459 P.3d 850
Mont.2020Background
- Just after 12:56 a.m., June 22, 2016, a resident reported a man had entered the fenced backyard of a Bozeman duplex and did not have permission to be there.
- Officer encountered Glenn H. Lehrer Jr., who admitted he was walking around the fence trying to find the fence line and said the resident asked what he was doing in her yard.
- The backyard fence lacked any posted "no trespassing" notice.
- Lehrer was charged with criminal trespass under § 45-6-203, MCA, and moved to dismiss for lack of probable cause, arguing the statutory posting rule gave him a privilege to enter unposted land.
- Municipal Court denied the motion and convicted Lehrer after a bench trial; the District Court affirmed.
- The Supreme Court affirmed, holding the posting provisions targeted raw/unoccupied land and do not require residential yards to be posted to withdraw the public's privilege to enter.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether dismissal was required because absence of posted notice extended a public privilege to enter, defeating probable cause for criminal trespass | City: backyard is "premises" under the Criminal Code; posting not required to withdraw privilege and probable cause existed | Lehrer: backyard is "land" under Title 70 and § 45-6-201(1) makes failure to post extend a privilege to enter unposted land, so he was privileged | Court: Posting provisions were aimed at raw/unoccupied land; residential curtilage is "premises" and need not be posted; probable cause properly found |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Spottedbear, 380 P.3d 810 (Mont. 2016) (licensed/invited/privileged entry bars trespass conviction)
- State v. Rinehart, 864 P.2d 1219 (Mont. 1993) (defer to magistrate's probable-cause determination)
- State v. Harlson, 150 P.3d 349 (Mont. 2006) (abuse-of-discretion standard for probable-cause review)
- City of Bozeman v. Cantu, 296 P.3d 461 (Mont. 2013) (procedural posture for municipal-to-supreme review)
- State v. Quesnel, 220 P.3d 634 (Mont. 2009) (statutory interpretation: legislative intent and context)
- State v. Heath, 90 P.3d 426 (Mont. 2004) (holistic statutory construction principles)
