Originally published at: Plane Seizure Case Heads to Supreme Court
Case asks how courts should measure whether a forfeiture violates the Eighth Amendment.
I know if I was on the Jury and was told this offense even if guilty would result in the seizure of the plane I would not have voted for the guilty verdict.
If we are talking hypothetical, assume that it was a hanging offense. Would you vote to convict? Yes it’s all about proportionality. That prosecutor should be disbarred along with the state and given a punitive fine for $million for excessive zeal. No such statute? Then make one up. The state did by seizing his plane in Lew of a $10,000 fine.
The better comparison might be ‘what is the penalty for planning to intentionally flying the plane into a single house in the Village’? The key is the clearly publicly pre-defined harm to the community and level of apparent evidence of foreknowledge. This is much different than sneaking a few beers in to a frat house. (Although the consequences to the kids can be the same . . .)
Then we get into the racist argument that Indians or Native Americans cant hold their liquor. Where does it stop? At what right angle tangent? I will be very interested to see how the Justices Vote and their arguments. As of right now I don’t think much of them so much so that It is the judiciary who has caused the collapse of the Republic by allowing more money through interest groups to make policy via our elected Representatives. Just had to flesh out my thoughts least they are misinterpreted.
Now a guy can be foung Guilty and Punished for unrealized and hypothetical consequences? In addition, the beer wasn’t his, never left the origination airport, and never made it into the community that prohibited it.
Imagine the unrealized and hypothetical consequences of forgetting a box cutter on your carry-on rollerbag. Not hard, but nobody gets the kind of punishment that goes with that.
Certainly not an offense justifying forfeiture of airplane. A key question is whether or not he knew the passenger had booze in her bags. Can’t assume he recognized it even if it was briefly visible as he was working loading her bags.
As for the tribe, many are struggling with curbing intoxication on their reserve. History probably of difficult situation of tribes receiving money from governments but constrained in what they do.
Some pax killed a pilot and themselves near Tofino BC, charter pilot accepted them despite water taxis refusing to take booze to the island reserve, pilot underestimated state of intoxication, passenger behind pilot put fee on seat back of pilot who was not wearing shoulder harness, pushing him hard so control column went full forward.
How is the non-tribal government responsible for violating a rule of the tribe?
Nope - bad analogy. Letting an adult have a beer certainly does not equate to killing or injuring them - unlike a plane crashing into their house. Furthermore, the adult can choose not to drink a beer if they fear it will harm them, The state clearly over-stepped and the SC needs to swat them hard.
You had me until you said the Republic has collapsed. Those who (I have to assume) hate the current administration sure say some funny (and inane) things! 
Where’s the evidence? No, really. Where is the evidence? It’s Labor Day and I could use a beer. especially after reading this.
Years ago i was flying back with a couple of bottles of Wyoming bourbon whiskey in the cargo area of the 182RG. My concern was hitting turbulence and or an air pocket. I didn’t want to break those bottles. )
Did the expression the Best Government money can buy ever enter into the consciousness of voters when the politician elected on a certain issue side with the money interests once the vote is secured? Who allowed money into elections? Nothing to do with this admin. it’s a refection of our government going back many administrations.
Alaskan rural society is unlike any I know of in the lower 48. Not inferior, but different. Alcohol and drugs are deadly in that environment, both climate and society. The problem is not one airplane, boat, or snow machine, it is the constant supply that is a problem. We (those who lived and worked in rural AK) know tha not one in a hundred are caught. The draconian penalty is to slow down the supply as much as is possible. Just visit Front Street in Nome some night and you will see what the dry villages are trying, mostly unsuccessfully, to combat.
Jury nullification.
Plane seizure or not, I would not convict on any count.
The Justices will be addressing the excessive takings, and not tangential issues.
“…state troopers searched the aircraft”
Why??? Why search his aircraft? On suspicion of what?
And just as bad: “…before departure.”
So the beer was legally in his plane! There was no crime.
If he had landed in Beaver, and the beer left his plane - Maybe! But not definitely. Suppose his intention was drop off his passenger and then fly to the next village that didn’t have that prohibition?
I hate laws like this. I remember the “Get Tough on Drugs” Reagan years where Customs would randomly search planes coming in from the Bahamas. One write-up of one of those “searches” had the agents tearing the plane apart. And found nothing. Who paid to put the plane back into legally flyable condition - Not the government!
This topic was automatically closed after 7 days. New replies are no longer allowed.