State v. Items of Real Property Owned and/or Possessed by Chilinski, 2016 Mont. LEXIS 952

In 2011 police executed warrants at Mike Chilinski’s residence and three other parcels; searches uncovered animal cruelty evidence and a separate drug investigation uncovered a large marijuana grow.
Federal prosecutors indicted Chilinski on drug charges and included a forfeiture claim; the federal forfeiture action was later abandoned and Chilinski was convicted federally for manufacturing marijuana.
Montana resumed a civil in rem forfeiture under § 44-12-201 et seq., seeking Chilinski’s real property; the statute then required forfeiture hearings to be held before a judge without a jury (§ 44-12-203(3)).
Chilinski requested a jury trial; the District Court treated the forfeiture as an equitable title action and denied a jury, conducting a bench hearing and ordering forfeiture to the State.
On appeal the Montana Supreme Court considered whether Article II, § 26 of the Montana Constitution (right to jury trial preserved as of adoption) guarantees a jury in civil in rem forfeiture proceedings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Chilinski)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Whether § 44-12-203(3) (no-jury requirement) violates Article II, § 26	Forfeiture is not purely equitable; historical common-law practice afforded jury trials in in rem forfeitures, so Chilinski is entitled to a jury	Forfeiture is a summary civil proceeding distinct from criminal prosecutions and historically was not a matter of right for jury trial; statute validly required bench hearing	The no-jury provision violated Article II, § 26; jury right applies to civil in rem drug forfeitures, so § 44-12-203(3) is unconstitutional and must be severed

Supola v. Mont. DOJ, Drivers License Bureau, 278 Mont. 421, 925 P.2d 480 (1996) (Section 26 preserves jury rights as they existed when constitution was adopted and does not extend to purely equitable actions)
In re C.L.A., 211 Mont. 393, 685 P.2d 931 (1984) (historical preservation of common-law jury rights under Montana constitutions)
Mont. Ore Purchasing Co. v. Boston & Mont. Consol. Copper & Silver Mining Co., 27 Mont. 536, 71 P. 1005 (1903) (possession/title disputes generally are actions at law entitling parties to jury trial)
C.J. Hendry Co. v. Moore, 318 U.S. 133 (1943) (historical discussion of English admiralty vs. common-law courts and jurisdiction over forfeiture proceedings)
One 1976 Mercedes Benz, 618 F.2d 453 (7th Cir. 1980) (federal analysis of historical jury trial practice in in rem forfeitures)
Austin v. United States, 509 U.S. 602 (1993) (discussion of historical common-law practice recognizing in rem forfeitures)
One 1990 Honda Accord, 712 A.2d 1148 (N.J. 1998) (statutory forfeitures are subject to common-law principles and may entitle owners to jury trial)
People v. One 1941 Chevrolet Coupe, 37 Cal.2d 283, 231 P.2d 832 (1951) (English and American practice supported jury trials in many forfeiture actions)