Posted on 07/20/2026 1:55:56 PM PDT by algore
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court agreed Monday to review an Alaska bush pilot’s claims that state authorities have tried to illegally seize his $95,000 airplane after a passenger brought a six-pack of beer on a flight bound for a dry village.
The pilot, Kenneth Jouppi, sued to block his plane’s seizure after he was convicted of an alcohol-related misdemeanor charge. The Alaska Supreme Court ruled in the state’s favor that Jouppi’s plane was subject to criminal forfeiture laws.
On Monday, however, the nation’s highest court agreed to hear Jouppi’s case. He argues that taking his 1969 Cessna would violate the Eighth Amendment’s “Excessive Fines Clause.” Arguments are expected in the fall.
“I’m in my 80s now, and I’ve been fighting this for over a decade because I see it as my duty to ensure that the Bill of Rights actually means something in protecting against government overreach,” Jouppi said in a statement released by his attorneys at the Institute for Justice.
In April 2012, Jouppi was preparing to fly a passenger from Fairbanks to a remote village, Beaver, where alcohol was banned. The passenger had packed beer with other groceries in her luggage. State Police troopers searched Jouppi’s plane before it departed and spotted a six-pack of Budweiser in a shopping bag.
Jouppi, his company and the passenger were charged with a misdemeanor offense of knowingly transporting an alcoholic beverage into a dry community. The passenger pleaded guilty. A jury convicted Jouppi and the company after a trial. A judge sentenced him to three days in jail.
Jouppi’s attorneys say Alaska’s high court examined his conduct “purely in abstract terms” and didn’t evaluate whether it was part of a broader pattern of criminal activity. And they say it wasn’t.
(Excerpt) Read more at seattletimes.com ...
From the petition ... for you to measure how ridiculous ....
“This case presents a threshold question concerning
the standard for whether a fine or forfeiture contravenes
the Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause. For
over a decade, the State of Alaska has been trying to forfeit bush pilot Ken Jouppi’s 1969 Cessna airplane. The basis: One of Jouppi’s passengers had beer in her luggage,
and the State maintained that one six-pack, at least,
would have been visible to Jouppi. For certain Alaskan
villages, it’s a crime to bring in alcohol. And when the
means of importation is an airplane, the plane is subject
to forfeiture. No matter that the offense is a misdemeanor.
As here. No matter that the pilot is a first-time
offender. As here. No matter that the alcohol is a six-pack
of Budweiser. As here. No matter that it belonged to a
customer. As here. The result: an airplane forfeited for a
six-pack.
The Excessive Fines Clause was built for cases like
this.”
Sounds like the law is based on the stereotype of the drunken Indian that can’t hold his likker.
Not every indigenous person is like Ira Hayes.
This is what Frederic Bastiat called “plunder”.
Civil forfeiture is evil and unconstitutional unless it can be proven doubtless to be illegally obtained or to have been purchased with ill gotten gains. In every other case, the private property of people should not be subject to being confiscated without just compensation.
I don’t care if you just shot up a kindergarten. It doesn’t mean the government can just seize your private property.
Here are a couple of examples that are considered legal today but should not be.
A punk does donuts in his Corvette in a side show street takeover. He is guilty of a lot of traffic violations but his car is then confiscated and not returned. How the hell is it constitutional that the traffic violations he is guilty of justifies his losing the private property he purchased with his own hard earned money. If he deserves jail time then so be it. Even suspend or revoke his drivers license but there is nothing in the US Constitution that grants government the power to steal his private property and keep it or sell it off, for a traffic violation. Pure BS.
Another example.
A man is caught illegally growing 2 pot plants for personal use, on his 500 acre farm. His farm is then seized and auctioned off due to the “drug crime”. The farm was purchased legally with money hard earned. That is BS. If he deserves jail, then fine. Whatever. The crime of growing illegal drugs on your land for personal use does not negate the Fifth Amendment just compensation clause.
I detest modern asset forfeiture laws. They completely obliterate the US Constution.
This is completely different than a drug dealer taking his profits and buying a car or buying a farm. Then it makes sense to seize the property he purchased with ill gotten gains.
This taking of legal property legally obtained under some other criminal pretense is pure and simple evil. I hate it.
The example of the case in this thread is a perfect illustration of the evil of government illegally stealing private property from people in violation of the Constitution.
That is idiotic to say he broke a law and should lose his airplane.
Should you lose your house because you served beer to a 20 year old at a party. It is illegal to serve alcohol to a minor (not your child). Should you lose your $500,000 home because you were caught serving alcohol to the 20 year old friend of your son or daughter?
Idiotic. Preposterous. Insane.
Maybe the pilot/owner was setup to confiscate his aircraft free of charge.
Was it right there in the article all that time?
Well, I’ll be!
Maybe the pilot drank too many bottles of water preflight and was just filling the Budweiser cans as they flew. How would they tell the difference?
I would think also the 14th amendment dealing with property rights should be in play here. What due process could ever possibly apply to taking $90,000 away for a $9.00 sixpack violation? Equal protection could also apply due to the 14th.
First off. Why the heck was State Police searching a private plane? Seems like fourth and eighth amendment violations.
“ Losing his plane is justified.”
Really? I don’t see United or Delta having planes confiscated when a passenger sneaks drugs or alcohol on it. And that happens every freaking day.
A few questions here. First, the article says that the plane/passenger was searched by Alaska State Troopers before the plane departed. When did they search it/her? Prior to the passenger boarding? After the passenger boarded but the plane hadn’t left the ramp? Is such an inspection routine or was there some reason to suspect the passenger was carrying prohibited alcohol? Was the pilot required to inspect the passenger’s luggage? In any case it appears that the beer never reached to community where alcohol is prohibited. How then can anyone be charged with delivery of a banned substance when it never got delivered? Sound like bullshit to me.
Civil forfeiture laws are laws that conservatives should be against.
****************
Conservatives should be against them but they aren’t, furthermore many conservatives passed legislation that made this type of government theft possible.
We have a corrupt & expensive law system that many conservative people are in complete agreement with.
“Which is too bad, because the people of this country deserve better.”
searched Jouppi’s plane before it departed
= = =
Then he did not transport it to the dry village.
Budweiser....
= = =
At least it was not BudLite
The Excessive Fines Clause was built for cases like
this.”
My vote is that it’s a ridiculously excessive fine, but who knows what the Supreme Court will decide.
“Prior to departure “
Sounds like no crime was committed.
Flying in his 80’s?! Wow
Excessive penalty.
Budweiser?!!!
Give the passenger a sound caning.
That beer is yucky.
If they seized every aircraft flying from South America into the United States if a passenger were carrying drugs, the airlines would soon run out of planes.
This whole damn thing is a travesty.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.