Alaska Pilot Asks U.S. Supreme Court to Stop State from Taking His $95,000 Airplane for Passenger’s Beer

April 3, 2012, began like any other day for Ken Jouppi, a longtime Alaskan pilot. He was ferrying a passenger and her groceries from Fairbanks to the village of Beaver. But hidden in the passenger’s luggage were three cases of beer—two Budweiser, one Bud Light—intended as a gift to her husband, the local postmaster. This small cache of alcohol ran afoul of Beaver’s 2004 vote to entirely prohibit alcohol within its border. Before Ken could take off, state troopers searched the plane and discovered the beer. Ken was charged with a misdemeanor and convicted. 

But the state wasn’t done with him yet. For the past thirteen years, prosecutors have also been trying to forfeit his airplane, a Cessna U206D, worth about $95,000. And this past April, the Alaska Supreme Court issued an eye-catching ruling. The court started from the premise that Ken had only known about one six-pack of his passenger’s beer. But even so, the court rejected Ken’s argument that forfeiting his airplane violated the U.S. Constitution’s Excessive Fines Clause. 

The end result: a $95,000 plane forfeited for transporting six cans of Budweiser. 

Today, Ken has partnered with the Institute for Justice to file a petition for certiorari, asking the U.S. Supreme Court to hear his case and clarify the standard for what makes a fine “excessive” under the Eighth Amendment.

“The Excessive Fines Clause of the constitution was built for cases like this,” said Sam Gedge, a senior attorney at the Institute for Justice. “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.” 

The Alaska Supreme Court’s ruling puts it at odds with other courts around the country. Most notably, in Timbs v. Indiana—a case litigated by the Institute for Justice—the U.S. Supreme Court in 2019 held the Excessive Fines Clause applies, not just to the federal government, but to states as well. Following that first-round victory, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled that forfeiting Tyson Timbs’ $40,000 Land Rover over a low-level drug offense was unconstitutionally excessive. By contrast, Alaska now holds that forfeiting a $95,000 plane over a six-pack of beer is not excessive. That disparity underscores the need for the U.S. Supreme Court to clarify the standard for these types of cases and what constitutes an excessive fine under the Constitution.

“This case isn’t just about me or my airplane anymore,” Ken said. “I’m in my 80s now, and 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.”

“The Constitution enshrines the principle that the punishment must fit the crime,” said IJ Attorney Mike Greenberg. “The Eighth Amendment’s protection against excessive fines is one of our most important safeguards for individual liberty. It’s past time for the Supreme Court to clarify what makes a fine excessive.”

The Institute for Justice has fought and won landmark cases at the U.S. Supreme Court defending property rights and limiting government forfeiture powers. In addition to winning Timbs v. Indiana at the Supreme Court and twice at the Indiana Supreme Court, IJ has litigated excessive fines and other fines-and-fees cases nationwide. This petition continues that fight.