So an Alaskan bush pilot walks into the Supreme Court with a six-pack of beer. Sounds like the start of a good joke? Well, for Ken Jouppi, it is no laughing matter. Jouppi and his counsel at the Institute for Justice have just filed a petition for a writ of certiorari to appeal a decision from the Alaska Supreme Court that held the state could seize his $95,000 Cessna U206D airplane over a six-pack of beer found in a passenger’s bag of groceries.
Alaska has a state law allowing towns and villages to go “dry” and it is a state-level crime to “knowingly send, transport, or bring an alcoholic beverage” to such villages. Alaska Stat. § 04.11.499(a). The law sets penalties on the amount of alcohol, allowing for a class C felony for 10.5 liters of spirits or 12 gallons of beer. First-time offenders who transport smaller amounts are subject only to a class A misdemeanor. Id. § 04.16.200(e)(1)-(3). First-time offenders are also subject to a minimum sentence of three days’ imprisonment and a fine of $1,500. Id. § 04.16.200(g)(1)(A). Finally, there is a provision allowing for forfeiture. The law bizarrely mandates the forfeiture of a plane, regardless of the quantity and regardless of the seriousness of the offense. Id. § 04.16.220(a)(3)(C).
That brings us to the hapless (and now plane-less) Ken Jouppi.
Jouppi, now 82, flies people to remote villages, a common form of transportation in Alaska. He was ferrying a woman to the town of Beaver. She decided to bring beer back for her husband, three cases of beer in her luggage and a six-pack in a grocery bag. No one is suggesting that Jouppi knew about the beer cases or that he is expected to search the luggage of passengers.
During an inspection at the airport in Fairbanks on the morning of April 3, 2012, officers spotted a grocery bag and a visible six-pack of Budweiser.
The woman promptly pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor. Jouppi went to trial and, while the jury did not find that he knew about the amount of beer in his plane, they found him guilty. The trial judge was sympathetic to Jouppi, sentencing him to the minimum executed sentence allowed by statute: a $1,500 fine for Jouppi (and another $1,500 for his company) and three days’ imprisonment. The judge further noted that “he has a stellar criminal record. Clean.”
The Alaskan authorities appealed the verdict. They wanted the plane.
The trial court ruled that the statute did not authorize forfeiture because the plane had not moved an inch toward Beaver; it was searched on the tarmac at Fairbanks. Thus, he reasoned, Jouppi had not “transport[ed] or facilitate[d] the transportation of . . . alcoholic beverages imported into a” dry village. Alaska Stat. § 04.16.220(a)(3)(C). The Alaska Court of Appeals disagreed and remanded the case.
On remand, the trial court held that the forfeiture would constitute an unconstitutionally excessive fine. It noted that, at most, Jouppi could have been aware of a six-pack of beer and that the gravity of the violation was minimal. Further, it said that this was not part of a larger operation or conspiracy. Everyone agreed that this was a dumb decision for a passenger to bring a gift to her beer-deprived husband.
The State appealed, and the court of appeals vacated the trial court’s judgment. It notably based its decision on the six-pack. It noted that the trial court also should have “address[ed] whether Jouppi’s violation of the bootlegging statute was related to, or comprised part of, other illegal activities.” It was again remanded for further proceedings.
The Alaskan Supreme Court then granted review and vacated the court of appeals’ judgment. App. 1a-29a. It held unanimously that forfeiting Jouppi’s airplane was constitutional “as a matter of law.” The Supreme Court also focused on the six-pack of beer and acknowledged that “Jouppi was convicted of only one instance of alcohol importation unconnected to other criminal activity.” However, the court held that “It is clear to us, that the legislature determined that the harm from even a six-pack of beer knowingly imported into a dry village is severe enough to warrant forfeiture of an aircraft” and “the forfeiture of Jouppi’s airplane is not grossly disproportional to the gravity of the offense for which he has been convicted and, therefore, the forfeiture does not violate the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment.”
The opinion runs afoul of prior holdings on the meaning of the Excessive Fines Clause. There appears to be a conflict between the interpretation of the Alaska Supreme Court and the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (with federal jurisdiction over Alaska). The latter court has ruled that courts must look to “the specific actions of the violator rather than . . . taking an abstract view of the violation.” Pimentel v. City of Los Angeles, 974 F.3d 917, 923 (9th Cir. 2020).
The Institute of Justice lays out this precedent from various other courts in its petition for review.
