Montana
Montana has no forensic science commission and no general lab accreditation statute; sexual assault kits must go to a publicly accredited crime lab within 30 days. The 2023 Facial Recognition for Government Use Act requires a warrant for police searches and makes improperly obtained results inadmissible. Government access to consumer DNA databases, and familial searches, need a warrant or a court-issued investigative subpoena. Since 2023, drivers may be tested for drugs by oral fluid. Montana applies Daubert only to novel scientific evidence.
- Sources checked
- Part of
- Forensic Ledger
At a glance
- Oversight body
- No forensic science commission. Under the Montana Forensic Science System Act, the Department of Justice runs “a division of forensic sciences” (MCA 44-3-104), including the laboratory of criminalistics under a director (44-3-301, -303). The Department’s criminal intelligence information section audits facial recognition use (44-15-111).
- Lab accreditation
- No general crime lab accreditation statute. An investigating agency that takes a sexual assault evidence kit must submit it “to a publicly accredited crime laboratory for forensic analysis within 30 days”; failure to submit is not a ground to challenge or exclude evidence (MCA 46-15-404(5), (6), 2019). DUI blood samples must be analyzed “in a laboratory operated or certified by the department or in a laboratory exempt from certification under the rules of the department” (61-8-1018). A search of every section in Titles 26, 44, 45, 46 and 61 found no other crime lab accreditation rule; the DNA statutes set none (44-6; 46-21-110).
- Analyst licensing
- None. Breath, oral fluid and preliminary alcohol screening results are admissible if the test was given “by a person certified by the forensic sciences division of the department to administer the test” (MCA 61-8-1018). The Department “may require certification of training to administer the tests” (61-8-1019(5)), and preliminary alcohol screening needs a certified officer and instrument (61-8-1016).
- Admissibility standard
- Mont. R. Evid. 702 keeps the original 1977 federal wording (Rule 702). Montana applies Daubert only to novel scientific evidence (Hulse v. State, 1998 MT 108). In 2026 the Supreme Court held that a medical differential diagnosis “is not novel scientific evidence” (State v. Proctor, 2026 MT 150). Montana has not adopted the 2023 change to Federal Rule 702.
- Post-conviction forensic relief
- No. A convicted felon claiming innocence may petition for DNA testing (MCA 46-21-110, 2003, amended 2015). No statute addresses new or changed scientific evidence generally.
- DNA database scope
- Conviction-based. Samples are taken on felony convictions; from youths found to have committed a sexual or violent offense; from defendants the sentencing court orders to give one; from registered sexual or violent offenders; and from certain interstate-compact offenders (MCA 44-6-103). No arrestee collection. Government access to consumer DNA or neurotechnology databases, and familial or partial-match searches, needs a warrant or investigative subpoena issued by a court on probable cause (44-6-104).
- Facial recognition
- Yes. The Facial Recognition for Government Use Act (MCA 44-15-101 to -112, 2023) bars state and local government use except as allowed. Police may use it for listed serious crimes with a warrant, or for missing or deceased persons with a court order; after an emergency search, a warrant is due within 24 hours. Results cannot be the sole basis for probable cause, sketches may not be searched, a person must meaningfully review results, use must be disclosed to the defendant before trial, and data obtained in violation is “inadmissible in evidence.” The Department of Justice reports yearly.
Changes, 2023 to 2026
Montana Supreme Court: abusive head trauma testimony based on differential diagnosis is not novel science
Affirming a conviction for felony assault on a minor, the court held the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting expert testimony on non-accidental trauma over the defense’s challenge to the “SBS/AHT triad.” Because the medical conclusions came from a differential diagnosis, which “is not novel scientific evidence” (citing State v. Price, 2007 MT 269), no Daubert analysis was required. The court noted the child also had a broken femur, rib fractures and bruising. It also held that the phone search warrant was an unlawful general warrant, but that admitting the phone evidence was harmless error. Separate opinions were not reviewed.
For practitioners: Contested forensic-medical opinions framed as differential diagnosis get ordinary Rule 702 review, not a Daubert hearing. Build the challenge under Rule 702 and on cross-examination.
Consumer DNA database rule extended to neurotechnology; investigative subpoena allowed instead of a warrant
A government entity may not get DNA or neurotechnology search results from a consumer DNA or neurotechnology database, or familial or partial-match results, without “a search warrant or investigative subpoena issued by a court on a finding of probable cause,” unless the consumer waived privacy (44-6-104). The 2021 text said only “search warrant.” New subsection (4): an entity that lawfully obtains such results “may use the results during criminal investigations and judicial proceedings subject to applicable rules of criminal procedure and evidence.” In 30-23-103(2), government collection or use of genetic or neurotechnology data must follow a specific state law or be “executed through a search warrant or investigative subpoena issued pursuant to 46-4-301.”
For practitioners: In a genetic genealogy case, ask for the warrant or subpoena and the court’s probable cause finding; a court-issued subpoena now suffices.
DUI implied consent and commercial driver testing extended to oral fluid
Drivers are deemed to consent to oral fluid tests as well as blood and breath tests (61-8-1016), and so are commercial vehicle operators (61-8-806). Oral fluid is added to the analyses that can establish alcohol concentration or drug presence (61-8-1001, -1002). Refusal provisions now cover oral fluid, and a search warrant may be sought for blood or oral fluid. The act extends the oral fluid framework of SB 13 (2023), below.
