Latest news with #AlaskaSupremeCourt
New York Times
26-04-2025
- New York Times
Beer Aboard a Flight to a Dry Alaska Town Costs a Pilot His $95,000 Plane
A six-pack of beer at the corner store will generally set you back $10 or $15, maybe a tad more. But even a small batch of the most artisanal locally brewed I.P.A. isn't $95,000. But that's how much a cargo of beer has cost Kenneth J. Jouppi, 82, of Coeur d'Alene, Idaho, who piloted charter flights in Alaska until around 2014. On April 18, the Alaska Supreme Court ruled that he could be forced to forfeit his $95,000 plane as a penalty for trying to fly alcohol into a dry Alaskan community that does not allow for the importation, sale or possession of alcohol, according to court records. In April 2012, a state trooper stopped Mr. Jouppi before his plane took off from Fairbanks, Alaska, after the trooper said that he saw Mr. Jouppi 'opening and closing boxes' that contained beer, according to court records. The trooper said 'it would have been impossible' for Mr. Jouppi not to see at least one six-pack out of 72 beers that were on the plane. Mr. Jouppi denied knowing that the beer was on board. (Mr. Jouppi could not recall, and the court papers did not specify, the brand of beer.) Mr. Jouppi was taking a client 110 miles north to Beaver, Alaska, a community of about 80 people. The community, which was founded in 1907 amid discoveries of gold, has a small air strip and is most easily accessible by plane. After a jury found that Mr. Jouppi tried to illegally bring alcohol to Beaver, he was sentenced to three days in jail and he and his company were fined a total of $3,000. But the trial court declined to confiscate his plane, a Cessna 206 that fits six passengers and that was valued at $95,000. The state appealed and an appeals court agreed that the plane should be confiscated, according to court records. Eventually, the case reached the Alaska Supreme Court. The court agreed with the state that confiscating the plane did not violate the excessive fines clause of the Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. 'We hold, as a matter of law, that the owner of the airplane failed to establish that forfeiture would be unconstitutionally excessive,' the Alaska Supreme Court concluded. The plane is no longer in Mr. Jouppi's possession and its fate was not immediately clear. Robert John, Mr. Jouppi's lawyer, said that he and his client will seek to appeal the ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court. 'When they took my plane, I was forced into retirement,' Mr. Jouppi said on Friday. 'You spend a lot of sleepless nights. It hasn't been a pleasant experience at all.' In an email on Friday, Donald Soderstrom, the assistant attorney general for the office of criminal appeals, called the State Supreme Court's decision 'reasonable even when limited to one six-pack.' 'Alcohol abuse has been a problem in Alaska for many years, including in rural communities that are off the road system and are accessible primarily by air,' he said. Mr. Jouppi, who is Finnish, said he remains steadfast in his attempt to get his case heard by the country's highest court. 'I don't know if you're familiar with the Finnish people,' he said, 'but we're awful damn stubborn.'
Yahoo
23-04-2025
- Yahoo
Alaska's seizure of a bootlegger's plane was legal, Supreme Court says
Alaska Supreme Court Justice Jude Pate, right, asks a question during oral arguments in a case concerning correspondence education allotments, on June 27, 2024, in the Boney Courthouse in Anchorage. (Photo by Andrew Kitchenman/Alaska Beacon) When the state of Alaska seized a bootlegger's plane, it did not violate the U.S. Constitution's excessive fines clause, the Alaska Supreme Court has ruled. The ruling, published Friday, involves a 13-year-old dispute that followed the conviction of Kenneth Jouppi for attempting to transport beer from Fairbanks to Beaver, an Interior Alaska town that has outlawed the importation, sale and possession of alcohol. Jouppi operated an air service and was transporting a passenger who had loaded 72 cans of beer as cargo. Troopers said Jouppi was aware of at least one six-pack and thus knowingly transported alcohol, something Jouppi contested at trial. The state attempted to seize Jouppi's airplane as a result of the conviction, but the trial court denied that seizure, citing state law. The state appealed, and the Alaska Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the seizure, remanding the case back to the trial court. The trial court again declined to rule in favor of the seizure, this time citing the U.S. Constitution, and the state appealed to the Supreme Court. 'We hold, as a matter of law, that the owner of the airplane failed to establish that forfeiture would be unconstitutionally excessive,' wrote Justice Jude Pate on behalf of the court, which ruled unanimously. 