Thank you, Frank Hardy:
Frankly, I thought the anonymous male who was leaving me phone messages should have been cited after the first phone message I received, and I told the police officer that. The officer in charge of my case said that under Part (a) of Privacy in Communications – no explicit threat had been made. (I told him that I thought an implied threat had been made, but according to his interpretation of the law, an implied threat is not the same as an explicit threat, and I could see his point.)
I think after several calls were made the police officer decided Part (b) of Privacy in Communications applied, specifically the part that says: “ . . . . or to disturb by repeated communications the peace, quiet, or right of privacy of a person at the place where the communications are received."
During the course of the police investigation, I was told by the police officer that perhaps I should consider getting an unlisted phone number (which I considered a “victim shaming” piece of advice. And, it was suggested that perhaps I shouldn’t post so much on milescity.com. I reminded the police officer of the First Amendment right of free speech.)
From this experience, I don’t think Montana’s law was applied fairly. I still think the man involved should have been issued a citation and not just a warning. Maybe he got a warning because he was a prominent, male, business owner in Miles City. Clearly, he violated Part (b) the of Privacy in Communications law. By way of contrast in how the police apply Montana’s laws: I don’t think warnings are given in DUI cases.
So, maybe at the next football game I’ll wear a t-shirt that says: “Female Lives Matter” and then take a knee. Oh, I forgot, I don’t go to football games!