Judge partially reverses order in Mineral County sheriff Brady case, sets evidentiary hearing

After years of drawn-out litigation over whether the Mineral County sheriff committed misconduct while working for Lake County, a judge ruled on Monday that everyone needs to get in a room together and spend a day going over all the evidence before he decides whether there was misconduct or not.

Parties in the lawsuit appeared before Judge Shane Vannatta in Missoula County District Court to discuss Vannatta's Dec. 10, 2025, order saying the Mineral County attorney must disclose to defendants that Mineral County Sheriff Ryan Funke was accused of misconduct in a 2017 investigation by Lake County. Mineral County shares judges with Missoula County.

The core of the case concerns allegations that in 2015, while working as a Lake County deputy, Funke failed to read a suspect her rights before questioning her about a crime and then wrote in his report that he had read her rights before questioning.

The case started in 2023 when Funke filed a lawsuit against the Mineral County commissioners, alleging they were interfering with his hiring discretion with a specific candidate. The commissioners alleged the person Funke wanted to hire had misconduct allegations against him, which allowed them to interfere. Over three years of litigation, the focus has shifted to Funke himself, and whether he committed misconduct while serving as a Lake County deputy.

According to decisions from two past Supreme Court cases, Brady v. Maryland and Giglio v. United States, if a prosecutor knows information about any witness the defense could use to undermine their credibility, the prosecutor must give that information to the defense. This means if an officer commits misconduct relevant to a defendant's rights, any case they're involved in as a witness or writer of reports now comes with an obligation to the prosecutor's office to disclose that information to the defense.

This information is sometimes called Brady material or Giglio material. Law enforcement officers who have Brady material in their career that prosecutors must disclose are sometimes referred to colloquially as Brady cops, though Vannatta commented at the Monday hearing that he doesn't like the term.

This case is particularly relevant because Funke is currently up for reelection, which Vannatta acknowledged at the hearing. Funke, who was elected three years ago, is running against Ben Banks, a former Mineral County sheriff deputy and currently a major crimes agent with the Montana Department of Justice. Both are running as Republicans, so whoever wins the June 2 primary will take office on Jan. 1, 2027. According to court documents, absentee voting in this election begins May 8.

"The whole purpose of Brady-Giglio is to make sure defendants have adequate information on which to provide a defense," Vannatta said. "The reality is, it has serious consequences to law enforcement personnel."

Vannatta said he thought the case needed a more rigorous review of the facts and asked both sides to present to him what they'd intend to prove if they had a full evidentiary hearing.

Funke's attorney Paul Leisher argued that Funke's report of the 2015 investigation didn't substantially contradict the audio recording of the interview with the suspect. The audio recording was apparently previously inaccessible due to formatting issues but has since been made available to all parties. Most of the evidence, including the audio recording, is sealed in this case, but the transcript is available in court documents.

In the transcript, one of the first things Funke asks is if she's been informed of her rights, to which she says yes. He does not ask the suspect any further questions directly, but she volunteers information to him, including admitting to stealing a jacket, while he's updating another officer on the situation. Funke then reads the suspect her rights and starts asking questions. Throughout the whole interaction, the suspect repeatedly states that she wants to cooperate with law enforcement.

Leisher said, though Funke may have written in his report that he'd personally read the suspect her rights, that didn't rise to the level of Brady material. Leisher has experience as a criminal defense attorney, and said it wouldn't be the kind of thing he'd raise an issue about in that position.

The audio of the interview seemed to generally match Funke's report, Vannatta said.

"Sheriff Funke may have gotten distracted in the process of giving the subject their Miranda rights," Vannatta said. "The defendant was seemingly answering questions that Sheriff Funke was not posing."

In her arguments, Mineral County Attorney Debra Jackson said she intended to prove that Funke had failed to follow proper arrest, search and seizure procedures on multiple occasions, and had interfered with public officials. She didn't offer concrete details on these allegations at Monday's hearing, but said she had evidence to support them.

She also said he had failed to Mirandize a different suspect.

"In his report he says 'I advised him of his rights.' He didn't," Jackson said.

Jackson said if a different deputy had advised these suspects of their rights, Funke had still lied in his report by saying he himself advised them of their rights.

"I believe that we're just rehashing what already has been provided to the court," Jackson said.

After hearing arguments, Vannatta reiterated he needed to review the evidence and testimony with more rigor.

In the meantime, he retracted the part of his order that declared the 2015 investigation Brady material. That means the Mineral County attorney no longer has to disclose that information to defendants. Vannatta did not retract the part of his order that declared that Brady considerations override any confidentiality agreement contained in settlements.

Parties scheduled a day-long hearing for May 13 in the Mineral County Courthouse in Superior. The hearing will not be open to the public because the evidence in this case is considered confidential criminal justice information. At the closed-door hearing, Jackson will present to the court which violations she intends to prove along with evidence and testimony, and Leisher will have the opportunity to provide evidence and testimony on behalf of his client.

Vannatta will then make a decision as to whether or not the information is Brady material, which he will put in a publicly available court order.

The Lake County investigation into Funke was never concluded, as he resigned before it was completed. The May 13 hearing will effectively complete that investigation, Leisher commented after Monday's hearing.

Whatever Vannatta orders the Mineral County Attorney's Office to do, it won't be Debra Jackson who carries it out for long. Her term ends at the end of this year, and she hasn't filed for reelection. The only person who's filed to run for the office is Roy Miller, who's been practicing law for 31 years between California and Montana, including five years with the Lake County Attorney's Office. The filing deadline is over, so he'll be taking over the office starting Jan. 1, 2027.

And that means he'll take over the aftermath of this case.

"I've been doing this 30 years, and this is the most bizarre Brady litigation I've ever seen," Miller told the Missoulian after the hearing.

Miller said based on what he sees so far, he doesn't believe there are any Brady obligations in this case. But he said he'll abide by whatever the judge orders in his role as Mineral County attorney.

"Brady disclosures are important, but what happened in Mineral County looks more like an interpersonal feud," Leisher told the Missoulian after the hearing. "What we're trying to do is put the thing to bed."

"I'm gonna follow the court's order," Jackson told the Missoulian after the hearing. "Those are the next steps."