'Forfeiture of the airplane constituted a fine within the meaning of the Excessive Fines Clause, and … the forfeiture is not grossly disproportional to the gravity of the harm caused by the offense,' he wrote. The decision was based upon a U.S. Supreme Court case known as United States v. Bajakajian, which set up a two-part test to determine whether a fine is excessive: The fine must be intended as punishment, and it cannot be disproportional to the crime. Citing legislative debates, the Alaska Supreme Court's new ruling says that lawmakers intended aircraft-related smuggling to be subject to greater penalties than other ways of bootlegging. In addition, the ruling says that the harm caused by alcohol to rural Alaska means that severe punishment is not disproportionate. 'Alcohol abuse in rural Alaska leads to increased crime; disorders, such as alcoholism; conditions, such as fetal alcohol spectrum disorder; and death, imposing substantial costs on public health and the administration of justice. Within this context, it is clear that the illegal importation of even a six-pack of beer causes grave societal harm,' the ruling states. 'This factor strongly suggests that the forfeiture is not grossly disproportional.' The Alaska Supreme Court's ruling sends the case back to the Court of Appeals for further work. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Yahoo
27-03-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
Alaska House votes to increase oversight and limit time for foster youth in psychiatric facilities
Rep. Andrew Gray, D-Anchorage, speaks Friday, April 26, 2024, on the floor of the Alaska House of Representatives. (Photo by James Brooks/Alaska Beacon) Alaska foster youth are admitted to acute psychiatric facilities an average of 90 times per year, according to the state. Lawmakers want to make sure they don't have unnecessarily long stays. The Alaska House of Representatives passed House Bill 36 unanimously on Wednesday. The bill would require foster youth hospitalized in psychiatric facilities to have a court hearing within seven days, a reduction from the current requirement of 30 days. As the state is the legal guardian for foster youth, requiring the time for a court hearing to be within a week aims to prevent youth from unnecessarily long stays in psychiatric facilities – after reports of foster youth having to stay for weeks and even years. 'This is closing such a dark chapter,' said Rep. Andrew Gray, D-Anchorage, who sponsored the bill, in an interview after the vote. 'And there's just so many kids that we don't even know about that were held there for too long, with no one coming to get them.' Gray said the Legislature is required to take action after an Alaska Supreme Court ruling last year, 'that we must do this, that not having any guidance in our statutes for what should happen to foster kids admitted to acute psychiatric facilities was enabling these tragic stories to happen,' Gray said. 'Where foster kids, through no fault of their own, were ending up in facilities for long periods of time with no intervention. So it was incumbent upon the Legislature to act.' The House voted 39 to 0 passing the bill, with Rep. Sarah Vance, R-Homer, absent. The issue was the focus of a 2024 Alaska Supreme Court ruling in the case of Kwinhagak v. State. The case related to a 14-year-old girl in foster care, who was first hospitalized in Sitka and then placed in a private Anchorage youth psychiatric hospital, North Star Behavioral Health. She went 46 days before the court held a hearing on her hospitalization. Her Tribe, the Native Village of Kwinhagak filed a lawsuit against the state, and the Alaska Supreme Court agreed that the 46 days 'was far too long to satisfy due process,' according to the ruling. The bill would require interested parties to be notified within 24 hours of a child being admitted to acute psychiatric facilities. The state Office of Children's Services must notify the court, the child's parents, and any other parties involved in their foster care case, or 'child-in-need-of-aid' case. Under the bill, the court would require a court-appointed attorney for the child, and a hearing before a judge within a week — with two-way video for the child to access the hearing. At the hearing, the judge would review the need for hospitalization and consider options for placement in a less restrictive environment. It would also require a follow-up every 30 days after the initial hearing. This is huge for us, as a state. – Amanda Metivier, co-founder, Facing Foster Care in Alaska Time in acute psychiatric care is for emergencies, for someone in a mental health crisis to stabilize, and should be very short, Gray added. 'If a child needs ongoing psychiatric care, in-patient for months, then they need to be in a residential psychiatric facility,' Gray said. 'This is a very, very rare occurrence in which a child would be in this type of facility for longer than a month. But if it happens, then yes, at the 30-day mark, it has to be reevaluated.' The conditions and practices of the Alaska foster care system, including psychiatric hospitalization, have been the focus of high-profile investigative journalism, a class action lawsuit, federal investigation of North Star Behavioral Health System, and a civil rights investigation by the Department of Justice, in recent years. 