The Institute was the group that won the decision in Timbs v. Indiana at the Supreme Court and twice at the Indiana Supreme Court. That case has obvious similarities to the Alaskan case. That case involved Tyson Timbs, who pleaded guilty to a relatively low-level drug offense and received only home detention, probation, and addiction treatment. However, Indiana also wanted to seize his $42,000 Land Rover. The Indiana Supreme Court found that the forfeiture was excessive given “the minimal severity” of the offense “for which he received the minimum possible sentence; the harm caused by dealing two grams of heroin to an undercover police officer; and the relationship of the dealing to Timbs’s earlier actions in purchasing drugs to feed his addiction.”
The Institute is correct that this case presents a clean record for the Court to clarify and amplify prior holdings on the scope of this clause. I will note that none of the balancing of the facts in the case weighed the relative worth of a Bud beer. For some, the introduction of Bud beer is unconscionable and worthy of the greatest sanction, particularly when Alaska produces its own superior Triple Oak-Aged “A Deal with the Devil” beer.
Land of the free my ass.
“. . . is not grossly disproportional to the gravity of the offense for which he has been convicted . . .”
Seriously?
A $95,000 fine (the value of his plane) and the deprivation of his livelihood — for a $10 “crime?” If that is not an 8A violation, then there is no such thing.
A $500,000,000 fine would be appropriate, in my humble opinion.
Your opinion is clearly worthy of being ignored.
It is my impression that the Constitution assumes that we could have separate courts of equity. Rather that tying up the USSC with issues like this, wouldn’t it be useful for Congress to establish clear separate Courts of Equity to help sort out situations where the law is an ass, a frequent occurrence in recent lawfare and many of our courts’ takeover of our executive functions.
No.
It is truly amazing how the morons here have strong opinions about things of which they know less than nothing.
But I guess that is par for the course in MAGA world.
Whether or not the PIC knew about the beer, he is still in violation.
If he knew about the beer, then he is guilty as charged with regard to its transportation.
You can debate about the sentence, but he is guilty.
If he did NOT know about the beer, then he has violated a cardinal rule of general aviation.
The PIC is required to know what is loaded onto his aircraft, and what it weighs.
The PIC is required to do a weights and balance calculation before takeoff, so that the aircraft can be appropriately trimmed.
If he failed to do this then his license should be pulled forthwith.
Either way, he does not deserve to be flying.
Gosh, you had me until you mentioned MAGA. Very narrow brain.
MAGA MAGA MAGA blah blah blah.
You don’t know what you’re talking about. According to the Alaska Supreme Court, to be guilty he had to “knowingly” transport alcohol to a dry village, so you’re wrong right from square one.
Second, violating a “cardinal rule of transportation,” if he in fact did, is not the same as violating a criminal law.
Third, nobody is arguing he isn’t guilty. If you read the article (which I doubt you did), the question being discussed is whether the confiscation of his airplane constitutes an excessive fine, which is outlawed under the US Constitution. But you wouldn’t know anything about the US Constitution or the Excessive Fines Clause, because you’re a typical left-wing hack commie who hates the American Constitution and hates freedom.
You want this guy to lose his livelihood for this? Move to North Korea, where you’ll be right at home.
Omfk
North Korea???
Is that the country whose leader likes to send “love letters” to our Glorious Leader ???
I have no idea, but I do know it is the country where you’d feel right at home being a commie freedom hater.
North Korea doesn’t seem so bad according to Trump.
After their first summit in Singapore, Trump praised Kim, stating he was “very talented,” had a “great personality,”
Ahead of their second meeting in Hanoi in 2019, Trump called Kim a “great leader” with an eye toward North Korea’s “tremendous economic potential”.
“We fell in love”: In September 2018, Trump told a rally of supporters that he and Kim “fell in love” after exchanging letters, which he described as “beautiful” and “great”.
In June 2018, Trump described his rapport with Kim as an “excellent relationship” and said they had “great chemistry”.
^ sea lioning ^
I know this is hard for left wing nuts but there are numerous major problems with your argument.
First it is extremely common – and surprisingly effective to flatter people that you wish to get something from.
Next it is also possible for good things and bad things to be true of the same person.
It is as an example possible for someone to be both intelligent and evil.
The US deals with evil world leaders all the time – many are our allies. People like Erodigan and MBS
Bush, Obama Biden and Trump have ALL said nice things about evil people – and SOME of those nice things are even true.
