6-pack beer & airplane seized

IANAL, and I certainly know nothing about Alaska law, so I have a question. Would it have been legal for the pilot to land outside the village boundary and allow his passenger to disembark? Whether the passenger then decided to enter the village with the beer would be entirely the passenger’s responsibility.

IOW, how close can you bring beer to the village? I don’t think “Fairbanks” is the correct answer.
 
midlifeflyer said:
. 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.
Click to expand...
A number of Southern areas have "dry counties" where alcohol cannot be sold. There is no prohibition, however, on a resident buying it elsewhere and taking it to their home. Small package shops tend to set up right across the county line.....
 
Half Fast said:
IANAL, and I certainly know nothing about Alaska law, so I have a question. Would it have been legal for the pilot to land outside the village boundary and allow his passenger to disembark? Whether the passenger then decided to enter the village with the beer would be entirely the passenger’s responsibility.

IOW, how close can you bring beer to the village? I don’t think “Fairbanks” is the correct answer.
Click to expand...
Ya don’t hafta land for the passenger to disembark…

 
Alaska alcohol laws are interesting and painful sometimes…I got castigated on another thread for not being from AK…although I spend 3-4 months a year here mostly June-August in North Pole. Next door in Fairbanks it’s illegal to give moose alcohol…thank goodness we won’t be arrested for the same here in N.P.

Alaska spends a lot of time showing ID’s. Walk into a liquor store with three people in your party for a bottle of wine, all three people have to show your ID. If one of your party were to leave the store to go somewhere prior to purchase your probably going to be denied the sale. It is all to protect those who have a problem with Alcohol and might be one of the 2000 (2100 last time I checked) or so that have a drivers license with a red stripe, where a Judge has removed their privileges. No one denies there are alcohol issues in AK…also drug and homelessness particularly in Anchorage but the solution is not taking away airplanes.
 
Last edited:
Warlock said:
Alaska alcohol laws are interesting and painful sometimes…I got castigated on another thread for not being from AK…although I spend 3-4 months a year here mostly June-August in Northpole. Next door in Fairbanks it’s illegal to give moose alcohol…thank goodness we won’t be arrested for the same here in N.P.

Alaska spends a lot of time showing ID’s. Walk into a liquor store with three people in your party for a bottle of wine, all three people have to show your ID. If one of your party were to leave the store to go somewhere prior to purchase your probably going to be denied the sale. It is all to protect those who have a problem with Alcohol and might be one of the 2000 (2100 last time I checked) or so that have a drivers license with a red stripe, where a Judge has removed their privileges. No one denies there are alcohol issues in AK…also drug and homelessness particularly in Anchorage but the solution is not taking away airplanes.
Click to expand...
1785156645363.jpeg
 
midlifeflyer said:
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.
Click to expand...

For the sake of accuracy, in which I also agree is important, I'm not upset at all. Nothing I communicated was or is intended to be an attack. Your research reinforces my belief that controlling all people to an attempt to reduce the unhealthy activities of some is not good governance. Either is seizing aircraft for punishment that creates additional funds for the enforcement of laws that also punishes innocents.

You're correct about my "problem" with a state, or any legislative body, using the power of government force that punishes ALL citizens... when only some of them have a lack of control and a personal death wish. There's already thousands of legitimate laws on the books prosecuting people who commit crimes that harm innocents.

Should government ban weapons for everybody in an attempt of making it more difficult for someone with a desire to commit suicide to do it? Or do we offer them another path to help to solve their addiction without punishing everyone else?
 
MauleSkinner said:
Sounds more like based on alleged crimes previously committed by the pilot.
Click to expand...
Without knowing more than I've read in the court papers filed by both sides in the SCOTUS case, this is what it sounds like (i.e., I'm speculating a bit) to me:

Based on information received from sources the state police considered reliable, they prepared an application for a search warrant, including the required affidavits laying out for the judge enough information to convince the judge there is sufficient probable cause of criminal activity to issue a warrant. The state police then wait until they became aware of another flight where they might catch the pilot in the act. (As an aside, the already-pending investigation led to indictments for felony importation. In that case, the customer pleaded guilty of felony importation; Jouppi plea bargained to a lesser charge.)

