553 P.3d 416
Mont.2024Background
- Cole Levine was charged with multiple criminal offenses, including attempted sexual assault, after an incident in Missoula, MT, in August 2022.
- During the investigation, police obtained a search warrant directing Verizon Wireless (headquartered out of state) to provide data related to Levine's cellphone.
- Levine moved to suppress the results of the warrant, arguing that Montana courts lacked jurisdiction to issue a search warrant to an out-of-state entity for data stored outside Montana.
- The District Court agreed with Levine, found the warrant was void ab initio as an extraterritorial warrant, and suppressed the evidence.
- The State appealed, challenging the District Court's interpretation of both Montana law and the federal Stored Communications Act (SCA).
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Levine's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether SCA (18 U.S.C. § 2703(a)) provides jurisdiction to MT courts to issue warrants to out-of-state providers | SCA authorizes Montana courts to issue warrants to third-party providers out of state following state warrant procedures | SCA’s requirement to use state warrant procedures limits warrant jurisdiction to in-state actions | SCA grants jurisdiction to Montana courts for such warrants |
| Whether § 46-5-605(3)(a), MCA further provides jurisdiction to serve out-of-state providers | State law separately grants jurisdiction as long as provider does business with any MT resident | Long-arm jurisdiction only applies if provider does business with the defendant-resident | Statute applies if business is done with any MT resident |
| If the defendant’s residency limits jurisdiction to issue warrants to providers | Not a necessary consideration—statute does not make residency of target controlling | Defendant’s residency is a key delimiter for long-arm jurisdiction | Statute is not limited by target’s residency; any resident suffices |
| Whether the good-faith exception to exclusionary rule applies if warrant lacked jurisdiction | Exception may apply, but irrelevant if court had jurisdiction | Not addressed substantively, as suppression was based on jurisdiction | Not decided; suppression reversed, exception not considered |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Staker, 404 Mont. 307 (standard of review for suppression motions)
- State v. Grussing, 408 Mont. 245 (warrant authority under state law)
- Shepherd v. State ex rel. Dep’t of Corr., 403 Mont. 425 (statutory construction presumes different meanings for different language)
- City of Cut Bank v. Bird, 307 Mont. 460 (recognizing the good-faith exception to exclusionary rule)
- State v. Jensen, 217 Mont. 272 (suppression decisions regarding exclusionary rule)