Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Case of Pilot Over Plane Forfeiture

[00:00:00]Welcome once again to Lato's Law. Here's Steve Lato.

[00:00:03]>> I got a note from Scott Bullock and quite a few of my viewers saying, "Hey Steve, check this out." The US Supreme Court has just agreed to take another case being handled by the Institute for Justice. I did a story on this a few months ago. I'll post a link to that video in the description below this video.

[00:00:22]And it involves a man who's a pilot in Alaska. And he flies people around in Alaska uh largely so people who live in rural areas out in the middle of nowhere. And there's a lot of nowhere in Alaska. And I don't mean that as an insult. I mean it as a compliment.

[00:00:38]Trust me.

[00:00:40]And so some people hire this guy and say, "Fly me into town so I can do my shopping and then fly me home." And he does that. And apparently, on one of those trips, somebody bought some beer.

[00:00:51]Apparently, there are areas that are dry in Alaska. And so somehow, law enforcement became aware of the fact that there was beer in this one person's baggage.

[00:01:02]And they got both the people in trouble.

[00:01:04]That is, the customer who bought the beer and the pilot for flying the beer in his plane. Now, there's no evidence or anything like that that he knew anything about it because the people had just a bunch of bags filled with stuff.

[00:01:18]And so they both got punished under Alaska law. However, the powers that be said, "You know something? We think you should forfeit your plane.

[00:01:29]Besides going to jail, you should give us your plane as part of what's happening here." And that will remind some people of the case of Timbs, which we talked about previously many times. And that's also a case the Institute for Justice handled.

[00:01:43]So, the US Supreme Court just announced they will hear the case on behalf of the man who's a long-time Alaska air taxi pilot who has spent more than 10 years fighting to stop the government from forfeiting his airplane.

[00:01:57]This will be the first time that the Institute for Justice has taken three cases to the high court in one term. Three cases.

[00:02:06]Amazing track record. So, Ken made his living as a bush pilot, which is a one-man air taxi service flying tourists and residents across the Alaskan wilderness.

[00:02:18]His legal odyssey began when he was scheduled to fly a recurring passenger, Andrew Grosch, who is from Fairbanks to the remote dry village of Beaver, Alaska.

[00:02:29]Unbeknownst to Ken, the passenger had three cases of beer in her luggage that she wanted to give to her husband. But before Ken took off, state troopers searched the plane and discovered the beer. Now, Ken did know that some Alaska villages are dry, and he would never knowingly fly alcohol. But he also respected the passengers' privacy. He didn't believe he should rifle through their luggage without cause, and the law did not require him to do so. He's obviously not the liquor police.

[00:03:06]But because he transported the forbidden Budweiser, prosecutors have tried for over a decade to forfeit his airplane. And the airplane's worth about $95,000.

[00:03:19]So, so for the crime of transporting the alcohol, $95,000. Last year, the Alaska Supreme Court held that this grossly excessive forfeiture did not violate the Constitution.

[00:03:32]So, the Institute for Justice agreed to take the case to the US Supreme Court, which just granted the petition. So, the Supreme Court has agreed to hear this case. Now, you will recall that this isn't the IJ's first fight against excessive fines and forfeitures at the Supreme Court. In 2019, the IJ secured a unanimous victory on behalf of Tyson Timbs, whose Land Rover was seized after he pleaded guilty to a drug offense and served house arrest. In that case, the Supreme Court held for the first time that the US Constitution's protection against excessive fines applies also to states and local governments. And it's amazing that it took them that long to do that. But prior to that, people said, "Oh, the excessive fines clause in the Bill of Rights only applies to federal government." And why would that be now?

[00:04:25]Um, because the Supreme Court hadn't said so yet. And now they have. So, in Tyson's case, the Indiana Supreme Court ultimately held that forfeiting his $40,000 vehicle over that offense was unconstitutional.

[00:04:41]But the US Supreme Court in its Timbs decision wrote broadly and did not clarify exactly what constitutes an excessive fine or forfeiture. So, now the court will have an opportunity to do this in Ken's case. And keep in mind that the Supreme Court often only addresses the case in front of them and ignores the fact that the case is going to be precedent going forward and quite often they don't clarify things for other cases.

[00:05:10]And there's an argument to be made both ways on that. Because if they try to guess what's going to happen in future cases, they might not get it right. So, they'll often say, "Well, here's what happens in this case." Boom.

[00:05:20]Now, sometimes they'll lay out a little bit of a rule, but what would be nice if they'd said, for instance, that a fine that is some multiplier of some other number is appropriate, but beyond that it's inappropriate.

[00:05:34]And I can tell you that that happens a lot in the law. So, in a lot of like consumer protection statutes around the country, they'll tell you that it's illegal to charge a consumer a price grossly in excess of the value of the goods.

