SB 40 would require Montana's Supreme Court to publicly disclose its deliberations by mandating recordings of closed meetings and making those records available after a case is final. It amends Montana law (sections 2-3-203, 2-3-212, and 2-6-1002, MCA) to ensure closed judicial discussions - currently private - are recorded and accessible to the public once all appeals are exhausted. The bill directly affects the Montana Supreme Court's internal proceedings and expands public access to judicial decision-making. Key provisions include requiring electronic recordings of closed meetings, redacting only confidential information as defined by law, and specifying that cases become final after all review periods expire.
SB 127, introduced in Montana, would have allowed individuals to defend themselves against serious crimes like assault, robbery, or kidnapping using reasonable force without facing legal jeopardy. The key provision required prosecutors to reimburse defendants for attorney fees and out-of-pocket costs if they successfully defended themselves in court and were not convicted of the specific charge. This reimbursement would come from the prosecutor’s budget, not the defendant, but only for cases where the self-defense argument succeeded. The bill died in the legislative process after failing its third reading in March 2025 and did not become law.
HB 921 is a proposed constitutional amendment that would allow Montana to prohibit and punish the distribution or receipt of child pornography violating federal laws, while creating a private right for individuals to sue violators. It directly affects Montana state and local governments (who could enforce these prohibitions) and any person harmed by such violations (who could file lawsuits). Key provisions include overriding conflicting state laws to enable state enforcement of federal child pornography statutes and granting courts authority to award injunctive relief and attorney fees in successful lawsuits. The amendment requires voter approval at the 2026 general election and would not change existing federal laws, merely enabling Montana to align its enforcement with federal standards.
HB 116 aimed to allow attorneys, particularly public defenders, to appear remotely in court proceedings. The bill would have required all courts to establish a consistent process for these remote appearances. Public defenders would have been permitted to appear remotely for "nonsubstantive hearings," such as arraignments or bond hearings, where the case's final outcome isn't decided. However, a court could still order an attorney to appear in person if there was "good cause," such as a lack of technological resources, and provided advance notice.
HB 514 revises Montana's privacy in communications laws, specifically targeting the non-consensual use of sexually explicit images. The bill makes it an offense to publish, distribute, or disclose real or "digitally fabricated" sexually explicit images of an identifiable person without their consent, especially with intent to harm or extort. It also criminalizes possessing and threatening to disclose such images to obtain money or valuables. "Digitally fabricated" is defined as media created using technical means, like artificial intelligence, to falsely depict an individual engaging in sexual conduct. Penalties for these offenses range from a misdemeanor for a first conviction to a felony for subsequent convictions.
SB 348 revises laws related to sexual assault, primarily by increasing penalties for offenders. The bill raises the maximum fines and imprisonment terms for first, second, and third or subsequent convictions of sexual assault. A key provision mandates that individuals convicted of a second sexual assault offense must register as a sexual offender. These changes directly affect individuals convicted of sexual assault by strengthening legal consequences for the crime.
Senate Bill 413 creates the crime of "disclosing explicit synthetic media," also known as deepfakes, directly affecting individuals who create or share AI-generated content and protecting those falsely depicted. The bill makes it an offense to knowingly share synthetic media portraying an identifiable person engaged in sexual conduct or depicting intimate body parts without their consent, if it would cause substantial emotional distress. It also criminalizes disclosing such media with intent to harass or threaten, or possessing and threatening to disclose it for extortion. Penalties include fines and jail time, with increased penalties for repeat offenses or if the depicted person is under 18, though exceptions exist for reporting crimes, research, or legal proceedings.
HB 605 proposed revisions to criminal laws concerning strip searches for individuals entering correctional facilities. The bill would have allowed a person to be subjected to a strip search if they were to be housed in a jail or correctional facility for more than 12 hours. This provision would have created an exception to the existing requirement that individuals arrested for traffic or non-felony offenses can only be strip-searched if there is reasonable suspicion they are concealing a weapon, contraband, or evidence. The change would have permitted strip searches based on the anticipated length of detention, regardless of the initial offense type or specific suspicion for the search.
SB 296, known as "Alan's Law," establishes an enhanced penalty for individuals who commit offenses against vulnerable persons while employed or volunteering in a caregiving facility. If found guilty of a misdemeanor or felony offense, offenders face an additional prison sentence of 1 to 10 years. This additional sentence runs consecutively to the original punishment and generally cannot be deferred or suspended. The bill defines "caregiving facilities" broadly to include various health, youth, and educational settings, and "vulnerable persons" as children, vulnerable adults, or incapacitated individuals.
SB 30 revises laws concerning judicial conflicts of interest and recusal for judicial officers in legal proceedings. The bill specifies that the legal doctrine of the rule of necessity cannot be used by a judicial officer to avoid recusal due to a conflict of interest if other judicial officers with less significant conflicts are available to serve as substitutes. This change aims to ensure that cases are heard by judges with minimal potential conflicts, building upon existing rules for recusal based on campaign contributions.
