Judge opens hearing for Sheriff Funke case

The hearing regarding Mineral County Sheriff Ryan Funke will be open to the public.

Judge Shane A. Vannatta issued an order shortly before noon Monday, declaring that the “evidentiary hearing scheduled for 9:00 AM, Wednesday, May 13th, 2026, in the Mineral County Courthouse, is UNSEALED and open to the media and public.” The hearing was originally to be closed to the public.

The hearing will determine whether allegations in an internal investigation of Funke while a deputy in Lake County several years ago must be turned over to defense counsel in cases where Funke is a witness. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in its Brady decision that information the defense might use to discredit a law enforcement witness must be provided to the defense by the prosecution.

Funke is currently running for re-election in the June 2 primary. He faces Republican challenger Ben Banks. The court recognized the public interest in the case in scheduling the hearing with enough time in advance for a ruling to be issued before the election.

In opening the hearing, Vanatta “crafted some general rules for the parties to follow that will provide the greatest transparency while maintaining individual rights of privacy.”

The judge ordered certain identities to be protected. 

“In the course of the hearing, the parties and witnesses giving testimony shall refer to all victims, uncharged suspects/perpetrators, and witnesses by initials only (or by generic, non-personally identifying terms such as: ‘alleged victim’, ‘suspect’, ‘witness’).

He further directed the parties to submit two versions of exhibits: Redacted and unredacted. The clerks shall keep the unredacted exhibits confidential.

“The redacted copy shall have the following information obscured or blacked-out: victim names, identifying information, and contact information; witness names, identifying information, and contact information; uncharged suspects/perpetrator names, identifying information, and contact information. If time does not permit the redaction of the above information by the date/time of the hearing, the parties shall provide the unredacted copy at the hearing and supplement the record within 5 business days with redacted copies.”

The court may seal an exhibit containing “a law enforcement officer’s personnel record, medical records, educational records, or other records that may be subject to individual right of privacy or other law maintaining it as a confidential/private document.”

Further, the court “may seal portions of the hearing and clear the courtroom in order to take specific testimony that must remain confidential, or to hear legal arguments related to the admission of particular evidence.”

Vannatta also reminded the media of the court’s guidelines for covering a court proceeding.

In its rationale for opening the hearing, the court recognized that, according to state statute, the “sittings of every court of justice must be public except in certain circumstances.” 

Vannatta pointed to the test required by the Montana Supreme Court balancing the public’s right to know with any right to privacy. Vannatta said he is not able to conduct the balancing test at this point because he does not know exactly what testimony and exhibits the parties regarding “Confidential Criminal Justice Information (“CJI”), law enforcement employment information, and internal affairs investigation information.”

Vannatta, after receiving an emailed request by a local media outlet to open the hearing, issued an order April 28 asking the parties for their “positions and arguments” on whether the courtroom doors should be opened. He asked that the responses be filed by May 5. Only the Mineral County Commissioners filed a response.

The court had initially ruled that the allegations in the internal investigation report by an outside investigation on behalf of Lake County met the Brady criteria and must be provided to the defense. After receiving a request to reconsider his order from Funke, the judge decided due process, the significant effect on a law officer’s career and other legal considerations required an evidentiary hearing on the matter.