Alaska wants to seize a pilot’s plane over a 6-pack of beer. Supreme Court will decide

seattletimes.com ^

[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.

[algore]

civil forfeiture of all cash found during traffic stops will still be $-ok

[lee martell]

Not that it should matter, but what brand was the beer?

[vpintheak]

Aint no “wants”. They did it a long time ago. Stolen property in my book.

[Texas Eagle]

This case has been going on for a decade?????

[Paladin2]

Never confuse the Legal System with Justice.

[algore]

Budweiser, so really if was a false pretext seizure in the first place

[antidemoncrat]

Can the government get any more ridiculous? ... Why sure ...

[lee martell]

Can you believe this attempt at a ‘plane grab’ has been going on since 2012? The courts seem to be waiting for the plaintiff to naturally pass away. They continue to circle overhead, like vultures. Shameful.

[FlingWingFlyer]

Do dah Suepreme Court have standing?

[PROCON]

Good grief, it was a 6-pack of Budweiser, of course he’s guilty!

[SkyDancer]

Alaska Amber??

[Governor Dinwiddie]

Eskimos and Injuns can't tolerate booze. I don't see a problem banning it if that's the law of the village. But stealing a man's plane is outrageous. What about the bozo smuggling the booze? Did he pay a penalty?

[lee martell]

It probably has a coppery taste.

[Veto!]

LOL. My first thought too. I only drink Stella artois.
belgian beer stays, everything else is a crime.

[Ikeon]

Losing his plane is justified. You break.the law, you pay the price. Ill bet other bush pilots wont take alcohol where its banned!

[dfwgator]

Budweiser? That deserves the death penalty.

(Yeah, I’m strict)

[Governor Dinwiddie]

If he knew, then it is justified. I thought it was a passenger who smuggled it aboard.

[Rummyfan]

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.

Seems rather harsh for a six-pack of beer.

[copaliscrossing]

State Police troopers searched Jouppi’s plane before it departed and spotted a six-pack of Budweiser in a shopping bag.

This part caught my attention in this story. If this is accurate, it appears that this guy hadn't transported anything at that point. It should have been a confiscation and a warning and a point of educating the POTENTIAL violator of the law. Am I missing something here? If not, I cannot believe it has went this far.

[Rummyfan]

Budweiser....