The State of Alaska vs a bush pilot and a 6-pack of beer

Status
Not open for further replies.
francisco collazos

francisco collazos

Line Up and Wait
Joined
Jun 11, 2021
Messages
650
Display Name
ciscovet
It's not the Feds. It's the State of Alaska.

Yes, forfeiture overreach is a very interesting subject with a very interesting history.
 
No surprise. Sure, donate your plane to help fund law enforcement save lives.

Years ago I watched an episode of Alaska State Troopers and noticed the amount of State manpower used to break up and criminally cite partying youths out drinking alcohol in the middle of nowhere. Almost comical watching these uniformed law enforcement officers chasing kids around the woods to issue citations.

Not discounting the need for enforcement and proscution of serious crime, however Alaska seems to be a state with a high law enforcement officials to citizens ratio to provide for everybody's safety from themselves, including bush pilots not searching luggage before transporting indigenous people.

Hammer, meet nail.
 
If I read the story correctly a few days ago. The 6 pack wasn't even his but a passenger he was flying.

Edit: Should have read the linked article. It's in the first paragraph
 
Someone point me to the airworthy $95,000 Cessna 206's, please.
 
Alaska is sort of stupid with their alcohol laws…if my wife follows me into the liquor store and the clerk determines that she is with me…we both have to show ID’s to buy a bottle of wine…AK drivers license will show if the state has removed your purchase privileges. My Texas Dl or Retired military ID obviously does not, and works fine. Even if my wife left the store and I try to purchase the wine I would be denied the sale unless her ID is shown…I know she looks younger than her age but we’re both in our mid 60’s
 
Alaska has long had a big problem with alcoholism, as do many other areas with large Native American populations. Genetics and economic factors are part of it, along with long dark winters with little else to do.
 
Last edited:
I was not making light of the problems of Native Populations and Alcohol abuse…pretty familiar with the issue…you can’t have mouthwash with alcohol in the same said village because of issues of drinking the Green Lizard…imagine if this was happening over a bottle of Listerine…
 
Warlock said:
I was not making light of the problems of Native Populations and Alcohol abuse…pretty familiar with the issue…you can’t have mouthwash with alcohol in the same said village because of issues of drinking the Green Lizard…imagine if this was happening over a bottle of Listerine…
Click to expand...
Went to a fly in camp in Canada a while ago. Camp owner said hide your booze. Going back to camp one day we see a boat leaving the bay our cabin was on. Weird since it was remote. Tried chasing them down but they somehow made there way up some falls. They stole only the alcohol. Including hand sanitizer. The only alcohol they left was the blackberry Brandy.
 
Warlock said:
imagine if this was happening over a bottle of Listerine…
Click to expand...
I guess anything is possible, but I think it’s unlikely.

But that’s the case in a nutshell. When assessing whether a “fine” is proportionate, must courts consider “the gravity of the specific defendant’s wrongdoing,” or may courts base the decision solely on “the gravity of the underlying offense purely in the abstract.”

“Purely in the abstract” is referring to the harm the legislation was meant to address: the ability of remote communities to choose address the costs of alcohol abuse by banning it there. From that perspective, it’s not about one 6-pack. Or, I guess you can say it is about the impact of even one 6-pack in a community of 100.
 
Last edited:
I love it when non-Alaskans share their expert opinions about Alaska. It makes me wonder if everything else they comment on is equally incorrect.
 
midlifeflyer said:
But that’s the case in a nutshell. When assessing whether a “fine” is proportionate, must courts consider “the gravity of the specific defendant’s wrongdoing,” or may courts base the decision solely on “the gravity of the underlying offense purely in the abstract.”
Click to expand...

IANAL, but....

It seems to me that the 8th amendment has as its intent the protection of individual defendants against excessive penalties. If so, then it would follow that the court must consider the “specific defendant’s wrongdoing.”

I guess we’ll finally see how the SCOTUS views the question.
 
I think people have overlooked the original intent of this AK state law regardless the details of this case.....
 
As per the usual shock value of articles like this, it doesn't tell the whole story. The 6-pack was what was discovered initially, but there was a significant amount of other alcohol on both the plane in question (his personal aircraft) and the other aircraft (his company aircraft) that were flying together to this remote indiginous village. The story makes it sound like he is being held to account for what someone else did, but he was actively involved with the plan to deliver alcohol where he knew it was unlawful to do so. In general, I am not one to support forfeiture laws like this, but he may have a tough time defending his actions when all of the facts are presented. That would explain why both the trial court and appellate court have both ruled against him already.
 
Kevin Eggert said:
As per the usual shock value of articles like this, it doesn't tell the whole story. The 6-pack was what was discovered initially, but there was a significant amount of other alcohol on both the plane in question (his personal aircraft) and the other aircraft (his company aircraft) that were flying together to this remote indiginous village. The story makes it sound like he is being held to account for what someone else did, but he was actively involved with the plan to deliver alcohol where he knew it was unlawful to do so. In general, I am not one to support forfeiture laws like this, but he may have a tough time defending his actions when all of the facts are presented. That would explain why both the trial court and appellate court have both ruled against him already.
Click to expand...
The trial court ruled in his favor.
 
midlifeflyer said:
The trial court ruled in his favor.
Click to expand...
No it didn't. He was convicted of a misdemeanor, and spent time in jail. As a result of the conviction he is subject to the seizure of property under Alaska statute 04:16:220. Again, I'm not generally in favor of seizure/forfeiture in most cases, but the article does not give the full story and that was my point.
 