. But you wouldn’t know anything about the US Constitution or the Excessive Fines Clause, because you’re a typical left-wing hack commie who hates the American Constitution and hates freedom.
You⬆are the today’s Winner of the Internet 🏆🏆🏆
That was a smack down like no one has ever seen…..
OMFK, this moron didn’t think $353 million against Trump was excessive too. He can’t grasp the 8th A.
Maga, maga, maga. Russia, Russia, Russia. It’s all fake.
You are a moron. They must know what a persons’ baggage weighs but no requirement to verify personal contents. You suggesting every aviator in the country count a persons underwear before flight. FFS.
Lol that right there
I guess he thinks the pilot needs to know whether it was light beer…
@Annoyingus
You are.
Well I guess execution for jay walking falls under your lame “hey, he’s guilty but maybe the penalty is just too much”. That’s the whole point you moron. This is state theft.
Bullsh*t. are you even a pilot? Pilots can estimate weight based on size and shape, and the fact the somebody carried the groceries by hand. Get a life.
“It is truly amazing how the morons here have strong opinions about things of which they know less than nothing.
But I guess that is par for the course in left wing nut world”
“Whether or not the PIC knew about the beer, he is still in violation.”
Absolutely FALSE – There are very very very few crimes in which Mens Rea is not a REUIRED element.
It is hard to imaging this would be one of those.
Further this particular case is holding one person criminally responsible for the actions of another – actions that they did not participate in and were unaware of.
We do not even allow third party CIVIL liability – there is no such thing as unwitting third party criminal liability.
What is disturbing is this case has gotten this far.
The case should have been COMPLETELY dismissed from the get go.
“If he knew about the beer”
There is no evidence that he did. There is no reason we should go into hypotheticals about something that neither the defense or prosecution are claiming.
“then he is guilty as charged with regard to its transportation.”
That would be false too. The alcohol was never transported to the dry city.
The plane never took off – it did not even try to take off – in FACT in this case NO ONE – not even the woman is guilty of anything except stupidity.
“You can debate about the sentence, but he is guilty.”
Of absolutely nothing. The facts on the record are the alcohol was never transported to a dry city, and that the pilot did not know about the alcohol.
I would note that EVEN if the plane had taken off for the dry city – there still would have been no crime by the pilot he landed the plane in the dry city KNOWING there was alcohol on board.
Had the plane take off to the dry city and the woman told him about the alcohol – had he then turned back there would be no crime.
“If he did NOT know about the beer, then he has violated a cardinal rule of general aviation.”
Irrelevant. This is a criminal case and an asset forfeiture case.
If the FAA sought to take away his license for unwittingly transporting alcohol – there would be a different process a different standard of proof and no threat to anything that is the pilots by right – such as his liberty and property.
“The PIC is required to know what is loaded onto his aircraft, and what it weighs.”
Those are two different things – and I would bet that the actual rules are uite different than YOU claim.
While the pilot is likely to be reuire to know the weight of his load – within a reasonable factor of safety that is likely many times larger than the weight of a six pack – nothing in the FACTS we have before us sugests that he did not.
I strongly doubt that the FAA reuires the pilot to know EXACTLY what is loaded.
When you ship via Fedex you do not have to tell the shipped EXACTLY what is in your package.
You merely have to sign off that a list of specific hazardous material is NOT in the package.
Do you think the PIC in a Fedex flight KNOWS the contents of every package he transports ?
That hypothetical would also be relevant to this case.
What if the woman put a case of beer in a sealed carton and fedexed it to a dry city.
Is alaska going to be allowed to confiscate a Fedex 747 ?
You have not thought more than shallowly about what you have claimed before posting.
“The PIC is required to do a weights and balance calculation before takeoff, so that the aircraft can be appropriately trimmed.
If he failed to do this then his license should be pulled forthwith.”
There is no evidence that he did not. This might be difficult for you – but pilots are allowed to estimate ?
Do you think every carryon bag is weight ? Do you think every passenger is weighed before a commercial airliner takes off ?
“Either way, he does not deserve to be flying.”
By your terms there is not a pilot in existance that could meet your criteria.
While politics is not mentioned by Turley – YOU interoduced it.
And we do not KNOW the makeup of these courts. Alaska is a pretty red state.
It is LIKELY that the prosecutors and judges who are Erring – and violating constitutional rights are on the right no the left.
