MT · state guide
Montana background screening law
What is different here
- Montana caps criminal record reporting at seven years, and the cap reaches convictions. The section covers arrest, indictment and conviction in a single clause with no conviction exclusion, and it has no exceptions subsection at all, so the federal salary escape hatch has no Montana counterpart. A conviction older than seven years is not reportable in Montana at any salary.
- That makes the Montana cap a live constraint rather than a formality. A conviction outside the seven-year window is not reportable here at any salary, and no later step in the process repairs a report that should not have contained it.
- The criminal record system is split in two. Montana restricts dissemination of criminal history record information, but it places convictions, deferred sentences and deferred prosecutions in a separate category of public criminal justice information on which the statute imposes no restriction at all, and it excludes court records from the restricted category by definition.
- Montana also names marijuana in its off-duty lawful product protection, so use away from the premises on nonworking hours is a protected activity rather than a screening finding, subject to four carve-outs.
- The rest is thin. There is no state ban-the-box provision that was found, no credit check restriction that was found, and no salary threshold anywhere in the reporting statute.
How the courts here are organized
Montana has 56 district courts with general jurisdiction, and MCA 3-5-302(1)(a) puts all criminal cases amounting to felony in the district court. Below them sit the courts of limited jurisdiction, which the judicial branch lists as Justice Courts, City Courts and Municipal Courts. There is also a Water Court, a Workers’ Compensation Court, a Youth Court and a Drug Court, none of which is a screening destination.
The more consequential structure is not the court hierarchy but the way Montana splits its criminal record data, because that split decides where a search can reach at all.
MCA 44-5-302(1) restricts dissemination of criminal history record information to non-criminal-justice recipients, allowing it only on the individual’s consent or at their request, by court order, where a statute authorizes the recipient, or through a small set of care and treatment routes. That is the restricted stream, and a screening provider is not inside it.
MCA 44-5-301(1) then says, of a different category, that there are no restrictions on dissemination at all. The category is public criminal justice information, and MCA 44-5-103(13) defines it to include information of convictions, deferred sentences and deferred prosecutions, information of court records and proceedings, and information made public by law.
The two definitions meet in one more place that settles the question. MCA 44-5-103(4)(b)(ii) states that criminal history record information does not include court records. So the courts are not in the restricted stream by exclusion, and convictions are not in it by inclusion.
| District courts | 56, with general jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Felony court | District court. All criminal cases amounting to felony |
| Limited jurisdiction | Justice Courts, City Courts and Municipal Courts |
| Also in the system | Water Court, Workers’ Compensation Court, Youth Court, Drug Court |
| State repository | Held by the Department of Justice under MCA 44-2-201 |
| Repository access | Restricted to criminal justice agencies, consent, court order or statutory authorization |
| Public criminal justice information | No dissemination restriction at all |
| Court records | Expressly excluded from criminal history record information |
The practical result is that the state repository is not a route a screening provider can use, and the courts are a route it can. A Montana criminal record is reached county by county, from the district courts and from the arresting agencies, rather than from a single state file.
That is the opposite of how Nebraska works, where the fee is the only barrier, and it is different again from Michigan, where the state product exists but deletes each result after seven days. Three states, three different answers to whether a state-level Montana-style query is worth running at all.
It also means the coverage question in Montana is a county question. Fifty-six district courts is a manageable number to name, and a coverage statement that does not name them is not describing a search.
One limit on this reading should be stated plainly, because the statutory text supports more confidence than the surrounding facts do. The conclusion that a provider reaches Montana court data rather than Montana criminal history record information rests on the definitions in MCA 44-5-103 and the two dissemination sections. Whether the Department of Justice operates any additional gateway, and whether the courts themselves impose access terms beyond the statute, was not verified. The definitions are the finding; the operational route through them is the inference.
The federal baseline
Federal law sets the floor here as it does everywhere. It is at 15 U.S.C. §1681 et seq., it binds the agency and the employer separately, and it does not vary by state. The FCRA article covers it section by section, including the seven-year limits, the salary threshold and the adverse action sequence, so that this page does not restate any of it.
What follows is only the overlay: what Montana adds on top of that floor, and where it departs from it.
What Montana law adds
Its own consumer reporting statute
Yes. MCA Title 31, chapter 3, part 1, sections 31-3-101 through 31-3-153, titled Consumer Reporting Agencies. The range was confirmed by reading the part index in full. Montana does not rely on the federal act alone, which is what makes the reporting limits below state law rather than federal law.
MCA 31-3-101 to 31-3-153
Lookback limits
Seven years, and the clock reaches convictions. MCA 31-3-112(5) covers records of arrest, indictment or conviction of crime in one clause, running seven years from date of disposition, release or parole. There is no conviction exclusion, which is the reverse of the federal position at 15 U.S.C. §1681c(a)(5). Bankruptcies run to 14 years, longer than the federal ten. Suits and judgments run seven years or the governing limitations period, whichever is longer. Paid tax liens, collections and any other adverse item run seven years.
