## Facts

- Montana officers investigated the unlawful killing of an elk in a hunting district where only certain elk could be legally taken absent a special permit.
- The investigation focused on a cabin on private land owned by Eddie J. Peterson; the cabin was not visible from a public road.
- Without a warrant, a sheriff’s deputy and a game warden entered the property by crossing private land and passing through an open gate to approach the cabin.
- Once on the property, officers observed an elk carcass hanging from a tree and continued investigating, leading to evidence supporting game-law charges.
- Peterson was charged with unlawfully killing a game animal; Bill K. Bullock was charged with possession of an unlawfully killed animal.
- In Justice Court, evidence was suppressed as to Peterson and the charge against Bullock was dismissed; the State obtained a trial de novo in District Court, which denied motions to dismiss and suppress.
- Defendants entered conditional guilty pleas (Peterson to unlawful killing; Bullock to unlawful possession), preserving appellate review of the denial of dismissal and suppression.

## Issues

1. Whether dismissal was required under Montana’s statutory six-month trial rule after plea entry, absent “good cause” for delay.
2. Whether Bullock had standing to challenge the entry and search of land owned by Peterson in a prosecution for possession.
3. Whether the Montana Constitution prohibits a warrantless entry and search on private land outside a dwelling’s curtilage under the circumstances presented.

## Decision

- The court affirmed the denial of the motion to dismiss, holding the statutory six-month rule did not require dismissal given the timing and “good cause” analysis.
- The court held Bullock had standing to challenge the alleged unlawful search despite not owning the property.
- The court reversed the denial of the motion to suppress, holding the warrantless entry onto private land constituted an unconstitutional search under the Montana Constitution.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with suppression of the evidence obtained from the unconstitutional entry.

## Legal Principles

- Montana’s search-and-seizure protections (Art. II, § 11), read alongside the state constitutional right of privacy (Art. II, § 10), may provide greater protection than the Fourth Amendment.
- In prosecutions for possession, Montana recognizes broader standing to challenge searches and seizures than the federal approach, based on the relationship among the defendant, the place searched, and the evidence seized.
- Warrantless entry onto private land beyond the curtilage is not categorically exempt from constitutional scrutiny in Montana; when the circumstances show an expectation of privacy and no warrant or sufficient justification exists, the entry may be an unconstitutional search.
- Evidence obtained as a result of an unconstitutional search must be suppressed.

## Conclusion

The Montana Supreme Court held that the statutory six-month trial rule did not require dismissal, but that officers’ warrantless entry onto private land to investigate game-law violations violated Montana’s constitutional protections and required suppression; it also recognized broad standing for a defendant charged with possession to challenge the search.


State v. Bullock, 901 P.2d 61 (Mont. 1995)