You’re the ignorant tool here.
The FOB is responsible for screening and weighing luggage and reporting the weight to the operator.
Typical in libtard world.
Speaking of knowing “less than nothing:”
“If he did NOT know about the beer, then he has violated a cardinal rule of general aviation. The PIC is required to know what is loaded onto his aircraft . . .”
A charter pilot, like Jouppi, is *not* required to know what is *inside* a passenger’s luggage. *That*, not your weaselly “what is loaded onto,” is the issue here.
“. . . and what it weighs.” Apparently, you do not know that one can determine what a piece of luggage weighs without looking inside it.
THAT IS A LOT OF JIBBER JABBER TO TRY TO JUSTIFY PURE STOOPIIIIIDTY
AND NO PILOT KNOWS THE WEIGHT OF HIS PLANE PLUS OR MINUS 6 BBEERS-
THAT IS BEYOND THE STOOOPIIIIIDITY OF THE REST OF YOUR ATTEMPTED ARGUMENT
I’m trying to follow. The pilot had no knowledge of beer and is not required to inspect. I missed where it was said that the pilot was charged. The pilot should have never been charged. Sounds like the law is unconstitutional in its denial of people’s basic freedom to consume beer and the right and freedom of substance ingestion provided by the 9th Amendment. Any pilot with any blood alcohol level should be stripped of his license for life.
He probably knew about the beer in the grocery bag, which was in plain view. Whether he knew about the beer in the closed cases of luggage is a different matter. There was conflicting evidence on that.
But I agree with you that, if he had no knowledge of any of the beer, I don’t see how he could have violated the law. The statute does not specify a minimum mens rea, and under Alaska’s criminal code the default for criminal culpability is knowingly or recklessly.
With that said, the jury was instructed that it could only convict if it found that Jouppi “knowingly” sent or transported the beer into the dry community. Jouppi v. State, 566 P.3d 943, 948-49 (Alaska 2025). The fact they convicted indicates they found as a fact that he did know about it.
It was said that he was not required to inspect, ergo, he was not required to inspect grocery bags. Probability is irrelevant; sometimes people are quite simply lost in thought.
“The fact they convicted indicates they found as a fact that he did know about it,” and that evidence might have been presented prominently in the article.
Juries find facts based on probabilities, not by mathematical certainty. This is especially true when they resolve conflicts in the testimony, as they did here. They have to decide who is a more credible witness. Here is the relevant excerpt from the opinion:
Jouppi loaded the equivalent of three cases of beer into his airplane for a customer who had chartered his company’s services to fly from Fairbanks to Beaver. The jury heard conflicting evidence about how the beer was packed and how much of it would have been visible to Jouppi. Some testimony and exhibits indicated that at least one six-pack of beer was packed only in a grocery bag and would have been in plain view to Jouppi as he was loading the airplane. Jouppi and his passenger both testified that the airplane’s cargo, including the beer, was packed in closed boxes except for four loose twelve-packs of soda. And Jouppi professed that he never opened the boxes. But a state trooper testified that he observed Jouppi opening and closing boxes while loading the airplane and opined that Jouppi had to be turning a blind eye to the boxes’ contents because it would have been impossible not to see that there was alcohol being loaded into the airplane.
All juries are instructed that the state has to prove every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt (not beyond all doubt or to a mathematical certainty, just beyond a reasonable doubt). The presumption is that they follow the instructions, and there is no way to crawl inside their minds and determine if they decided not to follow them. Our system is not perfect and sometimes innocent people get convicted, which is a tragedy, but what better system do you propose?
Was the beer also forfeited? If it was, I suspect the Supreme Court of Alaska drank it all while making this decision. Sounds like the locals were the only ones truly sober.
stupid comment. So much for your claim of being a physician specialist.
Anonymous4:47PM-Oh you’re being mean again today. I think it must diploma or accomplishment envy. Too bad. Have a sleepless night.
I get it, he violated the dry ordinance, but taking his *plane*; come on. This is beyond excessive. The original ruling was the right one, and i think that was overly egregious too (three days in jail when one didn’t even know what the passenger had brought? Isn’t that on the passenger, who was also likely aware of the laws, but clearly didn’t give a sheet? And equally, does this not make the laws overly circumspect?). At the least it’s clear that somewhere as remote as Alaska is just as broken as the coasts. Root leftist nonsense out everywhere like you are preserving the gardens on your own property, because you are.