MCA 31-3-112(2) · MCA 31-3-112(5) · MCA 31-3-112(1)
Non-conviction reporting
The same seven years as convictions, with no separate bar. Montana covers arrest in the same clause as conviction, so non-conviction items are not restricted more tightly than convictions here. Montana has no equivalent of the newer state laws that prohibit non-conviction reporting outright.
MCA 31-3-112(5)
Salary threshold
None at all, and the negative is textual rather than scanned. MCA 31-3-112 runs from subsection (1) to subsection (6) and then stops: there is no exceptions subsection of any kind. The definitional section at MCA 31-3-102 contains no salary term. Compare 15 U.S.C. §1681c(b)(3) at $75,000, and the $20,000 figures Kansas and New Hampshire both kept. This is the single most consequential finding on the page.
MCA 31-3-112 · MCA 31-3-102
Ban-the-box
None found, at the scope actually read. MCA Title 39, chapter 2, part 3, titled General Prohibitions on Employers, lists eight operative sections and contains no hiring-stage criminal record restriction. MCA Title 2, chapter 18, on state employee classification, compensation and benefits, contains nothing on point either. That is a two-part negative rather than a full-Code search, and a governor’s executive order would not appear in the Code at all, so this is stated as an absence of evidence at a named scope.
MCA Title 39, ch. 2, part 3 · MCA Title 2, ch. 18
Cannabis
Protected off duty, expressly. MCA 39-2-313 defines lawful product to include marijuana by name, so an employer may not discriminate because the individual legally uses it off the premises during nonworking hours. Four carve-outs apply: performance or safety, bona fide occupational qualifications, personal-service contractors, and non-profits whose primary purpose is discouraging the product, plus a separate protection for employers acting under a substance abuse program or policy, a professional contract or a collective bargaining agreement.
MCA 39-2-313(1) · MCA 39-2-313(2) · MCA 39-2-313(3) · MCA 39-2-313(4)
Credit checks
No restriction found, at the scope actually read. MCA Title 31, chapter 3 and MCA Title 39, chapter 2, part 3 were read and contain no employment credit-check restriction. A full-text search of the Code was not available, so this is recorded as not established rather than as a negative, and the page asserts nothing.
Statewide repository
Two streams, and the courts sit in the unrestricted one. The Department of Justice maintains a state repository under MCA 44-2-201, and MCA 44-5-302(1) restricts dissemination of criminal history record information to non-criminal-justice recipients except on consent, request, court order, statutory authorization or a care route. Separately, MCA 44-5-301(1) imposes no restriction at all on public criminal justice information, which MCA 44-5-103(13) defines to include convictions, deferred sentences, deferred prosecutions, and court records. MCA 44-5-103(4)(b)(ii) then excludes court records from criminal history record information altogether.
MCA 44-5-301(1) · MCA 44-5-302(1) · MCA 44-5-103(13) · MCA 44-5-103(14)
Court structure
Felony jurisdiction is in the district court. MCA 3-5-302(1)(a) gives the district court original jurisdiction over all criminal cases amounting to felony, and the judicial branch puts the district court count at 56 with general jurisdiction for civil and criminal cases. Courts of limited jurisdiction are Justice Courts, City Courts and Municipal Courts.
MCA 3-5-302(1)(a)
Automated decision law
Not established in this pass. The Code’s full-text search runs on a third-party engine that was not reachable from this environment, so no search was run and no negative is reported. This is a gap rather than an answer, and nothing is asserted on the page.
The statute that surprises people
The lawful product that includes marijuana
MCA 39-2-313
Montana prohibits an employer from refusing to employ or license an individual, and from discriminating against them in compensation, promotion or the terms, conditions or privileges of employment, because the individual legally uses a lawful product off the employer’s premises during nonworking hours.
The definition of lawful product is where the section does its work. MCA 39-2-313(1) defines it as a product that is legally consumed, used or enjoyed, and then names what it includes: food, beverages, tobacco, and marijuana. Marijuana is written into the definition rather than left to be argued.
The section was enacted in 1993 and amended twice, in 2011 and by chapter 576 of the 2021 session, which is the marijuana implementation session. The 2021 amendment is what carried the substance into the definition rather than creating a new section for it.
Four carve-outs bound the protection. Subsection (3) covers use that affects job performance or safety, bona fide occupational qualifications, personal-service contractors, and nonprofits whose primary purpose is discouraging the product. Subsection (4) protects an employer acting under an established substance abuse or alcohol program or policy, under a professional contract, or under a collective bargaining agreement.
Two things follow for a screening provider. First, a positive marijuana result is not by itself a lawful basis for an adverse decision in Montana, and the carve-outs are where the argument would be had. Second, the protection runs to off-duty use of a lawful product generally, so the same reasoning that covers marijuana covers tobacco and alcohol, which is what the section was originally written for.
