Montana Code Annotated

Mont. Code Ann. § 46-6-107 (2026)

Miranda Warning Prior To Custodial Interrogation

✓ 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 46. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

CHAPTER 6. ARREST

Part 1. General Provisions

Miranda Warning Prior To Custodial Interrogation

46-6-107. Miranda warning prior to custodial interrogation. Before interrogating a person who is in custody, a peace officer shall inform the person that the person has the right to remain silent, that anything the person says can be used against the person in a court of law, that the person has the right to speak to an attorney and to have an attorney present during any questioning, and that if the person cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided for the person at no cost to the person. A person who is stopped under 46-5-401 is not in custody unless the stop goes beyond the purposes of that section.

History: En. Sec. 1, Ch. 142, L. 2003.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases, 2006–2013 · leading case: State v. Gittens, 2008 MT 55, 178 P.3d 91.
State v. Gittens, 2008 MT 55, 178 P.3d 91. · cites it 6× “¶ 13 Section 46-6-107, MCA, which is a codification of the Supreme Court's holding in Miranda , states, in pertinent part: Before interrogating a person who is in custody, a peace officer shall inform the person that the person has the right to remain silent, that anything the…”
State v. Zito, 2006 MT 211, 143 P.3d 108. · cites it 8× “2 ¶19 Considering the totality of the circumstances, we conclude that the District Court did not err in denying Zito’s motion to suppress the evidence secured by execution of the search warrant.”
State v. Kelm, 2013 MT 115, 300 P.3d 687. · cites it 2× “1602, 1624, 1630 (1966)) (emphasis added); see also § 46-6-107, MCA. Failure by law enforcement officers to provide a Miranda warning and obtain a waiver of rights prior to a custodial interrogation “generally requires exclusion of any statements obtained.”
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.