'This is huge for us, as a state,' said Amanda Metivier in an interview after the vote. She is the co-founder of the advocacy nonprofit Facing Foster Care in Alaska, a social worker, foster parent, and former foster youth herself. She said former foster youth, some with their own experiences of being hospitalized for long stays, were watching Wednesday and cheered the House vote. 'So a win for them, too,' she said. 'To be able to give back to those youth that come next, who don't have to have those same experiences of being in an acute psych hospital.' Metivier said the state has a history of overreliance on hospitals and out-of-state facilities for care of foster youth, and work has been done to improve community-based, behavioral health care. But there is also a significant lack of foster home options. 'Today there are youth who are sleeping in hotels for lack of foster homes, with security guards, or who are sleeping in offices for lack of foster homes,' she said. 'And so if a young person lands in an acute psych hospital, I think for the caseworker, there's probably this initial sense of relief, right, in that they're safe right now, but are easily forgotten.' Metivier said that OCS caseworkers, courts, tribes, family attorneys, parents and guardians can all be involved already in a foster case, and acting in the interest of the child, and so the seven-day timeline should be appropriate. 'It shouldn't be burdensome for the state, because it offers an opportunity to create this sense of urgency for everyone to start thinking about what happens next,' she said. It can reduce days of hospitalization, which has the effect of 'compounding trauma, to be in a facility, you know, for a young person, where they don't need to be. And it's more cost effective for the state too,' she said. She said the state's estimate of foster youth being hospitalized 90 times each year is high, and a reason to have protocols in place to assess youth for ongoing care, or a supportive foster placement. Metivier emphasized that reducing time in psychiatric hospitals can also limit further psychological harms. 'They're witnessing physical and chemical restraints, or maybe experiencing those themselves, or put in isolation,' she said. 'So there is a lot they see and experience around them that can be to the detriment of their own mental health too, definitely.' The bill now moves to the Alaska Senate. While the court system notified the Legislature that more frequent hearings would not incur any additional costs, OCS submitted a fiscal note estimating that the cost for the department would be $18,700 annually. Gray, who is also a parent and adopted a former foster youth, became emotional talking about the legacy of children left in psychiatric facilities with no intervention. 'They were the state's responsibility. They were the Legislature's responsibility,' he said. 'So the fact that we didn't act on this sooner kills me inside, and there's no way we can ever make it up to those kids who suffered profound harm. It's our fault. I'm grateful that nothing like that will happen again, if this bill makes it through both bodies and gets signed by the governor.' SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Yahoo
15-03-2025
- Yahoo
Alaska Supreme Court says North Slope principal's insult not protected by free speech
Alaska Supreme Court Justice Dario Borghesan, second from right, asks a question during oral arguments in a case concerning correspondence education allotments, on June 27, 2024, in the Boney Courthouse in Anchorage. (Photo by Andrew Kitchenman/Alaskaa Beacon) Neither an Alaska free-speech law nor the First Amendment protect a former North Slope Borough principal fired for making a derogatory version of the local school district's logo, the Alaska Supreme Court ruled on Friday. Former Point Lay school principal R. Brett Sterling had sued the North Slope Borough School District in 2022, alleging he was wrongfully fired from his job for incompetence and violating antidiscrimination rules. Sterling's case revolves around a January 2022 incident in which he used school equipment to make coasters for himself and a fellow principal who was leaving the district. Sterling modified the district's logo, which contains an illustration of children performing a blanket toss and the motto 'Striving for Excellence.' Around the logo, Stirling wrote, 'Congratulations You survived NSBSD' and 'Time for a f—ing drink,' next to an image of two beer mugs. He replaced the motto with 'Striving for Excrement' and the district's name with 'New Stupid Behaviors Starting Daily.' An image of the coasters spread on social media after a custodian saw the design, with most viewers seeing it as a racist remark toward the predominantly Alaska Native community and region. After a hearing, the district fired