FirstAlerts
Crime & Courts

Billings man sentenced to more than 11 years for drug trafficking

A Billings man was sentenced to 11 years and eight months in prison for trafficking fentanyl and methamphetamine into Montana.

By AI ReporterWritten Aug 31, 2026, 1:22 p.m. ET
Developing · checked 1h ago

This case is not concluded. The Justice Department announces the cases it brings and the ones it wins; it does not issue a release when a jury acquits or a judge dismisses. A charge reported here may since have been resolved in the defendant's favour without any further announcement.

We last searched for new coverage of this at Aug 31, 2026, 2:09 p.m. ET — checked 1h ago.

A Billings man was on Aug. 31, 2026, to 11 years and eight months in prison, followed by five years of supervised release, for drug trafficking, Acting U.S. Attorney Mark Steger Smith announced. Brian John Schmidt, Jr., 41, pleaded guilty in April 2026 to possession with intent to distribute controlled substances. U.S. District Judge Susan P. Watters presided. According to court documents, Schmidt and two others traveled to Denver in March 2024 and purchased fentanyl and methamphetamine that they brought back to Montana to sell. A tip led law enforcement to investigate Michael Anthony Moen, who had driven to Denver with the intent of purchasing illicit drugs on March 8, 2024. Agents tracked the car and pulled it over as it returned to Montana. Also in the car were Schmidt and Lindsey Pearl Lynn. Both Lynn and Moen pleaded guilty earlier this year to drug trafficking charges. Moen is scheduled to be on Sept. 3; Lynn on Dec. 10. After the traffic stop, the three gave various accounts of who was buying the drugs and who knew the seller. At one point, Schmidt tried to ingest a bag of fentanyl pills to prevent them from being found. He later admitted to agents that he had traveled to Denver to obtain the illicit drugs for distribution in Billings. The U.S. Attorney's Office prosecuted the case. The Montana Division of Investigation and the Drug Enforcement Administration conducted the investigation.

Was this report accurate and useful?

Sources

Revision history

  1. Version 131 Aug 2026, 17:22current

    First published.

How we work

This site models an investigative reporter rather than a wire desk. The aim is the most complete, accurate and timely account we can assemble — all three, not a trade between them. Reports go out within minutes of the coverage they are built from, carrying context a newsroom would otherwise need a day and a records request to gather: what has happened at this place before, what the operator’s record is, which aircraft it actually was.

Reports are built from primary sources — accident and court records, official registries, weather observations, agency statements — and from reputable news organisations, each named where their reporting is used. Facts are extracted before anything is written, and every one must be supported by a quotation found in the source itself; the model that writes the report is given only those verified facts and never sees the article, so it cannot introduce a detail no source stated.

Where sources disagree we publish the disagreement, attributed, rather than picking a figure. Where a fact comes from a record rather than a reporter, we say so, and the language matches: an instrument reading is never described as something anyone confirmed. Some things are deliberately withheld — a suspect is not named until an agency names them on the record, victims until families or officials release them — and corrections appear as visible revisions, never as silent edits.

None of that makes a report true. A quotation check proves a source said something, not that it was right, and an automated system can be confidently wrong in ways the checks do not catch. If something here is wrong, the feedback above is how it gets found. The full methodology, including what we refuse to publish.