Suppressing Statements and Evidence in a PFMA Case

A motion to suppress asks the court to exclude evidence that the police obtained by violating your rights: an unlawful entry or search, questioning in custody without the required warnings, or a statement that was not voluntary. If the motion is granted, that evidence cannot be used at trial. It does not decide whether you are guilty, and it does not by itself dismiss a partner or family member assault (PFMA) charge. This page is part of our Montana Domestic Violence Guide.

The Two Montana Suppression Statutes

Both motions are made in writing and must state facts. If the facts alleged would justify suppression, the court holds a hearing. For a statement, the prosecution must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that it was voluntary, and the question of admissibility is decided by the judge, not the jury (MCA § 46-13-301(2) and (3)).

Entry Into the Home

When an arrest happens at a residence, the first question is how officers came to be inside. The Montana Constitution protects people in their "persons, papers, electronic data and communications, homes and effects from unreasonable searches and seizures" (Article II, section 11) and separately protects the right of individual privacy (Article II, section 10).

Under the Fourth Amendment, the U.S. Supreme Court held in Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (1980), that police may not make a warrantless and nonconsensual entry into a suspect's home to make a routine felony arrest, and that absent exigent circumstances the threshold may not reasonably be crossed without a warrant. The words "nonconsensual" and "exigent" mark the two exceptions that matter most on domestic calls:

• Consent. Officers may be invited in by someone who lives there.
• Emergency. In Brigham City v. Stuart, 547 U.S. 398 (2006), the Court held that police may enter a home without a warrant when they have an objectively reasonable basis for believing that an occupant is seriously injured or imminently threatened with such injury.

Montana's arrest statute adds that the summoning of a peace officer to a residence by a partner or family member "constitutes an exigent circumstance for making an arrest" (MCA § 46-6-311(2)(a)). Whether a particular entry was lawful depends on who called, what the officers saw and heard on arrival, and who let them in. Body camera video can help answer those questions. See police entering your home.

Searches and Seized Items

A motion under MCA § 46-13-302 can also challenge a search that went beyond what the situation allowed, or the seizure of items such as a phone. In Riley v. California, No. 13-132 (decided in 2014), the U.S. Supreme Court held that police generally may not, without a warrant, search digital information on a cell phone seized from a person who has been arrested. Our page on texts, photos, and digital evidence covers phone evidence, and weapons seized at the scene covers firearms taken by officers.

Miranda and Statements

In Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), the Court held that the prosecution may not use statements stemming from custodial interrogation unless procedural safeguards were used: the familiar warnings about the right to remain silent, that statements may be used as evidence, and the right to an attorney. The Court defined custodial interrogation as questioning initiated by law enforcement after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of freedom of action in a significant way.

The same opinion describes what falls outside the rule:

• "General on-the-scene questioning as to facts surrounding a crime" is not affected by the holding.
• "Volunteered statements of any kind are not barred by the Fifth Amendment."

That matters in domestic cases, because much of what people say is said in the first minutes, before anyone is in handcuffs, or is blurted out in the patrol car without a question being asked. A Miranda motion therefore turns on two facts: when custody began, and whether the statement was a response to questioning. Our page on talking to police at the scene explains your right to decline to answer.

Involuntary Statements

Voluntariness is a separate issue from Miranda. Under MCA § 46-13-301, a statement can be suppressed if it was involuntary, whether or not warnings were given. If the court finds the statement admissible, the defense may still present the circumstances in which it was made to the jury, as bearing on its credibility and weight (MCA § 46-13-301(3)).

Timing and Procedure

Suppression issues have to be raised early. Except for good cause, a defense or request that can be decided without trial must be raised at or before the omnibus hearing, and a failure to raise it at the time the court sets is a waiver, though the court may grant relief for cause shown (MCA § 46-13-101). The omnibus hearing statute lists motions to suppress among the matters to be addressed (MCA § 46-13-110(3)(h)). Scheduling practice differs from court to court.

This is why the defense needs the reports and video promptly. See discovery in a PFMA case.

What Suppression Does and Does Not Do

• It does keep the suppressed item out of the trial (MCA §§ 46-13-301(4) and 46-13-302(3)).
• It does not dismiss the charge. The State can proceed on its remaining evidence if it chooses.
• It does not reach evidence that did not come from the violation, such as a 911 recording made before officers arrived or the testimony of a witness about what he or she saw.
• It does not decide what happened. A ruling for the defense is about police conduct, and a ruling against the defense does not mean the State has proved its case.

When a suppressed statement or item was central to the State's proof, the ruling can change how the case resolves. See can a PFMA be dismissed or reduced. For the other defenses, see our overview of PFMA defenses.

This page explains Montana and federal law in general as of the 2025 Montana Code Annotated. It is not legal advice about your specific case.