In 2018, Travis Staker answered a thinly veiled sex-for-hire ad, the opinion stated. The ad was in reality part of a prostitution sting conducted by the Gallatin County Sheriff's Office, Bozeman Police Department and Department of Homeland Security.

Staker answered the ad via text and was directed to a hotel where he could meet "Lily." Upon arrival, Staker was arrested and, in 2019, he was charged with patronizing prostitution, a misdemeanor.

Staker filed a motion to suppress his text messages and dismiss the case, claiming the warrantless use of an undercover officer and the ensuing text exchanges violated his right to privacy under Article II, Sections 10-11 of the Montana Constitution.

The Gallatin County Justice Court granted the motion to suppress but denied the motion to dismiss. The state appealed the ruling to suppress.

On de novo appeal, the 18th Judicial District Court denied both the suppression and dismissal motions, saying Staker's expectation that his text messages would remain private was not reasonable under the circumstances. Staker appealed.

The state Supreme Court differentiated Staker's case with others involving the government surreptitiously recording a seemingly private conversation.

Staker's case "involves the modern analog of the exchange of paper correspondence or notes … [with someone] who in fact may or may not be the person who the sender believes them to be," Justice Sandefur wrote.

Stripped of the comparison to surreptitious government monitoring of a seemingly private conversation, Staker's argument comes down to whether Montanans can expect that the person who is receiving their text messages is the person they purport to be and not a government agent, according to the opinion.

Further, any recipient of correspondence or notes is free to share the message with anyone whether the recipient is a government agent or not, the court noted.

"Each time Staker hit 'send' on his cell phone, he knowingly and voluntarily unveiled and sent his text messages for reading and storage on a cell phone purportedly belonging to a person known only to him as 'Lily,' with no reliable basis upon which to trust and rely that 'she' would not later disclose or share those messages with others including law enforcement," Justice Sandefur wrote.

Staker had no more expectation of privacy than anyone who voluntarily sends correspondence or notes to another person's physical or email address, the court ruled.

Staker was represented by Mark J. Luebeck of Angel, Coil & Bartlett.