← Back to Squawk list
  • 10

Alaska Pilot’s $95,000 Cessna on the Line for Passenger’s Beer

Submitted
Aviator asks U.S. Supreme Court to decide if forfeiting his airplane is an excessive fine. (www.flyingmag.com) More...

Ryan Ewing
News junkiePromoterAnnouncer

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]


Diegodamonkey
Rory Armstrong 5
Phew!…I need a beer after reading that!
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report
Scumhook
Scumhook 2
I'll join you!
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
EMK69
EMK69 5
Given the village demographics, I can understand why it was a dry area. If you are a geek like me I have included the Alaska Supreme Court ruling on this issue.

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/25906215-airplane-seizure-alaska-supreme-court/
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report
Bayouflier
Bayouflier 2
Please explain
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
seacall2
seacall2 1
Thank you for the link
Looks as if they've been arguing the same thing for a decade.
No means No.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
bbabis
bbabis 3
That was more than 10 years ago. I hope someone has been caring for the airplane.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report
jwaldrip
Johnny Waldrip 2
Legal theft.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report
Marshaller1
Marshaller1 2
I know ‘airlines’ in Alaska if a different animal, but how would a Bush Pilot know what is in a passenger’s luggage? Article doesn’t say he appealed the decision.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report
seacall2
seacall2 2
Because it's a tiny plane and he helped load the groceries- 'luggage' isn't referring to a valise here. If she had cases of beer, it would be obvious. Chances are excellent this wasn't the first time.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
Marshaller1
Marshaller1 1
Thanks. Makes sense.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
LeanderWilliams
Leander Williams 2
Simple solution. All they had to do was give the pilot a polygraph and ask if he knowingly knew alcohol was on his aircraft. Was this a private pilot or a bush airline? Was the pilot supposed to inspect passengers' luggage?
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report
tjdavid21444
Tim David 2
Once again, the state tries to take property without real justification. Was it proven that the pilot knew the passenger was transporting beer?
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report
sparkie624
sparkie624 1
This seems quite excessive to me... I think someone is severely going overboard on this... Fines and Penalties.. YES.. .Forfeiture! NO!
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report
joelwiley
joel wiley 3
Apparently the State of Alaska is rather draconian on this. Shall means non-optional.

Sec. 4. AS 04.16.220 is amended by adding a new subsection to read:

(i) Upon conviction of a person for a violation of AS 04.11.499, the state shall

seek forfeiture of an aircraft, vehicle, or vessel used to transport or facilitate the

transportation of alcoholic beverages imported into a municipality or established

village in violation of AS 04.11.499.


'https://www.akleg.gov/basis/Bill/Text/23?Hsid=HB0065A'
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
randomnumber
randomnumber 4
I agree this is draconian, but the law is pretty clear. Similar laws have been used with drug dealers in mind. I don't know about the original case. Did he admit to knowing about the alcohol and admit that he knew the village was dry? If so, I don't see why there's even a discussion at this point.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
jwaldrip
Johnny Waldrip 2
He stated he didn't know the contents. But my question is why was a state trooper watching him?
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
RidgewoodNJ
Barry Morse 1
Where did he state he didn't know the contents? That would be preposterous on many levels.


The pilot is not appealing the conviction, only the excessive fine.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
jwaldrip
Johnny Waldrip 5
You have to read that whole legal thing. I am posting that part here.
Jouppi and his passenger both testified that the airplane’s cargo, including the beer, waspacked in closed boxes except for four loose twelve-packs of soda. And Jouppiprofessed that he never opened the boxes. But a state trooper testified that he observedJouppi opening and closing boxes while loading the airplane and opined that Jouppi hadto be turning a blind eye to the boxes’ contents because it would have been impossiblenot to see that there was alcohol being loaded into the airplane.
Why was the state trooper watching him???
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
LeanderWilliams
Leander Williams 2
The State is going way past reasonable. The case should be "IF A PILOT KNOWINGLY" uses an aircraft to transport illegal contraband. A simple polygraph could have settled that issue, and then the pilot should have been subject to the fine imposed. Sounds like they wanted to make an example of him.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report

Login

Forgot password?
Don't have an account? Register now (free) for customized features, flight alerts, and more!
Join FlightAware