Beer Run Gone Bad

[GeeBee]

https://avbrief.com/supreme-court-asked-to-hear-cessna-206-forfeiture-case/?utm_source=newsletter-20&utm_medium=email

[Echo]

egregious.

[Will.iam]

Wow alaska does not play. Like Singapore, bringing drugs into the country results in death. 

[N201MKTurbo]

1 hour ago, Will.iam said:

Wow alaska does not play. Like Singapore, bringing drugs into the country results in death. 

I’ve been to Singapore twice for a total of 3 weeks. You can get anything you want in the alleys of Geylang.

[EricJ]

Seems consistent with typical civil forfeiture over the last forty years or so.   i.e., bad.

 

[Hank]

16 minutes ago, EricJ said:

Seems consistent with typical civil forfeiture over the last forty years or so.   i.e., bad.

 

But a $95,000 forfeiture on a $6 purchase??? Seems a little whacked to me.

[N201MKTurbo]

It’s like getting a parking ticket, and they confiscate your car because you used it to commit the crime.

[Paul Thomas]

I've never seen something impounded over a misdemeanor. Most forfeitures I've seen in Florida have been for drug trafficking or RICO.

[eman1200]

I could see if it was bud light…..

[EricJ]

3 hours ago, Hank said:

But a $95,000 forfeiture on a $6 purchase??? Seems a little whacked to me.

Many civil forfeiture cases were seizing cash merely because somebody possessed it.    The assumption seemed to be nobody would carry more than $10k in cash unless it a criminal activity.  My understanding is that in this case there were multiple cases of beer but the pilot said he was only aware of the six pack.   There's still a lot of momentum from those old "zero tolerance" policies.

[M20F]

What is interesting to me is he never smuggled the beer.  They were watching for planes smuggling booze in Fairbanks which is where they executed the search warrant.  I can’t determine how they got the warrant.  In any case putting on cases of beer with maybe the intent to fly them to a dry county isn’t a crime.  
 
Whole thing seems fishy but can’t determine more on the internet but there has to be more. 

[MikeOH]

I'm no fan of government overreach, but something just isn't adding up.  Never even took off and had his plane confiscated and sold at auction?!??! There has to be more to this one.

[jetdriven]

The state has been making the case for 13 years now that forfeiture is "required"

So the man was convicted of importing alcohol into a dry village, which has its own set of problems. Chiefly, that a city can make an ordinance banning alcohol completely. And then second, the guy was convicted of doing something that did not happen, he never took off from Fairbanks. Intent is one thing, commission is another. And then he was fined $1500 a, and his his company was too, and he spent three days in jail.  But then the state appealed the court's ruling,  saying that forfeiture was mandated.

 

https://law.justia.com/cases/alaska/supreme-court/2025/s-17593.html

[GeeBee]

The law firm representing the case has a 1000 batting average at the SCOTUS on civil forfeiture cases. I also think there is one SCOTUS justice that might be with the defendant in the case.

 

[MikeOH]

1 hour ago, jetdriven said:

The state has been making the case for 13 years now that forfeiture is "required"

So the man was convicted of importing alcohol into a dry village, which has its own set of problems. Chiefly, that a city can make an ordinance banning alcohol completely. And then second, the guy was convicted of doing something that did not happen, he never took off from Fairbanks. Intent is one thing, commission is another. And then he was fined $1500 a, and his his company was too, and he spent three days in jail.  But then the state appealed the court's ruling,  saying that forfeiture was mandated.

 

https://law.justia.com/cases/alaska/supreme-court/2025/s-17593.html

I am astounded by the lack of common sense logical abilities of the Alaska SC:

1) "did not violate the Excessive Fines Clause because it was not grossly disproportional to the gravity of the offense".
Are you FN kidding me???  Even IF he had actually transported the six-pack...THAT now qualifies a "the gravity of the offense"???  Absolutely absurd!

2) "and the harm caused by the offense".
Since the six-pack NEVER made it to the dry village, just what was the gravity of harm caused here???
Have our courts really descended to conviction based upon what MIGHT have happened?  Apparently, they have

3) "the court concluded that the forfeiture was not excessive given the nature and extent of the crime". Someone needs to explain to me what, EXACTLY, is the "extent of the crime" when he NEVER made the flight out of Fairbanks?  Again, it appears our courts can convict us without actus reus...you can be fined, jailed, and have your property confiscated WITHOUT even actually committing ANY guilty act.  INTENT is now all that is required...not long before you'll be convicted for what the government believes you are THINKING.

