Montana Code Annotated

Mont. Code Ann. § 87-1-501 (2026)

Selection And Oath Of Wardens

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MT-LEGleg.mt.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

TITLE 87. FISH AND WILDLIFE

CHAPTER 1. ORGANIZATION AND OPERATION

Part 5. Fish and Game Wardens

Selection And Oath Of Wardens

87-1-501. Selection and oath of wardens. (1) Wardens must be selected from applicants who have passed an examination that may be required according to the rules adopted and promulgated by the department. A person may not be appointed as a warden until a certificate has been issued to the person by the department to the effect that the person has passed the required examination and is a fit and proper person to perform the duties of the office.

(2) Before entering upon their official duties, state fish and game wardens shall take and subscribe the constitutional oath of office and shall in addition swear or affirm that they hold no other position or office or any position under any political committee or party. The oath or affirmation must be filed in the office of the secretary of state.

History: Ap. p. Sec. 7, Ch. 193, L. 1921; re-en. Sec. 3656, R.C.M. 1921; amd. Sec. 4, Ch. 192, L. 1925; amd. Sec. 3, Ch. 59, L. 1927; re-en. Sec. 3656, R.C.M. 1935; amd. Sec. 1, Ch. 158, L. 1941; amd. Sec. 1, Ch. 121, L. 1947; amd. Sec. 1, Ch. 58, L. 1951; amd. Sec. 1, Ch. 78, L. 1955; amd. Sec. 1, Ch. 77, L. 1957; amd. Sec. 5, Ch. 417, L. 1977; Sec. 26-107, R.C.M. 1947; Ap. p. Sec. 11, Ch. 193, L. 1921; re-en. Sec. 3660, R.C.M. 1921; re-en. Sec. 3660, R.C.M. 1935; amd. Sec. 14, Ch. 177, L. 1965; Sec. 26-111, R.C.M. 1947; R.C.M. 1947, 26-107(part), 26-111(part); amd. Sec. 2838, Ch. 56, L. 2009.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases, 1990–2002 · leading case: State v. Boyer, 2002 MT 33, 42 P.3d 771.
State v. Boyer, 2002 MT 33, 42 P.3d 771. · cites it 4× “Section 23-2-501, MCA, provides that "[i]t is the policy of this state to promote safety for persons and property in and connected with the use, operation, and equipment of [watercraft].”
Hill v. Burlingame, 797 P.2d 925 (Mont. 1990). “While a warden is not entitled to prosecutorial immunity, in essence the State is actually arguing that Warden Lamoreaux is entitled to the affirmative defense of “advice of counsel” which may be available to a defendant in a malicious prosecution case.”
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.