WASHINGTON \u2013 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.<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
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 \u201cExcessive Fines Clause.” Arguments are expected in the fall. <\/p>\n
\u201cI\u2019m in my 80s now, and I\u2019ve 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,\u201d Jouppi said in a statement released by his attorneys at the Institute for Justice.<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
Jouppi’s attorneys say Alaska’s high court examined his conduct \u201cpurely in abstract terms\u201d and didn’t evaluate whether it was part of a broader pattern of criminal activity. And they say it wasn’t. <\/p>\n
\u201cFew excessive fines cases will present the issue so sharply; a decision upholding the forfeiture of an airplane for a six-pack is a self-recommending candidate for review,\u201d lawyers from the Institute for Justice wrote in their appeal.<\/a><\/p>\n In response, lawyers from the Alaska Attorney General’s office argued that the state Supreme Court’s \u201cfact-bound decision\u201d should be allowed to stand.<\/p>\n