Update
Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join SimilarWorlds for FREE »

Will SCOTUS Finally Put the Breaks on Insane Government Seizures?

Pilot's $95k plane was seized over a six-pack of BEER... now the Supreme Court will decide if Alaska went too far.

A veteran Alaska bush pilot who has spent more than a decade battling to stop the state from confiscating his prized airplane over a passenger’s six-pack of beer is finally getting his day before the US Supreme Court.

Kenneth Jouppi, now in his 80s, has been locked in a legal battle following a 2012 flight to Beaver, one of Alaska’s remote 'dry' villages, where he was convicted on a misdemeanor alcohol transportation charge.

While the offense resulted in a short jail sentence and a modest fine, state authorities sought to seize his 1969 Cessna aircraft – worth just under $100,000 – arguing it had been used to facilitate the crime.

More...

https://www.dailymail.com/news/article-15993825/Pilots-95k-plane-seized-six-pack-BEER-Supreme-Court-decide-Alaska-went-far.html
Top | New | Old
DeWayfarer · 61-69, M
I have the funny feeling they will unfortunately rule for the state. It would interfere with the seizure of federal controlled substance laws if they didn't rule for the state. Possibly even with RICO laws depending on the number of times this has occurred.

Yet this would as well cover states rights. Which we all know this SCOTUS favors.

Again this is all just a feeling.
beckyromero · 36-40, F
@DeWayfarer
And states rights does affect federal rulings.

The plaintiff is suing based on the 8th Amendment.

Now, SCOTUS could simply uphold the Alaska Supreme Court ruling or overturn it - and leave it as a stand alone ruling re: this particular case. That's what I suspect they will do, either way, without bringing federal cases into it.

This is not an issue where there are competing federal appeals court rulings.

They could also make a blanket ruling on such confiscations effecting all states and the federal government. But I suspect they won't.
DeWayfarer · 61-69, M
@beckyromero And what is filed doesn't always mean that is the only tack they will present. It just means that must be included.

Trump has done that himself a few times. Not that it worked.
beckyromero · 36-40, F
@DeWayfarer
And what is filed doesn't always mean that is the only tack they will present

True. But we'll have a better idea once the oral arguments are heard. Probably in December.

 
Post Comment