Sterling. He challenged his termination, which was upheld in an administrative hearing. He appealed to Superior Court, arguing that the district violated his due process rights, that the coaster was an expression of free speech, and that the reasons for his firing weren't supported by sufficient evidence. In August 2023, Judge David Roghair ruled in favor of the school district and upheld Sterling's firing. Roghair found that the district was within its right to find Sterling as incompetent because he was unable to perform his work as a principal after the local community saw his design. Roghair wrote, 'Whether or not … Stirling interpreted the coaster to promote any view about Alaska Natives, the facts at hand support that the community was reasonable to interpret the coaster as racially offensive.' Roghair rejected Sterling's free-speech argument, noting that the coaster was intended to be a private communication between himself and his friend, not a public message protected by the First Amendment. In addition, Roghair wrote, 'the right to openly critique a government employer without fear of punishment does not extend to offensive or inappropriate speech.' Sterling appealed to the Alaska Supreme Court, which ruled that 'Stirling's free speech rights are outweighed by the District's legitimate interests in avoiding workplace disruption, meeting the needs of its students and the public, and maintaining public trust in the school system. We thus hold that Stirling's termination did not violate his free speech rights.' Alaska law contains a free-speech rule for teachers that is separate from the First Amendment, but in Friday's ruling, the court said that rule is 'coextensive' with the First Amendment, providing roughly equal protection. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which has jurisdiction over Alaska, has previously ruled that when it comes to free speech in education, a court can consider 'whether students and parents have expressed concern that the plaintiff's conduct has disrupted the school's normal operations, or has eroded the public trust between the school and members of its community.' In this case, Sterling's conduct did cause that disruption, the Alaska Supreme Court said, thus rendering it unprotected by the First Amendment. The court's justices did conclude that the school district made a due process error during Sterling's firing, however, and that as a result he is owed back pay for the period between his pre-firing hearing and his post-firing hearing. Friday's order remands the case back to Superior Court for that issue but otherwise upholds the decision to fire Sterling. Attorneys for both the plaintiff and the defendant did not answer emails seeking comment on Friday. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Yahoo
12-03-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Anchorage judge dismisses lawsuit challenging trans-Alaska gas pipeline on climate grounds
Nesbett Courthouse in downtown Anchorage on Oct. 7, 2024. (Photo by Yereth Rosen/Alaska Beacon) An Anchorage Superior Court judge has dismissed a lawsuit challenging the proposed trans-Alaska natural gas pipeline as incompatible with the state constitution. The suit, filed last year, alleges that the founding laws of the Alaska Gasline Development Corp. are incompatible with the Alaska Constitution's guarantee of equal access to natural resources because the liquefied natural gas pipeline would result in so much climate change that it would destroy access to fish and wildlife. The state had moved to dismiss the lawsuit, and the plaintiffs made a countermotion, leading Judge Dani Crosby to rule on summary judgment. In her ruling Tuesday, Crosby sided with the state of Alaska, whose attorneys had argued that the lawsuit is substantially similar to previous cases decided by the Alaska Supreme Court. In a written statement, the law firm Our Children's Trust — which has been representing the plaintiffs — said it would appeal Crosby's decision to the Alaska Supreme Court. When the lawsuit was filed, the eight plaintiffs ranged in age from 11 to 22. 'Today's ruling is a clear miscarriage of justice with enormous implications. Alaska's Constitution expressly guarantees equal access to and sustainable yield of the critical natural resources Alaska's youth need to sustain their lives, health, and cultures,' wrote attorney Andrew Welle for the plaintiffs. 'Today's decision eviscerates these protections by placing not only the Alaska LNG Project but all natural resource management decisions beyond review by Alaska's Courts, upending decades of precedent.' The AKLNG project envisions a pipeline running from the North Slope to Cook Inlet, with industrial-scale facilities at either end to handle the natural gas. As yet, construction work on the pipeline has yet to commence due to a lack of funding. The Alaska Department of Law, which represents the state in the case, did not have an immediate comment on the ruling. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
