▁those ▁they ▁invited ▁onto ▁the ▁land , ▁by ▁posting , ▁f encing ▁or ▁otherwise ▁limit ing ▁access ▁to ▁the ▁property . ▁ ▁" We ▁conclude ▁that ▁in ▁Mont ana ▁a ▁person ▁may ▁have ▁an ▁expectation ▁of ▁priv acy ▁in ▁an ▁area ▁of ▁land ▁that ▁is ▁beyond ▁the ▁cur til age ▁which ▁the ▁society ▁of ▁this ▁State ▁is ▁willing ▁to ▁recognize ▁as ▁reasonable , ▁and ▁that ▁where ▁that ▁expectation ▁is ▁ev iden ced ▁by ▁f encing , ▁' No ▁T res pass ing ,' ▁or ▁similar ▁signs , ▁or ▁' by ▁some ▁other ▁means ▁[ which ] ▁indicate [ s ] ▁un m ist ak ably ▁that ▁entry ▁is ▁not ▁permitted ' ", ▁Tr iew e iler ▁wrote , ▁qu oting ▁Scott . ▁He ▁explicitly ▁ex cluded ▁cases , ▁such ▁as ▁some ▁of ▁the ▁preced ents ▁he ▁had ▁discussed , ▁where ▁law ▁enfor cement ▁had ▁observed ▁the ▁illegal ▁activity ▁from ▁ad jo ining ▁public ▁property , ▁but ▁declared ▁that ▁to ▁the ▁extent ▁those ▁cases ▁re lied ▁on ▁the ▁open - fields ▁doctrine ▁they ▁were ▁over ru led . ▁ ▁Having ▁rejected ▁the ▁open - fields ▁doctrine ▁for ▁Mont ana ▁courts ▁as ▁a ▁general ▁principle , ▁Tr iew e iler ▁turned ▁to ▁its ▁applic ability ▁to ▁the ▁instant ▁case . ▁He ▁noted ▁that ▁not ▁only ▁had ▁Pet erson ▁posted ▁the ▁property ▁and ▁placed ▁a ▁gate ▁at ▁the ▁entrance ▁road , ▁he ▁had ▁some ▁years ▁before hand ▁moved ▁his ▁cabin ▁to ▁a ▁less ▁visible ▁location ▁after ▁repeated ▁v andal ism . ▁On ▁previous ▁vis its ,