The Montana Supreme Court ruled February 10, 2026, in *City of Kalispell v. Sean Michael Doman*, a closely watched case involving the arrest of a citizen who filmed police officers during a traffic stop while standing on a public sidewalk. Justice Beth Baker delivered the opinion of the court in the case designated as 2026 MT 15.
Sean Michael Doman was arrested by Kalispell police officers after he filmed them conducting a traffic stop. According to court records, Doman was positioned on a public sidewalk when he recorded the police activity. The specific charges and circumstances that led to his arrest were not detailed in the available court documents, but the case proceeded through the Flathead County District Court system before reaching Montana's highest court.
The case originated in the District Court of the Eleventh Judicial District in Flathead County under Judge Robert Allison. The matter was designated as Cause No. DC-23-164 in the trial court before being appealed to the Montana Supreme Court as case DA 23-0462.
The constitutional implications of the case attracted significant attention from civil liberties organizations. The American Civil Liberties Union of Montana and the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation intervened as amici curiae, underscoring the broader legal questions at stake regarding citizens' rights to record police activities in public spaces.
Doman was represented by the Montana Appellate Defender Division, with Tammy Hinderman serving as administrator and Assistant Appellate Defender Carolyn Gibadlo arguing the case before the high court. The City of Kalispell was represented by a team that included Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen and Assistant Attorney General Thad Tudor, along with Kalispell City Attorney Johnna Preble and Deputy City Attorney Tyson Parman.
The ACLU's involvement was represented by Alex Rate from the American Civil Liberties Union of Montana in Missoula, and Matthew Segal from the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation in New York, who argued on behalf of the civil liberties organizations.
The case underwent extensive appellate review, with oral arguments conducted on October 1, 2025, and the matter submitted for decision on October 7, 2025. The court took approximately four months to issue its ruling, suggesting the complexity of the legal issues involved.
Cases involving citizens filming police officers in public spaces have become increasingly common across the United States as smartphone technology has made recording more accessible and widespread. Courts have generally recognized that the First Amendment protects the right to record police officers performing their duties in public, though the specific circumstances and limitations of this right continue to be litigated.
The Montana Supreme Court's decision comes at a time when questions about police accountability and citizen oversight remain prominent in public discourse. The involvement of both state and national ACLU organizations indicates the potential for this ruling to have implications beyond Montana's borders, particularly for similar cases involving the intersection of First Amendment rights and law enforcement activities.
The timing of Doman's arrest and the subsequent legal proceedings span a period when many jurisdictions have been reviewing their policies regarding citizen recording of police activities. Some departments have implemented training and policies that explicitly recognize citizens' rights to record, while others have faced litigation over arrests similar to Doman's situation.
The specific legal theories and constitutional arguments presented in the case are not detailed in the available court documents, but the extended timeline from arrest to supreme court decision suggests the case involved complex questions of constitutional law, municipal authority, and individual rights.
The case also highlights the role of state supreme courts in addressing constitutional questions that affect the relationship between citizens and law enforcement. Montana's highest court was tasked with balancing competing interests: the ability of citizens to document police activities in public spaces and the authority of municipalities to regulate conduct and maintain public order.
While the full text of the court's opinion was not available in the court documents, Justice Baker's authorship of the decision indicates that the court reached a definitive conclusion on the legal questions presented. The involvement of multiple levels of legal representation, from local city attorneys to the state attorney general's office to national civil liberties organizations, demonstrates the significance stakeholders placed on the case's outcome.
The ruling's implications will likely extend beyond Kalispell to other Montana municipalities and potentially influence how similar cases are handled throughout the region. The decision adds to the growing body of case law addressing the constitutional parameters of citizens' rights to record police activities and the corresponding limitations on law enforcement's ability to restrict such recording.