
— Mont. Code Ann. § 46-18-202(1)(e) — 12 cases
State v. Muhammad, 2002 MT 47 (Mont. 2002). “The record reflects that protection of the victim was a consideration in the District Court's decision, and I would specifically hold that the victim's protection can justify a properly imposed banishment condition under the broad authority granted to sentencing courts in §…”
State v. Ashby, 2008 MT 83 (Mont. 2008).
State v. Horton, 2000 MT 100 (Mont. 2001).
State v. Stiles, 2008 MT 390 (Mont. 2008). “3d 1106 , we observed that “in order to be ‘reasonably related to the objectives of rehabilitation and protection of the victim and society,’ as required by § 46-18-202(1)(e), MCA, a sentencing limitation or condition must have some correlation to the underlying offense for…”
State v. Setters, 2001 MT 101 (Mont. 2001).
— Mont. Code Ann. § 46-18-202(1)(f) — 22 cases
State v. Stiles, 2008 MT 390 (Mont. 2008). “3d 1106 , we observed that “in order to be ‘reasonably related to the objectives of rehabilitation and protection of the victim and society,’ as required by § 46-18-202(1)(e), MCA, a sentencing limitation or condition must have some correlation to the underlying offense for…”
State v. Holt, 2011 MT 42 (Mont. 2011). “We review the reasonableness of conditions or restrictions imposed in a sentence under § 46-18-202, MCA, for abuse of discretion, if the conditions are objected to at sentencing.”
State v. Winkel, 2008 MT 89 (Mont. 2008).
State v. Zimmerman, 2010 MT 44 (Mont. 2010). “Here, the District Court apparently imposed the challenged condition pursuant to § 46-18-201(4)( o ), MCA, and § 46-18-202(1)(f), MCA. With these provisions, the legislature has granted district courts legal authority to exercise discretion in imposing conditions on deferred…”
State v. Stephenson, 2008 MT 64 (Mont. 2008).
— Mont. Code Ann. § 46-18-202(1)(g) — 7 cases
State v. J. Parkhill, 2018 MT 69 (Mont. 2018).
State v. Rozell R. Cook, 2012 MT 34 (Mont. 2012).
State v. R. Brady, 2025 MT 105 (Mont. 2025).
State v. Kapps, 2017 MT 207N (Mont. 2017).
State v. K. Vinecke, 2020 MT 219N (Mont. 2020).
— Mont. Code Ann. § 46-18-202(18) — 2 cases
State v. W. Rossbach, 2022 MT 2 (Mont. 2022).
E. Linwood, Jr. v. J. Salmonsen (Mont. 2021).
— Mont. Code Ann. § 46-18-202(2) — 70 cases
State v. Garrymore, 2006 MT 245 (Mont. 2006). “¶ 2 We consider the following issues on appeal: ¶ 3 (1) Does Garrymore's failure to object to the District Court's imposition of sentence preclude our review on appeal? ¶ 4 (2) Did the District Court's imposition of the parole eligibility restriction pursuant to § 46-18-202(2),…”
State v. Holt, 2011 MT 42 (Mont. 2011). “We review the reasonableness of conditions or restrictions imposed in a sentence under § 46-18-202, MCA, for abuse of discretion, if the conditions are objected to at sentencing.”
State v. Christopher Lewis, 2012 MT 157 (Mont. 2012). “The prosecutor also responded to Lewis’ sentencing memorandum and stated that § 46-18-202(2), MCA, authorizes a district court to reasonably restrict a defendant’s parole eligibility, but made no recommendation to the court regarding Lewis’ parole eligibility.”
Cavanaugh v. Crist, 615 P.2d 890 (Mont. 1980). “This is an original application for a writ of habeas corpus in which petitioners James Cavanaugh and James Mesler jointly challenge the constitutionality of section 46-18-202(2), MCA. That section permits district judges to sentence persons convicted of felonies to imprisonment…”
State v. Kirkbride, 2008 MT 178 (Mont. 2008). “Did the District Court err by imposing a restriction on Kirkbride’s parole eligibility for fifty-five (55) years? Judges may impose partial parole restrictions ¶17 Section 46-18-202(2), MCA, in pertinent part, says, “the sentencing judge may also impose the restriction that the…”
— Mont. Code Ann. § 46-18-202(3) — 2 cases
State v. K.A.B. (Mont. 2023).
