BOZEMAN — Gallatin County Attorney Audrey Cromwell issued a formal response to Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen this morning regarding her office's handling of confidential criminal records.
Knudsen recently asked about the county's handling of protected criminal justice information. Cromwell said her office does not have a formal or informal policy restricting cooperation with law enforcement agencies.
According to a release from the Gallatin County Attorney's Office, the inquiry stems from a single message sent several months ago when Immigration and Customs Enforcement asked for non-public criminal records. Because the federal agency wanted the records for administrative purposes instead of a criminal investigation, the county attorney's office told the records department that a judge should decide if the records could be released.
“Public safety is, and always will be, the top priority of the Gallatin County Attorney’s Office,” said Cromwell. “At the same time, we are sworn to uphold the Montana Constitution. That includes protecting the fundamental right to privacy. When highly sensitive, non-public criminal justice information is requested for civil purposes, the law requires careful review and, in many cases, judicial oversight to ensure those privacy rights are not violated.”
The law allows sharing this information for criminal investigations. A judge can also order the release of the records if disclosure outweighs an individual's right to privacy. Because the request from ICE was civil in nature, Cromwell said her office advised the federal agency to follow the standard judicial process to get the records.
Cromwell said the message in question was not a county policy, noting that only the Gallatin County Commission can set county policy. The guidance addressed a specific situation and required individual legal analysis.
To ensure clarity for counties across the state, Cromwell formally requested a binding legal opinion from the attorney general. She wants to know if counties can legally share non-public records with federal agencies for civil purposes without a court order, and how those disclosures align with state constitutional privacy protections.
Cromwell said a formal opinion will help counties navigate these complex legal issues, adding that her office remains committed to working with law enforcement partners while complying with Montana law.
Here is Cromwell's letter to Attorney General Knudsen:
Attorney General Knudsen
Montana Department of Justice
215 North Sanders
Helena, MT 59620
Sent via email to christian.corrigan@mt.gov
April 6, 2026
Re: Response to April 2, 2026 Correspondence Regarding CCJI
Dear Attorney General Knudsen,
I hope you and your family had a joyous Easter.
I write in response to your April 2, 2026 correspondence regarding alleged policies and the
dissemination of confidential criminal justice information (CCJI).
Before turning to the substance of your letter, I will note that I would have welcomed the
opportunity to discuss this matter with you directly. A simple phone call from you or a
member of your team could have clarified the facts and avoided unnecessary public
confusion. Instead, this issue was advanced publicly without that professional courtesy,
which is disappointing given the importance and complexity of the legal issues involved.
At the outset, I want to be clear: there is no Gallatin County policy – formal or informal –
restricting cooperation with federal agencies, including U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement (ICE). The County Attorney’s Office does not create county policy. That
authority rests solely with the Gallatin County Commission. Our role is to provide legal
advice to county departments to ensure compliance with Montana law.
The communication referenced in your letter arose from a single, case-specific legal
inquiry from the Records Department last fall regarding a request for nonpublic CCJI. My
civil division attorneys reviewed the inquiry, and a legal assistant relayed guidance. It
addressed one discrete factual scenario, did not establish policy, and should not be
construed as a directive of general applicability. Legal assistants in my office do not and
cannot set countywide policy.
The request at issue involved ICE seeking confidential criminal justice information for a civil
administrative immigration purpose, not for a criminal investigation or prosecution. Under
Montana law, dissemination of CCJI is restricted to criminal justice agencies acting within the
“administration of criminal justice,” or to those authorized by law or by a district court
upon a written finding that the merits of disclosure outweigh individual privacy interests.
See § 44-5-303(1), MCA. The statutory definition of “administration of criminal justice” is
tied to criminal processes such as detection, apprehension, prosecution, and adjudication
of criminally accused persons or criminal offenders. See § 44-5-103(2), MCA.
While ICE includes both civil and criminal components, this distinction is critical. The
Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) agency of ICE primarily performs civil
immigration enforcement functions, while the Homeland Security Investigations (HSI)
agency conducts criminal investigations. The request at issue was civil in nature and
therefore did not fall within the statutory framework requiring dissemination of CCJI to a
criminal justice agency engaged in criminal enforcement activity. Federal law likewise
recognizes that immigration proceedings are civil administrative proceedings, not criminal
prosecutions. INS v. Lopez-Mendoza, 468 U.S. 1032 (1984).
Montana law provides a clear and consistent process when an entity seeks access to
confidential criminal justice information outside the statutory framework. A district court
may authorize dissemination upon a written finding that the merits of disclosure outweigh
individual privacy interests. § 44-5-303(1), MCA. This process is routinely used by members
of the public, media organizations, and government agencies. In that discrete, casespecific instance last fall, my civil division determined that ICE was required to follow the
same judicial process applicable to all such requests, ensuring judicial oversight and
protection of Montanans’ constitutional privacy rights.
Montana’s constitutional and statutory framework places a high value on individual
privacy. CCJI includes sensitive information such as criminal histories, dismissed or
deferred criminal action, identifying data, and arrest records. As County Attorney, I have a
legal and ethical obligation to ensure that this information is not improperly disclosed. That
obligation applies equally regardless of the requesting entity.
To the extent your office seeks information regarding county policy or records practices,
those matters are properly directed to the Gallatin County Commission or the Records
Department, respectively. The County Attorney’s Office provides legal advice but does not
control the release of records or establish county policy.
Your letter characterizes Gallatin County as implementing an “illegal sanctuary policy.”
That assertion is incorrect. There is no policy. The communication at issue was case
specific legal advice, and Montana law requires individualized analysis of each request for
confidential criminal justice information.
Given the importance of this issue and the need for statewide clarity, I am formally
requesting an opinion from your office pursuant to § 2-15-501(7), MCA. Please see the
attached request.
My office remains committed to protecting the privacy rights of Gallatin County residents,
providing accurate legal guidance grounded in Montana law, and supporting lawful
cooperation with criminal law enforcement agencies.
If your office would like to discuss this matter further, I am available at your convenience.
Sincerely,
Audrey Cromwell
Gallatin County Attorney
RELATED:
Gallatin Co. Commissioner responds to AG accusations regarding ICE
Gallatin County Attorney clarifies ICE records request, pushes back on policy claims
This story was reported on-air by a journalist and has been converted to this platform with the assistance of AI. Our editorial team verifies all reporting on all platforms for fairness and accuracy.
