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.
Seizure laws are so abused at times by some LE communities and I hope him gets his plane to keep. Also, Alaskan Amber is a darn good beer (but so is almost anything before Bud!)
Gordon, you say- I hope him gets his plane to keep?
😂 cooking sherry?
This case is an example of the courts telling the legislature to fix the law. It shows the conundrum the court is faced with, caused by over reaching governmental “catch all” laws, that are created (perhaps) with good intention but without universal practicality. The courts have the job to serve the interest of justice notwithstanding the circumstances. Sometimes the message is clear – correct the law.
Drafting a cert petition is an art that requires a high level of skill. To get the Justices’ attention, the issue you raise cannot merely sound in error review, it has to implicate some sort of uncertainty in federal law as developed by state and federal appellate courts. But it also has to have been raised and preserved below, where the best chance of winning is to cast the issue as if the law is settled in your favor and the lower court misapplied it (i.e., error review). Given that tension, the Institute for Justice’s frames the issue skillfully. This is from the cert petition the professor linked to above:
The “touchstone of the constitutional inquiry under the Excessive Fines Clause” is that the amount of the fine “must bear some relationship to the gravity of the offense that it is designed to punish.” United States v. Bajakajian, 524 U.S. 321, 334 (1998). Below, the Alaska Supreme Court upheld the forfeiture of petitioner’s $95,000 airplane because, the court reasoned, petitioner knew that one of his passenger’s grocery bags contained a sixpack of Budweiser.
In so holding, the court captured vividly a lower-court conflict over the standard for evaluating the gravity of a property owner’s offense under the Excessive Fines Clause. Aligning with the Eleventh Circuit, the Alaska Supreme Court examined the gravity of the defendant’s offense at a stratospheric level of abstraction. Meanwhile, the federal circuit in which Alaska sits—in line with many other state and federal courts—holds that “[i]t is critical” to “review the specific actions of the violator rather than by taking an abstract view of the violation.”
The question presented is whether, in determining whether a fine contravenes the Excessive Fines Clause, courts may consider the gravity of the underlying offense purely in the abstract or should consider the gravity of the specific defendant’s wrongdoing.
*.
Clearly it’s excessive. Judges have discretion but this one and friends are common thieves.
Bizarre
Screw the $95K Cessna
JT, did you buy some Power Ball tickets for the $1.3 billion dollar jackpot?
I take it, you don’t fly
Alaska mosquitoes are the worst. They can drive a human insane.
If I win the $1.3 billion, there are some decisions to make.
Should I drive to Lottery headquarters by myself or hire a limo service that has a wide selection to choose from. Party limo, private limo & all have a wet bar included.
Wonderful to see someone treating this story with all the seriousness it deserves !!!!
JT states, “Sounds like the start of a good joke?” Let’s get serious.
Budweiser is downstream piss.
“Budweiser is downstream piss.”
At least it wasn’t Bud Lite in the Loafers
If you are the Lucky Winner of the $1.3 billion dollar jackpot.
Don’t forget to Tip your Blog Meister* and Writers!
* Darren needs a new pair of Shoes: https://www.darveys.com/blog/most-expensive-mens-dress-shoes/
and a matching Home in Hawaii with Walk-in Temperature Condoled Shoe Closet: https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/766-Mokulua-Dr-Kailua-HI-96734/633801_zpid/
@Annoyingus
Pbblt. 😛😛😛
“The Trump administration’s order to stop construction of the nearly completed Revolution Wind project is putting hundreds of offshore workers out of a job — including dozens of local fishermen who voted for President Donald Trump and are asking him to reverse course.”
Ohh the poor babies didn’t read the fine print on trumps campaign. He is in it only for himself and doesn’t give a rats A$$ about anybody but himself. I think trump and his kids are doing pretty good grifting off the country with their many crypto deals. But look, Hunter is out there somewhere, quick grab his laptop and look at that porn.
Yawn.. wind-mills are just a waste of money
Fishermen hate the wind mills. I don’t.know where you get your info but I suspect you just make it up. Your posts are laughable at best.
“Fishermen hate the wind mills.”
He didn’t reveal this fact: His “fishermen” aren’t fishermen. They are construction workers.
@BabyTrump
Yes, you are. and also:
Pbblt. 😛😛😛
“The Trump administration’s order to stop construction of the nearly completed Revolution Wind project”
Good! Because the previous (p)resident broke federal environmental law with his push for off-shore wind farms.
“EXCLUSIVE: Biden Admin Broke Environmental Law in Wind Energy Push, Leaked Government Study Shows” – Public (Substack)
https://www.public.news/p/exclusive-biden-admin-broke-environmental
“. . . including dozens of local fishermen . . .”
That’s funny because it’s fishermen (the ones actually fishing for a living) who complain the most about those wind farms: “We cannot fish in a wind farm”
One comment – There is NO Tarmac on the airport at Fairbanks or on any other airport in the world. Airports are paved with concrete and asphalt. Tarmac is an early Twentieth Century British method of paving roads with macadam and tar. It was NEVER used on airports but British writers started using the term and the media has picked up on it.
