2 months ago
Fourteen years ago, Ken Jouppi, who had operated a charter airplane business in Alaska since the 1970s, agreed to fly a passenger from Fairbanks to Beaver, one of the state's dry jurisdictions. The passenger's luggage included 72 cans of Budweiser and Bud Light, which she planned to share with her husband on his birthday. Although most of the beer was boxed, a six-pack "was packed only in a grocery bag and would have been in plain view to Jouppi as he was loading the airplane," the Alaska Supreme Court noted last year.
State troopers discovered the beer before the plane took off, and Jouppi was convicted of a misdemeanor. The trial court, which concluded that Jouppi had been "willfully blind" to the six-pack, sentenced him to three days in jail and a $1,500 fine. But state law mandated another punishment that was 63 times as severe: forfeiture of Jouppi's $95,000 airplane. Although that penalty seemed grossly disproportionate, the Alaska Supreme Court ruled that it did not violate the Eighth Amendment's ban on excessive fines.
In July, responding to a petition filed by the Institute for Justice, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to review that decision. It will hear oral argument in Jouppi v. Alaska on December 1. In a brief supporting Jouppi's appeal that it filed last week, the Cato Institute argues that the Alaska Supreme Court erred by failing to consider the gravity of his conduct and the financial consequences of the forfeiture. Both of those factors, Cato attorney Matthew Cavedon says, have been central to the common-law understanding of excessive fines for eight centuries.
"The Eighth Amendment was designed to prevent this kind of abuse by limiting excessive fines," Cavedon writes. "Long before the United States was founded, the common law protected people from extreme monetary penalties. But the Alaska Supreme Court's view is that challenges to excessive fines 'should rarely succeed.' This dismissive view led it to conclude that there is nothing excessive about the forfeiture of an airplane worth 'only 9.5 times the maximum fine'—and over 60 times the fine actually imposed. The decision below cannot be reconciled with this Court's precedent or the Excessive Fines Clause's original meaning."
In weighing the proportionality of the airplane forfeiture, the Alaska Supreme Court thought the relevant consideration was the harm caused by excessive drinking. "Alcohol abuse in rural Alaska leads to increased crime; disorders, such as alcoholism; conditions, such as fetal alcohol spectrum disorder; and death, imposing substantial costs on public health and the administration of justice," Justice Jude Pate wrote in the majority opinion. "Within this context, it is clear that the illegal importation of even a six-pack of beer causes grave societal harm."
#court #excessive #jouppi
State troopers discovered the beer before the plane took off, and Jouppi was convicted of a misdemeanor. The trial court, which concluded that Jouppi had been "willfully blind" to the six-pack, sentenced him to three days in jail and a $1,500 fine. But state law mandated another punishment that was 63 times as severe: forfeiture of Jouppi's $95,000 airplane. Although that penalty seemed grossly disproportionate, the Alaska Supreme Court ruled that it did not violate the Eighth Amendment's ban on excessive fines.
In July, responding to a petition filed by the Institute for Justice, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to review that decision. It will hear oral argument in Jouppi v. Alaska on December 1. In a brief supporting Jouppi's appeal that it filed last week, the Cato Institute argues that the Alaska Supreme Court erred by failing to consider the gravity of his conduct and the financial consequences of the forfeiture. Both of those factors, Cato attorney Matthew Cavedon says, have been central to the common-law understanding of excessive fines for eight centuries.
"The Eighth Amendment was designed to prevent this kind of abuse by limiting excessive fines," Cavedon writes. "Long before the United States was founded, the common law protected people from extreme monetary penalties. But the Alaska Supreme Court's view is that challenges to excessive fines 'should rarely succeed.' This dismissive view led it to conclude that there is nothing excessive about the forfeiture of an airplane worth 'only 9.5 times the maximum fine'—and over 60 times the fine actually imposed. The decision below cannot be reconciled with this Court's precedent or the Excessive Fines Clause's original meaning."
In weighing the proportionality of the airplane forfeiture, the Alaska Supreme Court thought the relevant consideration was the harm caused by excessive drinking. "Alcohol abuse in rural Alaska leads to increased crime; disorders, such as alcoholism; conditions, such as fetal alcohol spectrum disorder; and death, imposing substantial costs on public health and the administration of justice," Justice Jude Pate wrote in the majority opinion. "Within this context, it is clear that the illegal importation of even a six-pack of beer causes grave societal harm."
#court #excessive #jouppi
4 months ago
The Supreme Court agreed Monday to hear an appeal from an Alaskan bush pilot whose plane was seized by authorities after they discovered it was bound for a remote, dry village with beer on board.
The appeal from the 82-year-old pilot, Kenneth Jouppi, could have national implications if the 6-3 conservative court limits the ability of state and local governments to rely on ******* et forfeiture. Jouppi claims that the taking of his $95,000 Cessna for what amounted to a six-pack of beer violated the 8th Amendment's bar on excessive fines.
The Supreme Court is likely to hear oral arguments in the case later this year or early next — and hand down a decision by next summer.
"The Excessive Fines Clause of the Constitution was built for cases like this," said Sam Gedge, a senior attorney at the Institute for Justice, which is representing the pilot. "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."
Jouppi says that the Budweiser and Bud Light found on his plane, which was packaged with other groceries, belonged to a passenger. He said that most of it was out of sight, but state police said one six-pack was in plain view inside a grocery bag. One trooper claimed that Jouppi would "have to be blind" not to have seen at least some of the alcohol and that "pilots with that bad of eyesight just don't fly."
The appeal from the 82-year-old pilot, Kenneth Jouppi, could have national implications if the 6-3 conservative court limits the ability of state and local governments to rely on ******* et forfeiture. Jouppi claims that the taking of his $95,000 Cessna for what amounted to a six-pack of beer violated the 8th Amendment's bar on excessive fines.
The Supreme Court is likely to hear oral arguments in the case later this year or early next — and hand down a decision by next summer.
"The Excessive Fines Clause of the Constitution was built for cases like this," said Sam Gedge, a senior attorney at the Institute for Justice, which is representing the pilot. "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."
Jouppi says that the Budweiser and Bud Light found on his plane, which was packaged with other groceries, belonged to a passenger. He said that most of it was out of sight, but state police said one six-pack was in plain view inside a grocery bag. One trooper claimed that Jouppi would "have to be blind" not to have seen at least some of the alcohol and that "pilots with that bad of eyesight just don't fly."