Reporting limits at a glance
Every figure below is against Montana law. Where a row says “federal only”, the state has set nothing and 15 U.S.C. §1681c governs.
| Dimension | Limit | Source and qualification |
|---|---|---|
| State consumer reporting law | MCA 31-3-101 to 31-3-153 | Montana’s own act, not the federal one. The limits below are state law. |
| Lookback, convictions | Seven years | MCA 31-3-112(5). The clock reaches convictions, which is the reverse of the federal position. |
| Lookback, non-conviction | Seven years | Arrest sits in the same clause as conviction. No separate or stricter rule. |
| Lookback clock start | Disposition, release or parole | MCA 31-3-112(5). Not the date of the offense and not the date of arrest. |
| Salary threshold | None | No exceptions subsection exists. The federal $75,000 escape hatch has no Montana counterpart. |
| Bankruptcies | 14 years | Longer than the federal ten. |
| Suits and judgments | 7 years or the limitations period | Whichever is longer. |
| Cannabis, off duty | Protected | MCA 39-2-313 names marijuana in its definition of lawful product. Four carve-outs. |
| Ban-the-box | None found | Two code parts read in full and nothing found. Not a full-Code negative. |
| Credit checks | Not established | No restriction found in the parts read. No full-text search was available. |
| State repository access | Restricted | MCA 44-5-302(1). Consent, request, court order or statutory authorization. A provider is not inside it. |
| Public criminal justice information | No restriction | MCA 44-5-301(1). Includes convictions, deferred sentences and deferred prosecutions. |
| Court records | Outside the restricted stream | MCA 44-5-103(4)(b)(ii) excludes them from criminal history record information. |
| District courts | 56 | General jurisdiction. Felony cases are commenced there. |
Adverse action here
The federal sequence applies, and Montana’s own act sits alongside it rather than replacing it. Pre-adverse action notice with the report and the summary of rights, a reasonable opportunity to respond, then the adverse action notice with the agency’s details and a dispute route. The FCRA article sets it out in full.
The Montana-specific step comes earlier than any of that. Because the seven-year cap reaches convictions and admits no salary exception, the question in Montana is not whether an old conviction may be used in an adverse decision. It is whether the conviction may appear in the report at all. A conviction outside the window that reaches an employer has already breached MCA 31-3-112, and the adverse action sequence cannot cure a report that should not have contained the item.
The same applies to a marijuana result. MCA 39-2-313 makes off-duty use of a lawful product a protected activity, and marijuana is named in the definition, so a report that surfaces a positive result has to be read against the carve-outs before it is acted on. A policy, a professional contract or a collective bargaining agreement can supply the employer with a defense under subsection (4); nothing in the screening process supplies one on its own.
One structural consequence is worth stating for applicants. Because the seven-year cap is textual and unambiguous, and because court records are accessible while the state repository is not, a Montana dispute is usually about the date the clock started rather than about whether the record exists. Disposition, release and parole each start the clock at a different point, and the difference between them is the whole argument.
Screening in Montana: what your process needs
- Confirm the configuration applies a seven-year lookback to convictions in Montana and not only to non-conviction items. In Montana that distinction changes the report.
- Confirm the clock is started from disposition, release or parole rather than from the offense date or the arrest date.
- Confirm no salary exemption has been imported. The federal $75,000 figure has no Montana counterpart, and applying it would report convictions that may not be reported.
- Confirm a marijuana result is routed for review against the MCA 39-2-313 carve-outs rather than treated as an automatic adverse finding.
- Confirm the coverage statement names the district courts searched. Montana has 56 of them and the state repository is not a substitute.
- Confirm the search is not described as including the Department of Justice repository. MCA 44-5-302(1) does not open it to a screening provider.
- Confirm any pre-adverse action review checks whether an item was reportable before it checks whether it was accurate. In Montana those are separate questions and the first one is the state’s.
Related states
What we do
Montana is the state where a reporting limit is a live constraint. Seven years, and it reaches convictions, with no salary exemption anywhere in the section and no exceptions subsection to hold one. A provider that runs Montana on the federal rules reports records that may not be reported, and no amount of care later in the process repairs that. Being able to say so, and to say which of the 56 district courts the search covered, is the whole of the Montana answer.
Sources
- MCA 31-3-112, obsolete information
- MCA 31-3-102, definitions
- MCA 31-3-101 to 31-3-153, consumer reporting agencies
- MCA 39-2-313, discrimination prohibited for use of lawful product during nonworking hours
- MCA 44-5-301, dissemination of public criminal justice information
- MCA 44-5-302, dissemination of criminal history record information that is not public
- MCA 44-5-103, definitions of public criminal justice information and state repository
- MCA 3-5-302, district court jurisdiction
- Montana Judicial Branch, court structure
- 15 U.S.C. §1681c(a)(5) and (b)(3), federal reporting limits and salary exemption
Last reviewed 23 September 2026. This page is checked on a quarterly cycle, because state screening law changes every legislative session. Nothing here is legal advice; see the terms of use.