6-pack beer & airplane seized

Two very separate issues here.

!. The isolated village has a severe alcohol abuse problem.
They voted to become a DRY community. 2 years ago. Well known law.
They voted a penalty for importation to be forfeiture of the vehicle, in this case, an airplane, in winter, a snowmobile.

2. The pilot in this case carelessly put a 6 pack in the top of one of the grocery bags, visible to the State trooper, through a window.
additional beer was found in another bag, concealed under food items.
For a pilot, such carelessness can get you killed, AND/OR destroy the plane.

It has not been long since a similar bush pilot overloaded HIS plane, crashed, and died. No appeal to the Supreme Court for that violation...

If the law is there, and everybody knows it, carelessly break it, pay the going price, there is no surprise.

There are options here, fly the wet guy to a wet town, with a legal bar'

This is a bad example to take to the Supreme Court.
 
Asset forfeiture was intended for seizure of the proceeds of drug dealing, i.e. taking the money made from dealing drugs or the things the dealer bought with the money.

Forfeiture has never worked - it has zero impact on crime. This particular case is ridiculous. It’s not even close to the proper use of forfeiture. Worst case here, remind him to tell his passengers not take beer to that town.
 
A less severe option might be 30 days in a spare village igloo, or in liquid water season, a tent, with traditional local sourced food.

Seizing his plane stops him from flying in any more alcohol. It also catches the attention of other plane owners considering this crime.

The customer in this case should have a penalty too.
 
So how would a pilot know the law if they are not local? Are you expected to research every towns ordinances that you land in? Just because a town votes to pass an ordinance does not automatically mean it’s a leg and constitutional law hence the reason it’s made it to the Supreme Court.
 
kmacht said:
So how would a pilot know the law if they are not local? Are you expected to research every towns ordinances that you land in? Just because a town votes to pass an ordinance does not automatically mean it’s a leg and constitutional law hence the reason it’s made it to the Supreme Court.
Click to expand...
Along with this, how is it illegal if the "contraband" never left the airplane?
 
kmacht said:
So how would a pilot know the law if they are not local? Are you expected to research every towns ordinances that you land in? Just because a town votes to pass an ordinance does not automatically mean it’s a leg and constitutional law hence the reason it’s made it to the Supreme Court.
Click to expand...
In Alaska you're expected to. https://dot.alaska.gov/stwdav/akfly.shtml
 
The limits of civil forfeiture under the proportionality clause has been an issue for quite a while. Many see it as nothing more than a revenue law where the state holds all the cars. There are cases we can clearly see it as a good thing. Drug dealing kingpins who lose their homes, cars, and other assets purchased with their illegal gains. At the opposite end, adult son uses mom's car to commit a crime. Mom loses car unless she can meet the burden of proving she was an innocent owner. Too bad that she can't afford a lawyer to defend the claim. Automatic loss. State sells the car at auction. There are cases where the drug kingpin does better.

The case law requires proportionality but, there have been two distinct lines of cases about how to determine what is proportional.

One view is that the "penalty" needs to be proportional to the specifics of the underlying offense. Related to the specific owner's degree of culpability. In that view, it's a customer's six-pack not intended for distribution vs Cessna 210.

The other view is that the state is entitled to take of 20,000' view of the overall societal harm. In that view, it's a Cessna 210 vs a history of severe alcoholism problems in the community. The degree of harm caused by the owner and their personal culpability is irrelevant.
 
I can't believe we haven't had a supreme court case to rule civil asset forfeiture unconstitutional yet. It couldn't be a more blatant case of depriving citizens of property without due process of law, the argument they use to justify it is complete nonsense.
 
midlifeflyer said:
The other view is that the state is entitled to take of 20,000' view of the overall societal harm. In that view, it's a Cessna 210 vs a history of severe alcoholism problems in the community. The degree of harm caused by the owner and their personal culpability is irrelevant.
Click to expand...

As I understand it, it was the village that banned alcohol. The 20,000’ view might be an appropriate view for the state, but not for a tiny 100-person village. In any event, the 8th amendment does not have a “Yeah, but...” clause, and local or state laws do not override it.

If it were shown that this pilot was making tens of thousand of dollars by flying large quantities of booze into dry villages, one might argue that seizure of his plane was necessary and appropriate. For this case, a few beers in a passenger’s packages, no intent for resale, importation not being the pilot’s source of income, etc., etc., seizure of an airplane is wholly inappropriate.

The 8th amendment obligates the state to exercise reasonable judgment regarding what constitutes an “excessive” penalty, and I believe any reasonable person would consider this excessive.
 