Seriously, I cannot fathom this ruling.  I'm certainly no a lawyer, but I did spend one year in law school and I NEVER fathomed that real law could be so divergent from requiring BOTH actus reus and mens rea in order to convict someone of a crime like this (simple traffic infractions do away with mens rea, but you do actually have to break a traffic law!)

@midlifeflyer  Any comments as a real lawyer on this ruling?

[Jackk]

Sounds like the kings men want to steal a plane

Id nullify the crap out of that 

[cliffy]

One didn't need to have MORE than $10,000 to have it confiscated.  One case in Florida was for IIRC $8500 taken from a guy IN THE JETWAY  boarding the airplane by a FL task force. He eventually won an got it all back AND Florida stopped that entire program of stopping passengers in the jetway.  Also IIRC there is a lawsuit somewhere against the TSA to stop their notifications to the police about seeing bundles of money in carryon bags. 

If you all remember (many won't) the only way TSA got approved by Congress was to agree that they would never have badges and thy would never organize in a union. Both of which have gone by the wayside.  

[Aaviationist]

3 hours ago, MikeOH said:

I am astounded by the lack of common sense logical abilities of the Alaska SC:

1) "did not violate the Excessive Fines Clause because it was not grossly disproportional to the gravity of the offense".
Are you FN kidding me???  Even IF he had actually transported the six-pack...THAT now qualifies a "the gravity of the offense"???  Absolutely absurd!

2) "and the harm caused by the offense".
Since the six-pack NEVER made it to the dry village, just what was the gravity of harm caused here???
Have our courts really descended to conviction based upon what MIGHT have happened?  Apparently, they have

3) "the court concluded that the forfeiture was not excessive given the nature and extent of the crime". Someone needs to explain to me what, EXACTLY, is the "extent of the crime" when he NEVER made the flight out of Fairbanks?  Again, it appears our courts can convict us without actus reus...you can be fined, jailed, and have your property confiscated WITHOUT even actually committing ANY guilty act.  INTENT is now all that is required...not long before you'll be convicted for what the government believes you are THINKING.

Seriously, I cannot fathom this ruling.  I'm certainly no a lawyer, but I did spend one year in law school and I NEVER fathomed that real law could be so divergent from requiring BOTH actus reus and mens rea in order to convict someone of a crime like this (simple traffic infractions do away with mens rea, but you do actually have to break a traffic law!)

@midlifeflyer  Any comments as a real lawyer on this ruling?

I would try to explain it to you but I’m sure you wouldn’t get it so I won’t. 
 

for the others, attempt is still a crime. 
 

if someone plans to rob a bank, they have a plan and start acting on that plan, but get pulled over on the way holding a gun, that’s still attempted robbery. The fact that you got caught before completing the act does NOT make the attempted act go away. 
 

googling and trying to come up with AI responses don’t usually help in these things. 

Edited Sunday at 06:44 AM by Aaviationist

[midlifeflyer]

8 hours ago, MikeOH said:

 

@midlifeflyer  Any comments as a real lawyer on this ruling?

The problem of disproportional civil forfeiture has been a significant issue for a long time. Civil rights advocates point out that since these are civil cases, there’s no right to appointed counsel, so most go undefended. Basically a cheap way for states to raise revenue. (The Feds do it too but most of the ones I’ve seen personally have been big drug cases where drug proceeds funded the forfeited homes, cars, bank accounts, etc.)

In 2019, SCOTUS said the Excessive Fines clause applied to civil forfeiture, and that the forfeiture can’t be “grossly disproportionate.” In that case, Timbs v Indiana, a guy had sold a few hundred dollars of heroin The state brought forfeiture proceedings against his car(*) in addition to criminal proceedings. 

Couple of things made it a good case for review. The car was not purchased with drug proceeds. The maximum criminal fine for the offense was $10,000. The car was a $42,000 Range Rover. And the trial court already found it to be excessive

Many states have modified their forfeiture procedures. Some, including Alaska, have not, coming up with ways they claim theirs is not excessive. (Simplistically, the harm addressed by the statute rather than harm caused by this defendant.) One of the goals of seeking SCOTUS review is to get some guidelines on what are the elements to look at in deciding whether a forfeiture is disproportionate, which wasn’t done in the Indiana case.

No predictions on how this SCOTUS will handle it or whether they will handle it at all, although I will mention the Indiana case was a unanimous decision.