K.B. v. State, 2026 MT 29N (Mont. 2026).
— Mont. Code Ann. § 46-18-202(4) — 1 case
D. Bohl v. Salmonsen (Mont. 2022).
— Mont. Code Ann. § 46-18-202(b)(ii) — 1 case
State v. W. Rossbach, 2022 MT 2 (Mont. 2022).
— Mont. Code Ann. § 46-18-202(c) — 1 case
State v. Coleman, 431 P.3d 26 (Mont. 2018).
— Mont. Code Ann. § 46-18-202(l)(b) — 2 cases
State v. Essig, 2009 MT 340 (Mont. 2009). “Section 46-18-202(1), MCA. We review for abuse of discretion a sentencing judge's conclusion that a condition of a probationary sentence, which is specifically authorized by statute, is necessary.”
State v. Fadness, 2012 MT 12 (Mont. 2012).
— Mont. Code Ann. § 46-18-202(l)(c) — 5 cases
State v. Muhammad, 2002 MT 47 (Mont. 2002). “The record reflects that protection of the victim was a consideration in the District Court's decision, and I would specifically hold that the victim's protection can justify a properly imposed banishment condition under the broad authority granted to sentencing courts in §…”
State v. Dunfee, 2005 MT 147 (Mont. 2005). “¶ 54 Montana's statutes provide that a sentencing judge may impose conditions and restrictions on the offender's freedom of association, § 46-18-202(1)(c), MCA, restrictions on the offender's freedom of movement, § 46-18-202(1)(d), MCA, and "any other limitation reasonably…”
State v. Rozell R. Cook, 2012 MT 34 (Mont. 2012).
State v. Melton, 2012 MT 84 (Mont. 2012).
State v. Miller, 292 Mont. 27 (Mont. 1998).
— Mont. Code Ann. § 46-18-202(l)(d) — 1 case
State v. Dunfee, 2005 MT 147 (Mont. 2005). “¶ 54 Montana's statutes provide that a sentencing judge may impose conditions and restrictions on the offender's freedom of association, § 46-18-202(1)(c), MCA, restrictions on the offender's freedom of movement, § 46-18-202(1)(d), MCA, and "any other limitation reasonably…”
— Mont. Code Ann. § 46-18-202(l)(e) — 12 cases
State v. Ommundson, 1999 MT 16 (Mont. 1999).
State v. Heath, 2004 MT 126 (Mont. 2004).
McDermott v. McDonald, 2001 MT 89 (Mont. 2001).
State v. Setters, 2001 MT 101 (Mont. 2001).
State v. Horton, 2000 MT 100 (Mont. 2001).
— Mont. Code Ann. § 46-18-202(l)(f) — 19 cases
State v. Holt, 2011 MT 42 (Mont. 2011). “We review the reasonableness of conditions or restrictions imposed in a sentence under § 46-18-202, MCA, for abuse of discretion, if the conditions are objected to at sentencing.”
State v. Vernes, 2006 MT 32 (Mont. 2006).
State v. Zimmerman, 2010 MT 44 (Mont. 2010). “Here, the District Court apparently imposed the challenged condition pursuant to § 46-18-201(4)( o ), MCA, and § 46-18-202(1)(f), MCA. With these provisions, the legislature has granted district courts legal authority to exercise discretion in imposing conditions on deferred…”
State v. Guill, 2011 MT 32 (Mont. 2011).
State v. Herd, 2004 MT 85 (Mont. 2004).
— Mont. Code Ann. § 46-18-202(l)(g) — 4 cases
City of Bozeman v. Cantu, 2013 MT 40 (Mont. 2013).
State v. Rozell R. Cook, 2012 MT 34 (Mont. 2012).
State v. Bullplume, 2013 MT 169 (Mont. 2013).
State v. Thorpe, 2015 MT 14 (Mont. 2015).
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.