Alaska May Seize Pilot's Airplane Over a Six-Pack

A lot of people may not realize it, but quite a few of Alaska's remote communities, the bush villages, are dry. As in, alcohol-free. The state leaves the communities, especially the Alaska Native communities, a fair amount of latitude in this matter. And, the state takes smuggling seriously; yes, there is bootlegging in Alaska, only the bootleggers often run their loads in light aircraft rather than hopped-up old muscle cars.

There's a big difference, though, between organized bootlegging for profit and a rather dumb oversight. One Alaska bush pilot, Ken Jouppi, is learning this to his sorrow - the Alaska Supreme Court seems to have cleared the way for the state to confiscate Ken's airplane over a passenger taking some beers to her husband. Jonathan Turley has details.

So an Alaskan bush pilot walks into the Supreme Court with a six-pack of beer. Sounds like the start of a good joke? Well, for Ken Jouppi, it is no laughing matter. Jouppi and his counsel at the Institute for Justice have just filed a petition for a writ of certiorari to appeal a decision from the Alaska Supreme Court that held the state could seize his $95,000 Cessna U206D airplane over a six-pack of beer found in a passenger’s bag of groceries.
Alaska has a state law allowing towns and villages to go “dry” and it is a state-level crime to “knowingly send, transport, or bring an alcoholic beverage” to such villages. Alaska Stat. § 04.11.499(a). The law sets penalties on the amount of alcohol, allowing for a class C felony for 10.5 liters of spirits or 12 gallons of beer. First-time offenders who transport smaller amounts are subject only to a class A misdemeanor. Id. § 04.16.200(e)(1)-(3). First-time offenders are also subject to a minimum sentence of three days’ imprisonment and a fine of $1,500. Id. § 04.16.200(g)(1)(A). Finally, there is a provision allowing for forfeiture. The law bizarrely mandates the forfeiture of a plane, regardless of the quantity and regardless of the seriousness of the offense. Id. § 04.16.220(a)(3)(C).

The law itself, allowing villages to go "dry," isn't a bad idea. These remote communities get by much of the year with little contact from outside, and to be perfectly frank, many of them have problems with residents struggling with alcoholism and other addictions, possibly in part due to the isolation and the long, dark winters. But that's not the point here; the point is a rather massive overreaction.

Jouppi, now 82, flies people to remote villages, a common form of transportation in Alaska. He was ferrying a woman to the town of Beaver. She decided to bring beer back for her husband, three cases of beer in her luggage and a six-pack in a grocery bag. No one is suggesting that Jouppi knew about the beer cases or that he is expected to search the luggage of passengers.
During an inspection at the airport in Fairbanks on the morning of April 3, 2012, officers spotted a grocery bag and a visible six-pack of Budweiser.
The woman promptly pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor. Jouppi went to trial and, while the jury did not find that he knew about the amount of beer in his plane, they found him guilty. The trial judge was sympathetic to Jouppi, sentencing him to the minimum executed sentence allowed by statute: a $1,500 fine for Jouppi (and another $1,500 for his company) and three days’ imprisonment. The judge further noted that “he has a stellar criminal record. Clean.”

This is where it should have ended. But that airplane, well, that's worth a lot of money. As Mr. Turley points out, this thing went to the Alaska Supreme Court, which ruled in favor of allowing the forfeiture of Mr. Jouppi's airplane.

The Alaskan Supreme Court then granted review and vacated the court of appeals’ judgment. App. 1a-29a. It held unanimously that forfeiting Jouppi’s airplane was constitutional “as a matter of law.” The Supreme Court also focused on the six-pack of beer and acknowledged that “Jouppi was convicted of only one instance of alcohol importation unconnected to other criminal activity.” However, the court held that “It is clear to us, that the legislature determined that the harm from even a six-pack of beer knowingly imported into a dry village is severe enough to warrant forfeiture of an aircraft” and “the forfeiture of Jouppi’s airplane is not grossly disproportional to the gravity of the offense for which he has been convicted and, therefore, the forfeiture does not violate the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment.”
The opinion runs afoul of prior holdings on the meaning of the Excessive Fines Clause. There appears to be a conflict between the interpretation of the Alaska Supreme Court and the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (with federal jurisdiction over Alaska). The latter court has ruled that courts must look to “the specific actions of the violator rather than . . . taking an abstract view of the violation.” Pimentel v. City of Los Angeles, 974 F.3d 917, 923 (9th Cir. 2020).

The entire case is long and complex, but it brings up a larger issue, that of civil and legal forfeiture in general.

Will Murkowski Meet Her Match? Popular Outgoing Alaska Gov Considering Senate Run

This airplane is Ken Jouppi's livelihood. Yes, he's responsible for his passengers. Yes, he's responsible for knowing the legal status of his destination, "dry" or not. But losing an airplane with a value approaching six figures over a visible six-pack of Budweiser seems a bit much.

As Mr. Turley points out, this seems an obvious case of an excessive fine. The tool the state wants to have is the ability to seize your property in the event you’re convicted of a crime – as, we must remember, Mr. Jouppi was - even if the assets forfeited that “may” have been used in the crime have value far in excess of the punitive damages the law allows to be levied in the form of fines. If that’s not an Eighth Amendment violation, I don’t know what is.

This case isn't over yet. There's still some hope for justice for Ken Jouppi here. And, as much as I love my state, this Great Land, the state is wrong here. This seems a clear-cut case of the punishment far, far outweighing the crime. We'll be watching this case, and will update you as things develop - hopefully in Ken Jouppi's favor.

Editor’s Note: The Democrat Party has never been less popular as voters reject its globalist agenda.

Help us continue exposing Democrats' plans to lead America down a dangerous path. Join RedState VIP and use promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your membership.