StraightnLevel said:
Along with this, how is it illegal if the "contraband" never left the airplane?
Click to expand...
It never left Fairbanks (which isn’t “dry”), and never reached the dry village, Beaver.

It would have been illegal had he reached Beaver. Transporting alcohol into beaver is illegal under AK state law (per news article)
 
I can see punishing the guy who was sneaking the beer, the passenger. The pilot and plane owner wasn't doing the sneaking, so why is he being punished?
 
WDD said:
I can see punishing the guy who was sneaking the beer, the passenger. The pilot and plane owner wasn't doing the sneaking, so why is he being punished?
Click to expand...
The evidence in the case was that the beer was in plain sight. There was actually more than the one 6-pack (not a lot), but only the visible one was attributed to the pilot. As one snarky trooper testified, the pilot would "have to be blind not to know what was on [the plane], and absolutely ignoring whatever he was putting in that airplane. . . ." The pilot claimed that everything was in closed boxes. The jury chose to believe the trooper.
 
WDD said:
I can see punishing the guy who was sneaking the beer, the passenger. The pilot and plane owner wasn't doing the sneaking, so why is he being punished?
Click to expand...

If the information presented here is correct, ever so diligent State Police Troopers detained the pilot and while they obtained a search warrant from a local judge to confiscate both the six pack and the aircraft in FAIRBANKS! The aircraft never even departed Fairbanks for the small village of Beaver.

The State Police should at least be obligated to authorize and spend some of their seizure confiscation gains to do this job right (not on the cheap). Law enforcement personnel should fly their government owned aircraft and meet up with the alleged six-pack of beer in the small village to properly complete their mission.
 
Rick A said:
If the information presented here is correct, ever so diligent State Police Troopers detained the pilot and while they obtained a search warrant from a local judge to confiscate both the six pack and the aircraft
Click to expand...
I don’t think anyone presented anything here which said that.
 
I'm still not quite sure what crime was actually committed. Is it illegal to put beer into your plane and say you're flying to a village where it's prohibited, even though you haven't yet actually done so?
 
Half Fast said:
I'm still not quite sure what crime was actually committed. Is it illegal to put beer into your plane and say you're flying to a village where it's prohibited, even though you haven't yet actually done so?
Click to expand...
I don't know how this was prosecuted, so with a grain of salt...

Intent is a well established principle in lots of law. You can still be convicted of treason, for example, even if you fail to overthrow the government. Or attempted battery, even if you fail to connect a haymaker.

In this case, possession with intent to distribute could be pretty close to what they nabbed him for.

Again, I haven't read his case. Just saying that actually doing the thing isn't always a necessary predicate for arresting people.
 
midlifeflyer said:
I don’t think anyone presented anything here which said that.
Click to expand...

This was presented here...

CNN - July20, 2026 "Jouppi was convicted of alcohol importation, a misdemeanor. State police executed a search warrant on his plane in Fairbanks before it was to take off for Beaver."

INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE - July 20th, 2026 "Ken’s saga started as a normal day, on April 3, 2012, when he was preparing to ferry a passenger and her groceries from Fairbanks to the village of Beaver, which had voted in 2004 to ban alcohol outright. Tucked in the passenger’s luggage were three cases of beer, two Budweiser and one Bud Light, meant as a gift for her husband, the local postmaster. State troopers found them before Ken could take off, claiming one six-pack was in plain view. That was enough, they said, to make Ken complicit."
 
I think maybe take her husbands federal job from him, instead of the pilots airplane. A suitable valuable asset. Obviously he was an avid drinker if his wife felt he needed 3 cases in one grocery run. Who knows, he may even been reselling it, rather than drinking it himself.
 
geezer said:
Obviously he was an avid drinker if his wife felt he needed 3 cases in one grocery run. Who knows, he may even been reselling it, rather than drinking it himself.
Click to expand...
Or maybe it was a three month supply going to a remote area. Who knows. Also, mostly irrelevant.
 
What is relevant here is the wife was well aware of the law, and should be getting the punishment, not the pilot.
 
geezer said:
What is relevant here is the wife was well aware of the law, and should be getting the punishment, not the pilot.
Click to expand...
I don't know about "not the pilot". If he knew the law and knew about the beer, then seems like he's also at fault. The punishment doesn't fit the crime, of course, being the issue.

But, yes, the wife should have been charged. (If she wasn't)
 
geezer said:
I think maybe take her husbands federal job from him, instead of the pilots airplane. A suitable valuable asset. Obviously he was an avid drinker if his wife felt he needed 3 cases in one grocery run. Who knows, he may even been reselling it, rather than drinking it himself.
Click to expand...

People allowed to implement and agree upon a legal process that determines what levels of punishments should be forced upon people that are only punishing themselves is not how humans should be treating each other.