Tarmac is just another word for Ramp in aviation lingo. The ramp is where aircraft park, load and unload.
It is acceptable through common.use. English unlike Latin is a living language and constantly changes through use. Latin is a dead language and unchanging. You sound like a fussbudget.
and here I always thought that the law abhors a forfeiture.
Well judges have to fly to remote locations too so they need a plane to get there. What’s the big problem?
Sounds eerily familiar. I remember just recently that a State Attorney General and Judge presiding over a civil business fraud trial set Damages over $354 million plus interest to accrue. This was to put hardship on a Family run business and possibly force them to forfeit their assets at: 1 Central Park W. New York, NY. and Golf Course in Hudson Valley, Hopewell Junction, New York. In addition they seek to bar the families’ patriarch from serving as an officer or director of any New York corporation or other legal entity in New York for a period of three years.
WHY? Because the two simply didn’t like the Families’ political opinions. This sentiment has apparently now spread to Alaska, where confiscation and forfeiture actions have been “Trump”ed Up.
Free Speech has a price, be prepared for what you might have to give up, or be it confiscated and forfeited.
I pray for you Sarah Palin.
Why is it that our court systems are, more and more, reminding me of the Court of Chancery in Jaundice and Jaundice from Charles Dicken’s Bleak House. Totally dysfunctional.
It also reminds me of another Charles Dickens quote, from Oliver Twist. “If that’s the law, the law is an ass.”
“The law supposes that your wife acts under your direction.”
“If the law supposes that,” said Mr. Bumble, squeezing his hat emphatically in both hands, “the law is a ass — a idiot. If that’s the eye of the law, the law is a bachelor; and the worst I wish the law is, that his eyes may be opened by experience — by experience.”
An 85 year old lost his $95,000 aircraft over transporting beer, meanwhile it’s reported “ Rep. Ilhan Omar’s latest financial disclosure shows her personal net worth has ballooned to as high as $30 million in 2024.”. Maybe he should give up flying and enter politics?
Omar’s personal worth has not grown at all. All the reporting that it has are outright lies. Her husband’s worth has grown, or at least that’s what he declared on his disclosure.
He says his new businesses did very well and increased in value. Maybe they have. How do any of us know otherwise? Or maybe they haven’t, and he’s deliberately overstated their value, which as far as I know is perfectly legal.
In any case, he is not a politician and there’s no reason to suppose that his success in business (if any) is attributable to his wife’s political position. It’s possible that he’s merely been laundering her bribes, the way Hillary Clinton’s law firm did for Bill when he was governor of Arkansas, but that’s pure speculation.
“. . . there’s no reason to suppose that his success in business (if any) is attributable to his wife’s political position.”
If you had bothered to do a little research, you’d know that there are lots of reasons to “suppose” that — some $2.8 million reasons. That’s the amount Omar paid to her husband’s “consulting” firm.
Can’t believe they’re trying to steal that old guy’s plane under the color of law. Sadly, it was probably a Republican majority legislature and governor that enacted that asinine law.
The worst hoax man ever committed against his fellow man was promoting the notion that government is a force for good. It’s not. It has a monopoly on coercion and often abuses its power. In saner times, people correctly understood government is a “necessary evil”. As such it should have minimal influence in how we choose to live our life.
Anonymous blames everything on Republicans. Google search
“Some Alaskan “dry counties” are not actually counties, but rather villages or communities that have voted to ban the sale of alcohol through a process called local option. These communities opt to remain dry to combat alcohol-related crime and the negative impacts of alcohol abuse, with leaders often empowered to control alcohol use within their borders. The practice of local option dates back to before national prohibition and allows individual communities to decide on alcohol sales within their jurisdictions.” Derangement is a real thing in the Anonymous mind.
It was member of the community that tried to sneak the beer in not the pilot. She even pleaded guilty. The statue specifies ‘knowingly’. They all agree he didn’t know about the beer..This is outright theft.
Anon is a low IQ person that can’t stay on topic. Anon’s every post is a personal act to grind. His sole purpose is to upset people. Laugh at him or ignore him, but don’t give him the satisfaction of an answer to the irrelevant drivel he posts.
Thinkit, it was Republicans who passed this law that makes it a crime to bring alcohol into communities whose government doesn’t like it. Without this law the locals could say whatever they liked, but people would be free to ignore their rantings. Why should a village mayor be able to dictate to the whole world what they may bring in? WHy should they be able to dictate to all the village residents what they may consume? It was Republicans who made that law, so its’ fair to blame them for its consequences.
I’m not an attorney but I have raised a child to become one. Some might hold that against me. My only knowledge about forfeiture law comes from accounts like this one. It appears to me that forfeiture laws are frequently abused by government to acquire funds and valuable property that were unrelated to the charged offense. Rather than pursuing justice, the government appears to be acting opportunistically to enrich itself. It reminds me of the abuse of imminent domain law in the wake of the Kelo decision.
