Mont. Code Ann. § 45-8-213

(2005)

Privacy in communications

(1) Except as provided in 69-6-104, a person commits the offense of violating privacy in communications if the person knowingly or purposely:

(a) with the purpose to terrify, intimidate, threaten, harass, annoy, or offend, communicates with a person by electronic communication and uses obscene, lewd, or profane language, suggests a lewd or lascivious act, or threatens to inflict injury or physical harm to the person or property of the person. The use of obscene, lewd, or profane language or the making of a threat or lewd or lascivious suggestions is prima facie evidence of an intent to terrify, intimidate, threaten, harass, annoy, or offend.

(b) uses an electronic communication to attempt to extort money or any other thing of value from a person or to disturb by repeated communications the peace, quiet, or right of privacy of a person at the place where the communications are received;

(c) records or causes to be recorded a conversation by use of a hidden electronic or mechanical device that reproduces a human conversation without the knowledge of all parties to the conversation. This subsection (1)(c) does not apply to:

(i) elected or appointed public officials or to public employees when the transcription or recording is done in the performance of official duty;

(ii) persons speaking at public meetings;

(iii) persons given warning of the transcription or recording; or

(iv) a health care facility as defined in 50-5-101 or a government agency that deals with health care if the recording is of a health care emergency telephone communication made to the facility or agency.

(2) Except as provided in 69-6-104, a person commits the offense of violating privacy in communications if the person purposely intercepts an electronic communication. This subsection does not apply to elected or appointed public officials or to public employees when the interception is done in the performance of official duty or to persons given warning of the interception.

(3) (a) A person convicted of the offense of violating privacy in communications shall be fined not to exceed $500 or imprisoned in the county jail for a term not to exceed 6 months, or both.

(b) On a second conviction of subsection (1)(a) or (1)(b), a person shall be imprisoned in the county jail for a term not to exceed 1 year or be fined an amount not to exceed $1,000, or both.

(c) On a third or subsequent conviction of subsection (1)(a) or (1)(b), a person shall be imprisoned in the state prison for a term not to exceed 5 years or be fined an amount not to exceed $10,000, or both.

(4) "Electronic communication" means any transfer between persons of signs, signals, writing, images, sounds, data, or intelligence of any nature transmitted in whole or in part by a wire, radio, electromagnetic, photoelectronic, or photo-optical system.

Opinions construing this section

17 opinions
2025 MT 143 Jul 8, 2025 Reversed
State v. D. Baertsch
Majority by Katherine M Bidegaray · 4 to 0 with 3 concurring
Dugan, 2013 MT 38, ¶ 72, 369 Mont. 39, 303 P.3d 755 (“fucking” when paired with “cunt” could qualify as “obscene, lewd, or profane” language under § 45-8-213, MCA, “under any reasonable definition of th[ose] terms”). 10 12 traffic stop, including throwing her license and registration at the officer and “shower
2025 MT 83 Apr 29, 2025 Reversed
State v. Partain
Majority by Cory J. Swanson · 5 to 0 with 2 concurring
o establish the commission of the offense charged. Brown, ¶ 9. ¶28 We addressed a similar issue in Brown, when we held that Privacy in Communications under § 45-8-213(1)(a), MCA, was not a lesser-included offense of Sexual Abuse of Children. Brown, ¶¶ 13–15. Here, Surreptitious Visual Observation or Recordation pursuant to § 45-5-
2025 MT 89 Apr 29, 2025 Affirmed
State v. L. Ernst
Majority by Cory J. Swanson · 5 to 0
e Cory J. Swanson delivered the Opinion of the Court. ¶1 Leslie Dean Ernst pleaded guilty to five felony counts of Privacy in Communications in violation of § 45-8-213(1)(a), MCA. He later moved to withdraw his guilty pleas and to reduce two of the felony convictions to misdemeanors, which the District Court denied. Ernst appeals the Di
2024 MT 317N Dec 23, 2024 Affirmed
Zeiler v. State
Majority by Mike McGrath · 5 to 0
-5-220, MCA; three counts of Violation of Order of Protection, in violation of § 45-5-626, MCA; and three counts of Privacy in Communications, in violation of § 45-8-213, MCA. On April 11, a notice of appearance was filed that George Isham would represent Zeiler. On June 10, the court held an omnibus hearing where Zeiler appeared wi
2023 MT 53N Mar 28, 2023 Affirmed
State v. R. Sullivan
Majority by Mike McGrath · 5 to 0
ed Sullivan’s motion to dismiss the tampering charge for insufficient evidence. ¶10 Next, Sullivan argues that the PIC statute under which he was charged, § 45-8-213(1), MCA (2017), is facially unconstitutional and unconstitutional as applied to Sullivan. Section 45-8-213(1), MCA (2017), provides in relevant part that: [a] person c
Official Annotations archive.org, 2005 edition
History:
En. by Sec. 1, Ch. 513, L. 1973
Amd. Sec. 33, Ch. 359, L. 1977
R.C.M. 1947,
Amd. Sec. 1, Ch. 356, L. 1979
Amd. Sec. 1, Ch. 177, L. 1991
Amd. Sec. 3, Ch. 354, L. 1999 (SB 326 - Tester, Jon (D) SD 45)
Amd. Sec. 8, Ch. 77, L. 2001 (HB 112 - Brueggeman, John (R) HD 74)
Amd. Sec. 4, Ch. 344, L. 2003 (HB 54 - Newman, Brad (D) HD 38)
Amd. Sec. 1, Ch. 435, L. 2005