Montana Senate Ethics Committee subpoenas DMV records, sets March 7 adjudicatory hearing amid defense objections

The Montana Senate Ethics Committee voted unanimously to request additional documentary records — including motor vehicle division files tied to two Stevensville addresses — and set an adjudicatory hearing to begin March 7, 2025, with an expectation to try to conclude business by about 4:00 p.m. that day.

The subpoena request, moved by Vice Chair Senator McGilvray, asks the Motor Vehicle Division of the Department of Justice and the Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks for a list of all persons who applied for licenses using the residential addresses 4676 Donaldson Drive, Stevensville, Montana 59870, or 305 Mission Street, Stevensville, Montana 59870 since 2013, “with all personally identifying information other than names and dates of application redacted,” according to the motion read into the record. The committee directed staff to prepare a subpoena document after the voice vote.

The committee also voted, on a motion by Senator McGilvray, to set an adjudicatory hearing to begin on 03/07/2025 and to “try to wrap up around 04:00 on the seventh,” language the committee asked staff to place into the draft notice. Special Counsel Dirk explained the hearing notice incorporates the legislative auditor’s memorandum (01/24/2025) as an exhibit and strips certain prior Title 45 allegations while conserving statutory citations relevant to the committee’s fact-finding.

Respondent counsel objected to the pace and to proceeding on March 7. Counsel stated they had scheduled and served exam requests for witnesses and that they had not received key investigative materials relied on by the legislative auditor. The counsel argued that state law governing legislative investigative powers (cited in the record as “55,106 sub 3”) and related Montana case law create protected liberty and property interests that require careful procedural protections, and asked the committee for leave to brief a motion to stay the adjudicatory proceedings because of a pending criminal investigation. The counsel said, “I do take exception to the representations ... there is a protected property and liberty interest,” and requested time to obtain documents needed for meaningful cross-examination.

Special Counsel Dirk and other committee members said that some procedural or “housekeeping” matters could be handled on March 7 — recognizing the possibility of addressing witness lists, exhibit lists, scope and bounds of relevance, and other pre-hearing matters — and that substantive testimony might be scheduled or continued if necessary. Dirk said the committee could use the day to “recognize the rules, recognize the parties, recognize who is appearing, recognizing the witness order and the exhibit list” and try to limit the scope so the hearing would not expand into multiple days without the committee’s agreement.

Committee members debated practical scheduling constraints. Senator Pope and others objected that March transmittal week and heavy floor calendars make late-week scheduling burdensome; other members pushed to set the earliest practical date to avoid additional delay. After discussion the committee adopted the March 7 start date by voice vote and instructed staff to prepare a notice reflecting that date and the committee’s preference to conclude by about 4:00 p.m. The chair asked staff and counsel to circulate the drafted notice and subpoena for signatures when ready.

The record shows continuing disagreement about pre-hearing witness interviews and whether counsel may take recorded statements of witnesses in advance; the committee directed special counsel to coordinate witness availability and to work with respondent counsel to address the logistics. The respondent’s counsel stated a formal objection to any procedure that would deny an opportunity to obtain documents and prepare cross examination, and said she would file a written objection and seek a ruling on any stay motion prior to the hearing.

No committee member proposed delaying action on the witness list; the committee confirmed the previously circulated witness list (with one addition, Bowen Greenwood, Supreme Court clerk) would be used to notify potential witnesses and that subpoenas could issue if witnesses did not respond to notice.

The committee’s actions: (1) authorized staff to prepare a subpoena seeking specified motor vehicle records tied to the two Stevensville addresses (motion passed unanimously), and (2) scheduled the adjudicatory hearing to begin March 7, 2025, with an aim to conclude by about 4:00 p.m. that day (motion passed by voice vote). Defense counsel for the respondent objected and signaled plans to file a motion to stay and to seek production of additional documents necessary for cross-examination.

The committee left open the possibility of using March 7 to resolve procedural and evidentiary housekeeping and to reconvene substantive testimony on later dates if required. Staff was directed to finalize the notice and subpoena and to circulate drafts for committee signature.