For practitioners: The refusal provisions now reach oral fluid tests. Check that the person who gave the test held Department of Justice certification.
Facial recognition “serious crime” list expanded
HB 267 created aggravated vehicular homicide while under the influence (45-5-107) and added it to the serious crimes for which police may use facial recognition. HB 532 created a crime of abuse, sexual abuse or neglect of incapacitated persons or vulnerable adults (45-5-802(1)) and added it to the list. No other part of the facial recognition act changed.
For practitioners: A facial recognition warrant may now be sought for these two offenses; the warrant and disclosure rules are unchanged.
Government use of genetic data limited to a specific law or a warrant, from June 1, 2025
The act regulates consumer genetic testing companies and exempts “uses by a governmental agency” from those rules, but adds: “Beginning June 1, 2025, any collection, storage, use, or dissemination of genetic data by a governmental agency must be performed in accordance with a specific state law or executed through a search warrant.” SB 163 (2025), above, struck the start date and added the investigative subpoena alternative.
For practitioners: The rule reaches government genetic data outside the state DNA index, such as genetic genealogy work; ask what law or warrant authorized each use.
Facial Recognition for Government Use Act
State and local agencies, police, public employees and officials may not obtain, use or contract for facial recognition, or install continuous facial surveillance cameras on public buildings or roads, except as the act allows (44-15-105). The Department of Justice and local police may use it to investigate a “serious crime” on probable cause, to find missing or endangered persons, or to identify the dead. A warrant is required before the search; for missing or deceased persons, a court order; after an emergency search, a warrant within 24 hours (44-15-106). Results may not be “the sole basis to establish probable cause,” sketches and other hand-made images may not be searched, images may not be substantively altered, and a person must meaningfully review results before an adverse final decision. Use must be disclosed to the defendant before trial, and data derived in violation “must be considered unlawfully obtained,” must be deleted and “is inadmissible in evidence” (44-15-107). Local agencies, the Department and vendors face audits and yearly reports (44-15-111). Vendors with existing contracts had to comply by January 1, 2024.
For practitioners: Ask for the warrant or court order and the pretrial disclosure. Facial recognition data obtained in violation of the act is inadmissible by statute.
Sexual assault kits kept 75 years with victim notice; 30-day submission rule made permanent
Reported and anonymous kits and their contents “must be stored in a secure and reasonable manner that preserves evidence for 75 years from the date of collection.” On request, the victim gets written notice 120 days before destruction; if any party to the offense objects, the agency must prove by a preponderance that destruction must take place. The act repealed the 2019 clause that would have ended MCA 46-15-412 on June 30, 2023, so local agencies must still submit kits to the Division of Forensic Science within 30 days.
For practitioners: Kits from old cases should still exist; any party may object to destruction and put the agency to its proof.
DUI: oral fluid drug testing, with screening by certified operators
Oral fluid is added to the bodily fluids that may be tested for drugs. Evidence from analysis of blood, breath or oral fluid is admissible. A test report is admissible if a breath test, “oral fluid screening test” or preliminary alcohol screening test was given by a person certified by the Department of Justice forensic sciences division, or if a blood sample was analyzed in a lab the Department operates or certifies, or one exempt under its rules. A positive drug result “does not, in itself, prove” impairment; a drug-based DUI conviction needs other competent evidence.
For practitioners: A positive oral fluid or blood drug result alone cannot support a DUI conviction; look for the other evidence of impairment, and check operator certification.
Pending bills
No bill on these topics is pending. Montana held no regular session in 2026; the next begins January 4, 2027. Measures that did not become law:
- HB 735 (2023) would have required DNA samples from people arrested for certain felonies and allowed Rapid DNA testing at booking. It passed the House, was tabled in a Senate committee on April 18, 2023, and died (HB 735).
- HJ 17 (2023), an interim study of facial recognition technology, died on May 8, 2023.
- SB 491 (2025) would have ended law enforcement’s duty to pay for sexual assault medical forensic exams and amended 46-15-411 and -412. It passed the Senate, was tabled in a House committee on April 22, 2025, and died.
- Bill drafts LC1749 (“Generally revise crime lab laws”), LC0832 and LC1336 (facial recognition) and LC0342 (DNA privacy) died before introduction in 2025.
Checked and unchanged
- MCA 44-3-301 to -303 (laboratory of criminalistics): last amended in 2015 (44-3-301) and 1989 (44-3-303).
- MCA 44-6-103 (DNA collection): last amended in 2013. MCA 46-21-110 (post-conviction DNA testing): last amended in 2015.
- MCA 46-15-404 (sexual assault kit submission to an accredited lab): enacted in 2019; not amended since.
- Mont. R. Evid. 702: unchanged since 1977. State v. Wood, 2024 MT 318 (cell location by round-trip time), reversed on other grounds and did not decide the Daubert question, so it is not listed.
Last updated October 20, 2026Source: United States Council for Law & InvestigationCite as: United States Council for Law & Investigation, “Montana forensic science oversight: Forensic Ledger,” uscli.org/forensic-science-tracker/montana (last updated October 20, 2026). Text licensed CC BY 4.0.