When the government trolls around looking for private property to take away from people so it can enrich itself, it has exceeded its legitimate authority. The trial judge out in the real world understood that, the elites safely ensconced in Juneau – not so much.
The crime? Which shouldn’t be one only comes with a $1500 fine. So they want the plane instead. Corrupt government and courts in Alaska.
The issue at other times could have been a joke. Tyranny, I say: TRANNY by a cast of charters living with their noses in the air having abandoned Common Sense and practicality to enforce their warped sense of justice. I can hear them gaggling about that old SOB owning a plane, ‘I mean the guys as old as Biden, he’s a danger, an accident waiting to happen, we better CYA’ and let’s take his plane and the Ladies booze, here’s one too you Harry.
I’d say the Governor and his four republican appointee Judges are RINOs or Democrats hiding in the bushes.
Having grown up with Blue Laws, it’s quite interesting that a few moralists in today’s time can rule what a man/woman can abide in that’s legal in the United States as a whole.
A true story: It was 1958/1959(?), the family was on a camping vacation and staying on shores of the Great Salt Lake in Utah. My father a beer drinker wanted a beer, well in Utah at the time Liquor and Beer were sold only at State Stores, no commercials sales. We all went for the ride to the State Store, my father went in and bought a 6 pack, and after paying he asked the clerk if he had a Church Key, where upon the Clerk said, ‘Oh don’t worry the Church is always open’.
George W
Utah is still a “dry” state, you can only buy alcohol at state run outlets/stores. 100% gov control of alcohol. Unless the LDS church picks up and bails out, Utah will always be a dry state.
The biggest issue here is the legislature that mandated forfeiture of an airplane used to transport alcohol illegally regardless of the quantity of alcohol. Bear in mind that Alaska is a red state, and has been since 1960. Turley argues that the Alaska Supreme Court should find the forfeiture excessive, which would be an indictment against the Legislature for excessiveness, which it could do, but chose not to. Turley also omits some details about the Timbs case–Timbs purchased the Land Rover with proceeds from a life insurance policy following his father’s death–the money to purchase the vehicle didn’t come from the proceeds of dealing drugs. The maximum penalty for his offense was $10,000 and the Land Rover was worth several times more. The SCOTUS opinion that held the fine was excessive and violated the Eighth Amendment was written by Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
Another relatively small-potatoes matter involving only Alaska, while Turley ignores bigger stories–like awarding Giuliani the Presidential Medal of Freedom. That award honors: “… “any person recommended to the President for award of the Medal or any person selected by the President upon his own initiative”, [3] and was created to recognize people who have made “an especially meritorious contribution to (1) the security or national interests of the United States, or (2) world peace, or (3) cultural or other significant public or private endeavors.” It is the highest civilian award in America.
None of the requirements for this award apply to Giuliani, nor did they apply to Rush Limbaugh, another Trump recipient, and this is just another example of how Trump has elevated kissing up to him over the importance of patriotism, altruism contribution to the arts, science, culture and other American values by honorees. In 2023, Giuliani admitted that he had made defamatory statements about a pair of Georgia election workers when he falsely accused them of trying to help steal the 2020 election. New York and the District of Columbia disbarred him over his efforts to overturn the 2020 election results by making false statements to courts. Prior recipients of the Medal of Freedom include: Jonas Salk (inventor of the Salk polio vaccine), Hubert Humphrey, Karl Menninger, Marian Anderson, Colin Powell, Margaret Thatcher, Rosa Parks, Sandra Day O’Connor and Mother Teresa. Giuliani does not belong in their company, just like Trump does not belong in the White House.
To shift from this case out of Alaska, to Rudy Giuliana – one of the best and most effective mayors NYC has ever had – shows a kind of psychosis, in the form of TDS. Rudy Giuliani has nothing to do with the subject of this article.
Trump won the election, he won the electoral vote, he won the popular vote, he won all seven swing states. It’s time for you to get over it. Trump’s actions align with his campaign promises, he’s doing exactly what the people voted for. Get over it. Nobody wants to hear the incoherent ramblings of your TDS-diseased mind.