Alaska's effort to save grownups from themselves is way over the top, and totally tainted by those making incomes off the entire process. Hell, just take away all the drinker's freedoms, or even their lives if the mob deems that would be helpful.

In the 1920's when prohibition was implemented upon the American public following lobbying to politicians by helpful do-gooders, poisonous chemicals were legally mixed in with alcohol to slowly kill those who disobeyed with their helpful efforts. Silently, deadly, and government sanctioned.

weird-history-facts.com

Prohibition's Deadly Legacy: Federal Murder During America's "Dry" Era 1920-1933 | Weird History Facts

Prohibition, often romanticized as a time of speakeasies and bootleggers, had a dark underbelly that remains a haunting reminder of its failed experiment. While the banning of alcohol in the United States from 1920 to 1933 aimed to curb social ills, it unwittingly unleashed a deadly epidemic of...
weird-history-facts.com weird-history-facts.com
 
The prosecution should be required to prove that the pilot knew that alcohol was illegal in the destination. I know, "ignorance of the law is no excuse," but expecting people to know the rules for every small town is unreasonable.

Rick A said:
In the 1920's when prohibition was implemented upon the American public following lobbying to politicians by helpful do-gooders, poisonous chemicals were legally mixed in with alcohol to slowly kill those who disobeyed with their helpful efforts. Silently, deadly, and government sanctioned.
Click to expand...

The same thing happened in the 1970s when the US paid the Mexican government to spray a toxic herbicide on marijuana crops.
 
Rick A said:
This was presented here...

CNN - July20, 2026 "Jouppi was convicted of alcohol importation, a misdemeanor. State police executed a search warrant on his plane in Fairbanks before it was to take off for Beaver."

INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE - July 20th, 2026 "Ken’s saga started as a normal day, on April 3, 2012, when he was preparing to ferry a passenger and her groceries from Fairbanks to the village of Beaver, which had voted in 2004 to ban alcohol outright. Tucked in the passenger’s luggage were three cases of beer, two Budweiser and one Bud Light, meant as a gift for her husband, the local postmaster. State troopers found them before Ken could take off, claiming one six-pack was in plain view. That was enough, they said, to make Ken complicit."
Click to expand...
They did execute a search warrant, but this statement of yours is inaccurate.

Rick A said:
State Police Troopers detained the pilot and while they obtained a search warrant from a local judge
Click to expand...

That’s not what happened. The warrant already existed. The authorities were already investigating the pilot and his company on possible felony importation charges. The warrant was issued in connection with that investigation. The Troopers waited until the airplane was loaded, everyone boarded, and the pilot started up. Then they moved in, signaled him to shut down and searched.
 
midlifeflyer said:
They did execute a search warrant, but this statement of yours is inaccurate.

That’s not what happened. The warrant already existed. The authorities were already investigating the pilot and his company on possible felony importation charges. The warrant was issued in connection with that investigation. The Troopers waited until the airplane was loaded, everyone boarded, and the pilot started up. Then they moved in, signaled him to shut down and searched.
Click to expand...
My statement? I quoted information, verbatim, of what you stated wasn't presented earlier in the thread.

I don't know the State laws involved (nor do I want to) justifying how an investigation, detention, execution and issuance of a search warrant occurs without the completion of the crime (delivery of the beer) at a location (Fairbanks) not governed by the laws of the Native American Indian reservation.

Whatever legislative gymnastics were involved, it sure sounds expensive to investigate and prosecute, but a little less expensive to the taxpayer following the State's seizure and intended sale of private property allegedly involved in the criminal activity.
 
How does the mail man have the inside scoop? That's kinda funny
 
i
Rick A said:
My statement? I quoted information, verbatim, of what you stated wasn't presented earlier in the thread.

I don't know the State laws involved (nor do I want to) justifying how an investigation, detention, execution and issuance of a search warrant occurs without the completion of the crime (delivery of the beer) at a location (Fairbanks) not governed by the laws of the Native American Indian reservation.

Whatever legislative gymnastics were involved, it sure sounds expensive to investigate and prosecute, but a little less expensive to the taxpayer following the State's seizure and intended sale of private property allegedly involved in the criminal activity.
Click to expand...
Sorry I upset you. I just think that accuracy is important. There is plenty to attack in this case without making things up and arguing against everyday methods of criminal investigation you likely would support in a different context.

Personally, I have lots of issues with the way forfeiture is used in much of the US and this case. But I don’t have the problem you do with the idea of a state using “legislative gymnastics” to combat a severe alcoholism problem in small, remote communities by permitting those communities to ban alcohol, and providing criminal penalties to support that choice with criminal penalties.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top