Authorize recording of conversation with public official or employee performing an official duty
SB 388 revises Montana’s offense of violating privacy in communications, which currently prohibits certain forms of electronic harassment, hidden recording of conversations, and nonconsensual distribution of intimate images. The bill creates a new exception to the hidden-recording prohibition for a person who records a conversation with an elected or appointed public official or a public employee while that official or employee is performing an official duty. It also preserves existing exceptions for recordings made during official duties, public meetings, and situations where one party has been warned, while leaving the rest of the privacy statute largely intact.
The bill also clarifies and expands the statute’s exceptions related to nonconsensual image distribution, including disclosures made in the public interest, law enforcement, criminal or news reporting, legal proceedings, medical treatment, and historic, artistic, scientific, or educational materials. It retains the existing penalty structure for violations, including misdemeanor-level penalties for a first offense and enhanced penalties for repeat offenses. The bill further states that interactive computer services are not liable for content posted by others, and it defines key terms such as electronic communication and interactive computer service.
SB 388 would amend section 45-8-213, MCA, by narrowing the reach of Montana’s privacy-in-communications offense in the context of recordings involving public officials and public employees performing official duties. It would expressly permit citizens to record those interactions without violating the hidden-recording provision, which could affect how government meetings, agency interactions, and other official encounters are documented. The bill also broadens statutory exceptions for image disclosures and preserves existing criminal penalties and definitions, leaving the core enforcement framework in place while adding protections for recording and disclosure in public-interest settings.
The bill appears to have had limited support in the Senate Judiciary Committee and did not advance. A do-pass motion failed 3-5, and a subsequent motion to table the bill failed 0-8, indicating that the committee did not reach consensus either for passage or for formal tabling. With the bill ultimately dying in process, the recorded votes suggest skepticism or opposition among committee members, though the available record does not include transcript discussion explaining individual positions.
The main point of contention is the proposed right to record elected or appointed public officials and public employees while they are performing official duties. Supporters likely viewed the change as a transparency and accountability measure, while opponents may have been concerned about privacy, workplace disruption, or the scope of recordings in official settings. Additional potential friction points include the bill’s broader exceptions for image disclosures in the public interest and for news, law enforcement, and educational uses, which could be seen as either necessary safeguards or as weakening privacy protections.