Supreme Court to Review Forfeiture Case Involving Alaska Pilot's Plane

Why it matters locally: While not directly impacting specific state industries, this Supreme Court case could influence how forfeiture laws are applied in Rhode Island, particularly regarding the Eighth Amendment's excessive fines clause. A ruling that clarifies the proportionality of forfeitures to offenses may set important precedents for state and local law enforcement agencies here.

WASHINGTON – The U.S. Supreme Court is scheduled to hear oral arguments on Dec. 1 in *Jouppi v. Alaska*, a case concerning the seizure of an airplane valued at $95,000. The forfeiture resulted from the transport of beer to a community designated as a "dry village." The case addresses the constitutional limits of criminal and civil forfeiture actions. Ken Jouppi, 83, the plane's owner, is the petitioner in the case. The Institute for Justice represents Jouppi. Jouppi, a veteran, operated KenAir, a business that provided flight services, including cargo transport, to remote areas of Alaska. In April 2012, state troopers in Fairbanks found three cases of beer among a passenger's groceries loaded onto Jouppi's plane. Jouppi stated he did not know about the beer. State officials contended he had a direct view of at least one six-pack of the prohibited item. A court found Jouppi guilty and sentenced him to 180 days in jail, with 177 days suspended, and fines totaling $3,000. He also faced the forfeiture of his plane. Jouppi's legal challenges in state courts were unsuccessful. The Alaska Supreme Court determined Jouppi had not established that the forfeiture would be "unconstitutionally excessive." Alaska's legal framework for alcohol control aims to address alcohol abuse in rural areas. This statutory context is a factor in the state's brief opposing certiorari in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court's consideration of whether the plane's forfeiture constitutes an "excessive fine" draws on limited modern precedent. In 2019, *Timbs v. Indiana* established that the Eighth Amendment's excessive fines clause applies to state and local governments through the 14th Amendment's due process clause. A key precedent is *United States v. Bajakajian*, a 1998 decision. In that case, the court ruled that "a punitive forfeiture violates the Excessive Fines Clause if it is grossly disproportionate to the gravity of a defendant’s offense." This ruling involved the government seeking forfeiture of undeclared currency. Courts have since interpreted this standard differently, leading to varied approaches in assessing the proportionality of forfeiture to an individual's conduct. Historically, common law practices considered a defendant's specific conduct to determine if a fine was excessive. This "proportionality guarantee" in the Eighth Amendment suggests financial sanctions should relate to an individual's culpability, not broad societal issues that led to a statute. Forfeiture actions were also less common in past Anglo-American legal traditions compared to their current role in law enforcement. Legal arguments suggest a need for judicial oversight of government forfeitures. Governments can generate revenue from asset seizures. This framework, if not carefully managed, could facilitate government overreach. Previous Supreme Court rulings have addressed property rights. In *Tyler v. Hennepin County*, the court ruled that the Fifth Amendment's takings clause prevented a local government from keeping the full proceeds of a condominium sale when a smaller tax debt was owed. *Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid* protected the rights of businesses to control access to their property. A ruling in Jouppi's favor would align with these decisions regarding property rights.