I think most here realize that I can argue either side of this one. Since this is a hot online topic, I'm trying to provide information and be as neutral as I can. Anyone is welcome to read the papers filed in the SCOTUS case. I can easily see at least four different results, including those where either side wins on principle but loses in practical terms. With that in mind...

The present case is limited to the forfeiture. Forfeitures are subject to the 8th Amendment protection against unreasonable fines. This case is about what must be looked at in terms of what is excessive. Alaska (and other states) use what has been described as a "abstract" test. They look at the harm the legislation was designed to address. In this case a severe alcoholism problem in small, remote communities ("a community off the road system and home to fewer than 100 people" according to one of the filings). The states on the other side look at that, but, in addition, also look at the offender's specific conduct - this was misdemeanor level and the pilot can only be charged with one 6 pack out of the 9 gallons of beer on board.

The customer pleaded guilty to the criminal charges The pilot (and his company) were found guilty at trial. The pilot appealed the conviction and lost in the Alaska Court of Appeals. There has been no further appeal. The question of Jouppi's guilt is over.

In terms of the forfeiture itself, the history is interesting. Apparently, the judge did not want to impose the forfeiture. The judge originally read the forfeiture law as not applying because the airplane never got to the dry destination. In the first appeal where Jouppi's conviction was upheld, the Alaska Court of Appeals reversed the judge on the forfeiture, holding that, under the statute, delivery is not required. The Court of Appeals sent the case back to the judge to determine whether forfeiture of the airplane is excessive. Again, the judge refused to order forfeiture, saying it was excessive. In the second appeal, the Court of Appeals again reversed the judge, and the Alaska Supreme Court ultimately said it was not excessive. It's that decision which has now been accepted by SCOTUS.
 
Last edited:
StraightnLevel said:
A number of Southern areas have "dry counties" where alcohol cannot be sold. There is no prohibition, however, on a resident buying it elsewhere and taking it to their home. Small package shops tend to set up right across the county line.....
Click to expand...
Not just the south. A few towns in Massachusetts were dry. Next to one of the dry towns was a store called Town Line Liquors. (A packie in mass speak)
That store did well.
 
StraightnLevel said:
A number of Southern areas have "dry counties" where alcohol cannot be sold. There is no prohibition, however, on a resident buying it elsewhere and taking it to their home. Small package shops tend to set up right across the county line.....
Click to expand...
Just like fireworks and weed stores on the state line. There is a prohibition on bringing the stuff across the state line, but of course that doesn't stop anybody.
 
I’ve read about Utah police working undercover (as nonsworn observers since they’re out of state) and/or using snitches in liquor stores in Evanston, Wyoming and Wendover, Nevada. They watch people buy kegs and drive them into Utah, which limits importation to something like a 12 pack. The accounts I saw were guys bringing it in for personal use or a party, not for commercial use.
 
State troopers are known to watch cars buying fireworks or alcohol and then reporting the plates to another officer across the state line.
It's always a good idea to first drive in the opposite direction for a few miles before heading to your actual destination.
 
Those last few posts are reminding me about the time I passed a gun across state lines by meeting in a parking lot of a convenience store.
 
In the past Pennsylvania State Troopers determined who purchased alcohol in Delaware close to the Pennsylvania border and then transported it into Pennsylvania for personal consumption to save a little money. I believe the troopers are hopefully too busy fighting real crime to spend too much time on this activity anymore.

Imagine if your vehicle was seized, multiple years of expensive legal costs paid, and lots of wasted time you’ll never get back, in order to save a few buck in taxes.

Serves these cheapskates right… the nerve of citizen’s trying to circumvent a long established money collection enterprise with the power to jail you and take your stuff.

I’m always amazed at the creative methods a government agency will spend to protect their own income stream, and how little public resistance there is to make it all stop, or at least reduce its growth.
 
Rick A said:
Imagine if your vehicle was seized, multiple years of expensive legal costs paid, and lots of wasted time you’ll never get back, in order to save a few buck in taxes.
Click to expand...
Anything less would simply be a fee for doing it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top