Background
Dan James Savage, Jr. repeatedly used Lincoln County’s text-to-911 system to complain that law enforcement had not returned a cellphone seized about a decade earlier. On January 19, 2024, he sent 93 messages over several hours after dispatch told him his theft complaint was not an emergency. He sent 196 messages on January 22, including statements concerning a responding officer, and sent 16 more messages on February 11 after his release from arrest.
The State ultimately charged Savage with one count each of obstructing a public servant, false reports to peace officers, and privacy in communications for each of the three dates, plus intimidation. A jury acquitted him of intimidation but convicted him on the remaining nine counts. Savage argued on appeal that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to challenge the multiple convictions under Montana’s multiple-charges statute and that the evidence did not support the January 19 privacy-in-communications conviction.
The Court’s Holding
The Montana Supreme Court affirmed. The three sets of messages were not part of the same transaction under Montana law. Although each episode related generally to Savage’s longstanding cellphone grievance, they occurred on separate, nonconsecutive dates; involved newly initiated contacts with emergency dispatch; had distinct factual circumstances and content; and each could support a conviction or acquittal independently of the others.
Because a multiple-charges objection would have lacked merit, counsel was not deficient for failing to raise one, defeating Savage’s ineffective-assistance claim. The Court also held that sufficient evidence supported the January 19 privacy-in-communications conviction: the dispatcher testified that each text-to-911 message produced an audible alert until answered or closed, and Savage’s repeated messages distracted dispatch personnel and interfered with their other duties. The statute protects the peace, quiet, or privacy of a person where the communications are received, including a 911 dispatcher.
Key Takeaways
- Separate episodes of similar conduct on different dates may be separately charged and convicted when each rests on distinct facts and is independently provable.
- Defense counsel is not ineffective for declining to make an objection that has no valid legal basis.
- A public employee’s duty to receive communications does not exempt repeated electronic harassment from Montana’s privacy-in-communications statute.
Why It Matters
The decision draws a line between a short, continuous course of communications and separate episodes occurring on different days. A common underlying grievance does not itself turn later, independently initiated conduct into one transaction.
It also confirms that proof of disruption need not take the form of a witness using the statutory words “peace,” “quiet,” or “privacy.” Testimony about persistent alerts, distraction, and interference with dispatch duties can support the offense.