(*) yes, “against his car.” Technically, forfeiture proceedings are what the law refers to as “in rem” - “against the thing,” not the person who owns or has a legal interest in it.  

 

Edited Sunday at 11:22 AM by midlifeflyer

[Paul Thomas]

1 hour ago, M20F said:

What is interesting to me is he never smuggled the beer.  They were watching for planes smuggling booze in Fairbanks which is where they executed the search warrant.  I can’t determine how they got the warrant.  In any case putting on cases of beer with maybe the intent to fly them to a dry county isn’t a crime.  
 
Whole thing seems fishy but can’t determine more on the internet but there has to be more. 

I read the court's opinion. Whether he smuggled it or not doesn't matter, the attempt the the same as completing the crime.

[midlifeflyer]

13 hours ago, M20F said:

 In any case putting on cases of beer with maybe the intent to fly them to a dry county isn’t a crime.  

The charge was "transporting." Generally speaking, "transporting" begins at the origin and ends at the destination. Use illegal drugs shipped from Columbia to the US as an example - where does "transport" take place? Only on arrival in the US? 

In terms of this particular statute, "'transport' means to ship by any method, and includes delivering or transferring or attempting or soliciting to deliver or transfer an alcoholic beverage to be shipped to, delivered to, or left or held for pickup by any person"

[M20F]

2 hours ago, midlifeflyer said:

The charge was "transporting." Generally speaking, "transporting" begins at the origin and ends at the destination. Use illegal drugs shipped from Columbia to the US as an example - where does "transport" take place? Only on arrival in the US? 

In terms of this particular statute, "'transport' means to ship by any method, and includes delivering or transferring or attempting or soliciting to deliver or transfer an alcoholic beverage to be shipped to, delivered to, or left or held for pickup by any person"

I guess my question is how do you prove intent and when is intent a crime and when is it not.  
 
The whole story seems really fishy and I tried a million different ways to get ChatGPT to figure it out but nothing concrete. 

[Aaviationist]

35 minutes ago, M20F said:

I guess my question is how do you prove intent and when is intent a crime and when is it not.  
 
The whole story seems really fishy and I tried a million different ways to get ChatGPT to figure it out but nothing concrete. 

Your problem is in your response. 

[Andy95W]

3 minutes ago, Aaviationist said:

Your problem is in your response. 

I nominate you for the King of Irony.

[midlifeflyer]

43 minutes ago, M20F said:

I guess my question is how do you prove intent and when is intent a crime and when is it not.  
 
The whole story seems really fishy and I tried a million different ways to get ChatGPT to figure it out but nothing concrete. 

Does this help clear up the overall situation? It's from the first appeal (the case went from the state trial court to the Alaska Court of Appeals back to the trial court, again to the Court of Appeals and then to the Alaska Supreme Court)

On the intent issue, often it's a knowledge issue. The pilot claimed that he didn't know there was alcohol. There was testimony that while that might have been true about some of the cases, he would have to be blind to have not seen the six pack in a plastic grocery bag in plain view. That's why he was only charged with the six-pack. Ultimately it's a fact issue for the jury, which found against him.

Kenneth Jouppi and his wife were the two principals of Ken Air, LLC, and Jouppi was the only pilot working for Ken Air. On April 3, 2012, Alaska State Troopers were conducting surveillance of Jouppi and his airplane at the Fairbanks airport. The troopers were there to execute a search warrant for the airplane (a warrant that had been issued in connection with another investigation).

As the troopers watched, two women—Helen Nicholia and Irene Todd—drove up to Jouppi's airplane. Jouppi was scheduled to fly Nicholia to Beaver, a local option village.

Nicholia and Todd's vehicle contained several boxes and semi-transparent grocery bags. The troopers observed Jouppi opening and closing these boxes and bags, and redistributing their contents to fill up the containers. Jouppi then loaded this cargo into his airplane (with no assistance from the women). Some of the boxes that Jouppi loaded into the plane were open, and the others were loosely closed. Based on the way Jouppi was carrying the boxes, they appeared to be heavy.

Once the plane was loaded, Helen Nicholia entered the plane on the copilot side. Jouppi got into the pilot's seat, started the engine, and prepared to take off. (The other woman, Irene Todd, drove away.)

At this point, the troopers contacted Jouppi and had him shut off the engine. They then executed the search warrant.

Edited Sunday at 04:06 PM by midlifeflyer