Montana Code Annotated

Mont. Code Ann. § 7-32-213 (2026)

Qualifications For Appointment As Reserve Officer

✓ 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 7. LOCAL GOVERNMENT

CHAPTER 32. LAW ENFORCEMENT

Part 2. Reserve and Auxiliary Officers

Qualifications For Appointment As Reserve Officer

7-32-213. Qualifications for appointment as reserve officer. To be appointed a reserve officer, a person:

(1) must have resided in the state continuously for at least 1 year prior to the appointment and in the county where the appointment is made for a period of at least 6 months prior to the date of the appointment;

(2) must be a citizen of the United States;

(3) must be at least 18 years of age;

(4) must be fingerprinted, and a search must be made of local, state, and national fingerprint files to disclose any criminal record;

(5) may not have been convicted of a crime for which the person could have been imprisoned in a federal penitentiary or state prison;

(6) must be of good moral character as determined by a thorough background investigation;

(7) must be a graduate of an accredited high school or the equivalent;

(8) must be examined by a licensed physician within 30 days immediately preceding the date of appointment and pronounced in good physical condition; and

(9) must possess a valid Montana driver's license.

History: En. 11-1852 by Sec. 2, Ch. 85, L. 1977; R.C.M. 1947, 11-1856(part); amd. Sec. 686, Ch. 61, L. 2007.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2011–2024 · leading case: State v. Updegraff, 2011 MT 321, 267 P.3d 28.
State v. Updegraff, 2011 MT 321, 267 P.3d 28. “The qualifications, training requirements, and limitations of reserve officers are set forth in §7-32-213, - 214, -216, and -217, MCA. Upon being activated by the chief law enforcement administrator of the local government, and wMle on assigned duty only, a reserve officer ‘is…”
Patrick v. 4th Jud. Dist. Court, No. OP 24-0341 (Mont. Aug. 13, 2024). · cites it 2× “Petitioners argue that the officers in Updegraff were properly certified peace officers who, the Court determined, did not lose their authority to investigate and arrest by traveling outside their jurisdiction, while the officers in the present cases were not properly…”
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.