For more than a decade, longtime Alaska bush pilot Ken Jouppi has been locked in a legal battle with the state of Alaska over his 1969 Cessna U206D. At issue: whether the state can permanently take his $95,000 airplane after troopers discovered his passenger carrying beer into a dry village.
On April 3, 2012, Jouppi was preparing to fly a passenger from Fairbanks to Beaver, an Alaska community that voted to ban alcohol in 2004. Hidden in her luggage were three cases of Budweiser and Bud Light. State troopers intercepted the flight before takeoff, charging Jouppi with knowingly transporting alcohol into a dry village. He was convicted of a misdemeanor and fined $1,500—the statutory minimum—while serving three days in jail.
The state, however, also sought forfeiture of his aircraft. Although the trial court initially ruled the forfeiture excessive, the Alaska Court of Appeals, and later the Alaska Supreme Court, sided with prosecutors, concluding that even a single six-pack of beer justified the seizure.
Since the 1980s, Alaska law has allowed municipalities and villages to vote on their own alcohol restrictions. Some communities permit alcohol sales only through licensed restaurants or package stores. Others prohibit sales but allow possession. The strictest “dry villages,” like Beaver, ban the sale, importation, and possession of alcohol altogether.
Alaska law makes it a crime to knowingly bring alcohol into these dry communities. Penalties vary by amount and prior offenses, ranging from misdemeanors to felonies. In addition to fines and jail time, the law requires forfeiture of any aircraft used to transport alcohol—regardless of whether the violation involves a single six-pack or larger quantities.
Supreme Court Petition
Now 82, Jouppi is petitioning the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing that taking his aircraft over such a minor offense violates the Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause.
The petition asks the court to clarify how proportionality should be assessed—whether state courts should look at the broader offense in the abstract, as Alaska did, or the specific facts of a defendant’s case.
“This case isn’t just about me or my airplane anymore,” Jouppi said. “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.”
Institute for Justice attorney Sam Gedge said the case exemplifies why the Excessive Fines Clause exists.
“As government agencies increasingly exploit fines and forfeitures to pad their budgets, it’s vital that the Supreme Court make clear that the Excessive Fines Clause is a meaningful check on government overreach,” Gedge said.
The Supreme Court has not yet decided whether it will hear Jouppi’s case.
