Court Opinion

ID: 9511266
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 22:03:26.187046+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:04:57.282687
License: Public Domain

*337JUSTICE LEAPHART
dissenting.
¶ 18 I dissent. The cost of rekeying the entire commercial building was not a legitimate out-of-pocket expense occasioned by Thompson’s criminal activity. Section 46-18-243, MCA. As Thompson correctly points out, there was no evidence of any damage to the lock system nor any evidence of theft from any of the tenants. The sole basis for imposing the cost of rekeying was the tenants’ alleged “feeling” of insecurity. If allaying subjective feelings of insecurity suffices as a basis for restitution, no doubt the next theft victim will request a salary for a full-time security guard or a state-of-the-art alarm system.