Is it any wonder the book of Revelation calls America a “harlot” and her UN is the “beast she presently is riding in these last days?:
https://sumofthyword.com/2021/01/07/mystery-babylon-the-great-and-her-beast/
Speaking of harlots….. (no, the Book of Revelations does not mention America nor the UN), but Trans folks, their apologists and harlotry do go hand in hand
Malcolm Gladwell has had an epiphany re: the trans cultural movement. Good for him for being honest and confessing his mistakes on the record.
Well, I think all of these arguments are embedded in larger social and cultural trends, right? This was never really an argument about sports. This was a much much larger argument about a political argument, a cultural argument. And I think that those cultural winds have have clearly shifted … I think in retrospect we will look back on the COVID period as a period of profound cultural destabilization
and when the government loses…can we confiscate the cars they drove to work?
No. Get a law degree.
“Get a law degree”
Maybe he would rather become a stick-up man. All in all it seems to be a more honest line of work…
I have said many times, “The Law Has Become a Joke!” It is not a vehicle for Justice. It’s no longer our friend or protector. It’s not worthy of our respect, our admiration or our obedience. As Shakespeare wrote, we are saddled with A Comedy Of Errors.
welcome to the fascism of your government!
How about we JAIL the state officials when they lose?
Not in the law. Study it before commenting.
“Study the law before you comment “ seems to be your mantra. Fortunately freedom of speech doesn’t require one to have a law degree
“Not in the law”
Maybe that should change. One of my favorite opinions wrt term limits came from a Lt Col William F Clardy on the old (pre WWW) Byte Information Exchange (BIX) bulletin board. The good Colonel was of the opinion that anyone should be permitted to run for office, and, if elected, be allowed to serve out a single term and retire with no ensuing punishment. Under his proposal, any elected official would also be permitted to run for re-election. However, in order to do so, he or she would be required to agree to be publicly executed at the conclusion of a second term. I have never been certain if Clardy was joking or not, but I always thought that the proposal had some merit.
If the Alaska supreme court thinks this fine is not excessive then I wonder what it could possibly consider excessive.
“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.”
It may be clear that that’s what the legislature “determined”, but it’s equally clear that the legislature had no right to determine that. The legislature doesn’t get to say what is “excessive”, any more than it gets to define any other term in the constitution.
I would add that the underlying offense is so trivial that it ought to be unconstitutional for it to carry more than a minimal penalty, even if it was done intentionally and in large volume. Even knowingly driving a tanker full of beer into the village shouldn’t be allowed to be more than a misdemeanor, at most, and shouldn’t be allowed to have a penalty higher than what you would get for drunk and disorderly or something like that.
I would say the law is at fault. Blame to polits who made the law not the judges and bureaucrats compelled to carry out the that law.
The law is not merely “at fault”, it is invalid, and it is the court’s job to say it’s invalid. This court refused to do its job. Enforcing an invalid law is itself a crime, and “just following orders” is not an excuse.
Millhouse, I agree that the forfeiture of the plane is excessive. However, I do wonder if the original trip was a one-time event. The presence of three cases of alcohol, along with a six-pack of beer, suggests that the pilot was likely aware of the cargo, as he must know the weight and contents being transported—especially considering hazardous materials.
I also question whether he has done this before. While I’m not accusing him of lying, his experience as a bush pilot and familiarity with the villages he frequents should have made him aware that his destination was a dry village.
Additionally, other articles from 2013 indicate that Joupi was charged under Alaska’s bootlegging law. As the owner and operator of the charter flight, he was responsible for knowing that transporting alcohol to the village was prohibited. The troopers discovered the six-pack, and upon further investigation, they found the three cases. Regardless of whether he was aware of the contents, the law still applies.
The forfeiture of the plane would have served as harsh reminder to others of the consequences of being caught smuggling alchohol to dry villages. I agree it is an excessive example, but then again. So is a felony charge for throwing a sandwich to a fully armed federal law enforcement official, because the government wanted to make a harsh example for those thinking of doing the same.
“While I’m not accusing him of lying, his experience as a bush pilot and familiarity with the villages he frequents should have made him aware that his destination was a dry village.”
What a doffus. George Svelaz supports Beria’s way of jailing or killing innocent people; find a crime or make one up. George walks the low path of ignorance.
S. Meyer, what are you talking about? Nothing you said makes any sense.
You think that way due to ignorance. You don’t know who Beria is or how your thoughts align with his.
Again, S. Meyer, what are you talking about? You are not making an sense at all.
George Svelaz, I make sense, and everyone knows it. Don’t you know who Beria was and what he did? I feel sorry for your lack of education.
Don’t be ridiculous. A pilot does not inspect the passengers’ luggage. He needs to know the weight, not the contents.
And a law that makes him guilty without knowing the contents is unconstitutional. As is any “strict liability” criminal law. Such laws deny due process.
Two kinds of laws that should be appealed. Most forfeiture laws and lying to a federal officer.
Sorry, I meant repealed, not appealed.
Ive been to Alaska. They do drink there ,and yes use planes to bring it in.
All about nothing.
No one’s claiming the whole state is dry! This is about dry villages only.
Yes I know, having been to Alaska many times as a pilot.
Common-sense seems to be lacking on this court.
Yes he should be punished, but not like this. Funny there are more planes and snowmobiles then cars.