In case you missed my point–it was that Turley writes about relatively insignificant matters with limited general applicability–like this Alaska case–to avoid discussing bigger political stories showing just how Trump has cheapened the value of the Medal of Freedom by awarding it to someone because he was willing to lie to try to help him cheat to hold power in 2020, and who does not belong in the ranks of prior winners who did deserve it. Giuliani has disgraced himself by admitting he lied about election workers in Georgia and lying to Courts and has lost his law license as a result. Giuliani sqandered whatever good will he earned while mayor because of Trump. Everything Trump touches dies, including the importance of the Medal of Freedom.
Trump “won the election” by LYING about the ability to immediately bring down the cost of groceries–THAT’S what “people voted for”–not Project 2025, not awarding the Presidential Medal of Freedom to disgraced liars and an attorney who got disbarred trying to help Trump cheat to hold onto power. Trump admitted that “the groceries” are how he won. He also lied about releasing the entire Epstein file. He pardoned the J6 insurrectionists who beat up cops and did millions of dollars in property damage to the building–did the American people vote for this? According to “The Hill”:
“The new Reuters/Ipsos poll found that 58 percent of Americans are not in favor of the president pardoning all of the people who were convicted of crimes related to the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol just over four years ago.
Trump granted around 1,500 “full, complete and unconditional pardons” for rioters charged in relation to the attack on the Capitol building on Monday night. In total, 1,583 defendants have been charged so far. Over a third of them, 600 Jan. 6 defendants, were accused of resisting, impeding or assaulting police officers during the attack.”
How about awarding Ashli Babbitt’s family $30 million of our taxpayer dollars for “wrongful death” despite the fact that she broke into the Capitol and proceeded to try to reach the Speaker’s Lobby to go after members of Congress to prevent Biden’s victory from being certified? She is also going to be given military honors, even though she died trying to overturn the Constitution instead of protecting it–a slap in the face to true American heroes–something else Trump cheapened. Did America vote for that? All of this is just part of his pathetic effort to create a new reality–that he didn’t really lose in 2020, that the insurrectionists were heroes for trying to lynch Pence, kill Pelosi all in an effort to keep in in power, and Babbitt was a hero. He has set a new record for low approval ratings, too. You live in a world of alternate reality. Trump DID lose in 2020, he DID lie about that, Giuliani DID lie about nonexistent fraud, including to Courts, and got disbarred for doing it. Babbitt DID die because of her belief in the Big Lie, her poor choice to push past police barricades, break into the Capitol Building and for trying to breach the last barrier to the floor of the House. She caused her own death, and is NOT a hero.
Gigenius
Did you vote for bringing down grocery costs, or are you just smarter than every other person?
Or did you vote for rising grocery costs?
Het Ano
Lay off the drinking
This is an easy resolution.
1. The Governor of Alaska should pardon the pilot or at least commute the sentence to let her keep her plane.
2. The Alaskan legislature needs to change the law to be more reasonable in damages.
The pilot is a male.
“Of the People, By the People, For the People” my ass… This is yet another example of the government running amok and steamrolling the little guy.
“The Alaskan authorities appealed the verdict. They wanted the plane.”
Probably a very good case for SCOTUS to take given the trend once again to create wealthy robber barons disguised as social reformists such as the Open Society Foundation(OSF), ActBlue, Arabella Advisors, and many other “dark money” benefactors whose method is to fund and influence the election judiciary and court officials (ex: judges, DAs, AGs, . . .) as well as request and influence the same appointments.
Stated simply – own the court, and you own the slaves.
This isn’t the first time we’ve seen this – even in America where the emerging wealthy used the legal system to seize the assets of others and establish reigning oligarchies (e.g., Rockefeller, Carnegie, Morgan, Vanderbilt, Gould, Fisk, Sage, among the more familiar labeled characters).
Hence quite possibly the inclusion of the Eight Amendment to Constitution of the United States:
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Over the last 16 years, we have seen the attempted dissolution of democracy by those who gain power through a puppet structure in both the Executive and Judicial Branches using a propaganda approach (example: if others are accused of being fascists, no one will ever consider the fact the accuser is the one actually acting as the fascist).
And historically this is not a new turn in human events – and was clearly a source of exercised power in the dark and middle ages. A robber baron or robber knight (German: Raubritter) was an unscrupulous feudal landowner who, protected by his fief’s legal status, imposed high taxes and tolls out of keeping with the norm without authorization by some higher authority. Some resorted to actual banditry.
He violated the law and the law allowed for this consequence. Nothing to see here. Why is everyone defending a criminal?
. . . the law allowed for this consequence.