Kevin Eggert said:
No it didn't. He was convicted of a misdemeanor, and spent time in jail. As a result of the conviction he is subject to the seizure of property under Alaska statute 04:16:220. Again, I'm not generally in favor of seizure/forfeiture in most cases, but the article does not give the full story and that was my point.
Click to expand...
Yes he was convicted but the trial judge ruled in his favor on the forfeiture - twice. The trial judge was overruled by the Alaska Court of Appeals both times.

No, the article doesn't give the full story. It never does. But the documents filed with SCOTUS do.
 
ateamer said:
The forfeiture is about 63 times what the fine was. It’d be close to double that if they used the actual value of the plane and not what the state claims it to be.

It’s magnitudes beyond grossly disproportionate for a misdemeanor.
Click to expand...
I wonder if this case will be compared to prior DEA and Customs seizures of airplanes and sportscars when they find narcotics?
 
ateamer said:
The forfeiture is about 63 times what the fine was. It’d be close to double that if they used the actual value of the plane and not what the state claims it to be.

It’s magnitudes beyond grossly disproportionate for a misdemeanor.
Click to expand...

I'd imagine the aircraft's owner has been without use of his plane for 14 years. That should be worth something...
 
one article I read read said a case of Budwieser and a case of Busch beer. little more than a six pack.
 
As someone already mentioned above, if you don't know Alaska villages then you probably don't understand the issues.

Every few months, in an Alaska native village, a local resident, pretty much always male, will get drunk, p*ssed off, and shoot one or more other locals. Alcohol is always the story. The villages learned this a long time ago and have made very strict laws related to importing booze to their towns. It is NOT allowed. If you are a pilot flying out there, you are well aware of the penalties. Aircraft forfeiture is common.

Most of the small villages have no local law enforcement. AK State Trooper responses to these things can take 24 hours or more.
 
edo2000 said:
As someone already mentioned above, if you don't know Alaska villages then you probably don't understand the issues.

Every few months, in an Alaska native village, a local resident, pretty much always male, will get drunk, p*ssed off, and shoot one or more other locals. Alcohol is always the story. The villages learned this a long time ago and have made very strict laws related to importing booze to their towns. It is NOT allowed. If you are a pilot flying out there, you are well aware of the penalties. Aircraft forfeiture is common.

Most of the small villages have no local law enforcement. AK State Trooper responses to these things can take 24 hours or more.
Click to expand...
… and we are talking about small and remote villages. The village in the case had less than 100 people and IIRC, no road access to other towns or cities.

As usual, there are other pieces to the story. The search of the airplane which found the 9 gallons of beer was with a warrant. The warrant was not about this flight. I was issued in an already-existing investigation into the pilot and his company. That investigation ultimately led to felony indictments, separate from this case. The pilot pleaded to a lesser offense.
 
Last edited:
midlifeflyer said:
The pilot pleaded to a lesser offense
Click to expand...

If that was the deal, then the penalty should only consider the lesser offense. Confiscation of the aircraft is excessive for the offense he was judged guilty of.

If a person cuts a deal and pleads guilty to manslaughter rather than face a murder trial, you don’t get to execute him anyway.
 
Half Fast said:
If that was the deal, then the penalty should only consider the lesser offense. Confiscation of the aircraft is excessive for the offense he was judged guilty of.

If a person cuts a deal and pleads guilty to manslaughter rather than face a murder trial, you don’t get to execute him anyway.
Click to expand...
that deal has nothing to do with the case currently on appeal. It’s separate and took place after the case with the forfeiture.

But yes, that’s what a big part of the case is about. In the case which led to the forfeiture, Jouppi was convicted of a misdemeanor and both sides appear to agree that the only relevant conduct is the visible 6-pack.
 
Htaylor said:
I may or may not have flown a bit of booze around SE Alaska. I didn't ask what was in the keg, but it was definitely full. Pretty regular thing when taking hunters/fisherman out and leaving them somewhere for a week or so.

View attachment 153650
Click to expand...
PBR? Really? If you're going to airlift beer, surely you can do better than that.
 
Let'sgoflying! said:
is this an update?
It’s dated today but I can’t tell if it’s old news
Click to expand...

Appears to be an update. The SCOTUS has agreed to hear oral arguments on this case scheduled for December 11th.

From a Yahoo link:
  • The U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Jouppi v. Alaska on December 1, focusing on the proportionality of the airplane forfeiture and the impact on Jouppi's livelihood.
 
Rick A said:
Appears to be an update. The SCOTUS has agreed to hear oral arguments on this case scheduled for December 11th.

From a Yahoo link:
  • The U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Jouppi v. Alaska on December 1, focusing on the proportionality of the airplane forfeiture and the impact on Jouppi's livelihood.
Click to expand...
Small typo. You say December 11 at the top and December 1 at the bottom. It's December 1.

Final briefs of the parties have not yet been filed, but there are a bunch of amicus briefs. That's short for amicus curiae, Latin for "friend of the court." These are non-parties to the litigation who want to provide information to the court supporting one side or the other.
 
Last edited:
midlifeflyer said:
Small typo. You say December 11 and the top and December 1 at the bottom. It's December 1.

Final briefs of the parties have not yet been filed, but there are a bunch of amicus briefs. That's short for amicus curiae, Latin for "friend of the court." These are non-parties to the litigation who want to provide information to the court supporting one side or the other.
Click to expand...

Maybe we should send SCOTUS a few amicus cases of beer......
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top