That’s the whole question: did it really allow for this consequence? To answer that question, you have to take into account not only the state statute, but the more fundamental law – the Constitution. If the statute as it was applied here violated the Excessive Fines Clause, then “the law” as a whole did not allow for that consequence.
Again, why are you defending a criminal. He violated the law. The government is entitled to use any means of law enforcement it wants to uphold the rule of law. He loses his lively hood. So what? He should not have violated the law in the first place. No mercy, no exceptions.
Read my comment again. It answers all your questions.
The government is entitled to use any means of law enforcement it wants to uphold the rule of law
TY Perry Mason Jr, for showing everyone here how much you don’t know about the law, without telling everyone here how much you don’t know about the law🙀
@Annoyingus
Uh, huh. good critical thinking there. This was undeclared, weak ass-beer (really, I wouldn’t drink that swill). Compare that to your lot’s literal shootings and killing of innocent people minding their own business, even if you might have disagreed with their very peaceful business, that one could easily ignore in a free country and carry on. The modern left doesn’t have even a toe to stand on, let alone a foot or a leg. You are insane. Everyone thinks you are insane. Because you are, in fact, insane. That could only not matter to someone that is legitimately mental. You are screaming into the void at this point.
The rest of us have had enough, so enjoy the emptiness. We’ll do our best to take care of you in the future, because we are not hateful, opportunistic, pieces of crap.
Dude no. Criminals need to be dealt with as harshly as possible. They violated the law.
Criminals need to be dealt with as harshly as possible. They violated the law.
“As harshly as possible” means that if someone steals a candy bar they should be sentenced to life without parole or death, right?
Criminals need to be dealt with as harshly as possible. They violated the law.
F**k yeah- we need to start executing Jay Walkers, dirty scumbag low life pond scum losers. Crossing the street outside of the crosswalk🥰
Ok george
In addition to the excessive fines violation, the state’s actions in this case would appear to violate substantive due process. Substantive due process requires that the government treat the people with fundamental fairness in the laws it passes and enforces. It has an as-applied component, meaning laws which are facially valid can be challenged in their application to specific cases. This would seem to be such a case, as it was the passenger, and not the defendant, who was importing alcohol into the village, and it was a de minimus amount of alcohol in the grocery bag (the only alcohol the pilot could reasonably have known about).
Those on the Alaskan Supreme Court who made the decision discussed here could only be members of that court and sit in judgement of others because there is no IQ test for judges.
The law requires common sense in its application. That’s why we have juries deciding cases. But the trend is toward legal elites (judges and lawyers) commandeeriing that power to decide away from juries. Giving a jury 60 pages of instructions negotiated between the judge and the lawyers is the most brazen example. The State appealing a lower court jury’s decision is yet another. There is gathering disrespect for juries and the key role they play.
The one that outraged me was Chief Justice Roberts in Trump v. US decided that it shouldn’t be a jury deciding if a President’s sketchy behavior was an official act or personal matter — the key factual judgment determining the case.
No. It should be decided by an Appellate Judge (of which Roberts and the robes 9 are themselves included)…why entrust such an important decision to 12 average Americans?
It’s time for juries to speak with a stronger voices, and all of us to call out the creeping elitism in legal procedure.
Legal authorities have respect when they act as a neutral force adjudicating disputes between citizens, having itself no financial interest in the outcome, and following clearly defined rules. But when the State steals the property of its citizenry on flimsy and vague grounds, it is merely another kind of organized crime, indeed the highest form of organized crime. Forfeiture laws are one of the most dispicable aspects of current American law.
OK, but these forfeiture laws are quite effective a tool in clobbering organized crime. You certainly don’t want to strip law enforcement of that tool properly used to protect the public from criminals.
What’s needed are jury reviews of forfeitures at the time of trial, as a check on their overuse.
And, I’d add, if an appellate Court is the one originating a forfeiture, that decision should be remanded to a Jury for review.
pbinca – laws can be written to deal with organized crime, and they can include forfeiture without having small-time offenders deprived of their livelihoods or life savings.
*. Forfeiture is unconstitutional and needs striking as citizens cannot be deprived of property. The State CONFISCATED the illegal booze and that’s where that ends.
Excessive fines are also unconstitutional as those may require a kind of Forfeiture to pay an excessive fine Ala Leticia James.
Excessive fines can also result in a type of endentured servitude to the State as a citizen may labor for years to pay for their freedom.
FUBAR is a result of DEI. incredible BS