[00:05:48]So, in other words, if something's worth $10,000 and they sell it to you for $100,000.

[00:05:54]Now, I know a lot of people say, "Steve, if you're that stupid, you deserve to lose your money."

[00:05:59]Hold on.

[00:06:00]A lot of times when people get overcharged for something by a merchant, it's usually an indication of something else going on. That is that the merchant's being dishonest or the merchant knows that the consumer has a disability, things of that nature. And so, a lot of states have said, "If you charge a price that's three times the value, that's grossly in excess."

[00:06:18]Or four times the value. But, some states and their courts have given a number and said, "Here's the number."

[00:06:26]You know, if something's worth $10 and you charge them 50 bucks, that's too much.

[00:06:29]But, other states have just said, "No, it's case by case."

[00:06:32]And so, the Supreme Court might say, "Yeah, it's case by case."

[00:06:36]But then, of course, what's going to happen is every single case is going to work its way up and you don't want that to be the situation. You want it to be where people have a clear idea of what the law is, what the law means, and how it'll be interpreted in higher courts.

[00:06:51]And so, the question is, the man, I believe, the pilot, spent a little time in jail for this.

[00:06:59]And you think, "Okay, then he he he paid his price." Well, and then they want to keep the plane.

[00:07:05]Okay, this is being couched as, in essence, a fine.

[00:07:09]An excessive fine is what the IJ's calling it. So, during a time when law enforcement agencies increasingly rely on fines, fees, and forfeitures as a source of revenue, that clarity from the court is urgently needed.

[00:07:22]Thanks to your support, the Institute for Justice can stand with everyday Americans like Ken when the government tries to impose ruinous punishments and ensure that no one loses their livelihoods or property unjustly. And so, that's the entire press release from the Institute for Justice. This story's gotten a lot of traction. I've seen the story reported widely, widely on many, many different news sources. And a lot of people sent me those as well. Thank you very much. But, the point here is that you look at what happened.

[00:07:53]And you ask yourself, should the guy pay a fine?

[00:07:58]Okay. Should he spend a day or two in jail? A little bit of time in jail.

[00:08:02]Okay.

[00:08:03]Should he lose his airplane?

[00:08:06]Most people would say, uh no, that's a bit too far. That's a bit too far.

[00:08:11]And um that's what this is all about. So, I mentioned at the end of the previous video, like I always do, if I have updates, I'll bring them to you. Well, this is an update and there's going to be at least one more.

[00:08:24]Because the Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case. So, I don't know the exact briefing schedule on this, but usually there is a time frame that's pretty predictable. And uh the parties will will will submit briefs and then the court will uh schedule it for oral argument. IGL send one of their excellent attorneys and they will argue it with oral arguments. And you can sometimes see which way the court's going to go based on the questions and answers that are given in the court and how the court responds to them, but not always. So, I probably won't do a story update uh simply when they argue it, but I will certainly do one when the court rules, when the court rules. And it We hope We hope it's a good sign.

[00:09:11]Because if they didn't want to overturn this, knowing that Timbs is out there, the case of Timbs, they could just let the case go away and leave people with the impression that, well, Timbs was excessive, but this one is not.

[00:09:27]Uh but, on the other hand, the Timbs vehicle, I think was worth what, $40,000?

[00:09:32]And they say the airplane is worth 95.

[00:09:35]And the question is is what Tim's accused of doing uh half as bad as what this guy is accused of doing?

[00:09:46]>> [snorts] >> And is there really a better way of looking at that? And so that's that's that's the crazy part. So one thing I have to ask you is would they keep his plane that was worth a quarter of a million dollars?

[00:10:02]Would they keep his plane that was worth a million dollars?

[00:10:05]What if What if What if you had a two million-dollar plane?

[00:10:09]And and I'm just saying this hypothetically because you have to be able to explain the argument if you want to if you want to support the government's position.

[00:10:17]And that is that the government gets to keep this guy's plane.

[00:10:22]Even if it's worth $200,000?

[00:10:26]Even if it's worth $400,000? Is there a cap?

[00:10:30]What if What if the guy had just bought one of the latest, greatest, most expensive planes humans can buy?

[00:10:36]They get to keep that, too?

[00:10:38]Shouldn't there be some some level of proportionality, but also some level of just an explanation, a formula, something that we can go on to know what's reasonable, what's not. That's really what we're looking for. So remember the US Supreme Court when they make law applies >> [laughter] >> to everybody, okay? And so if the Alaska Supreme Court had ruled in this guy's favor, uh it would have made law in Alaska.

[00:11:09]But now the US Supreme Court's agreed to hear it. Hopefully, they'll make some good law for everybody on this issue.

[00:11:16]And understand something.

[00:11:19]The odds of me ever being in a situation where I break the law and the the state says, uh we want to keep your vehicle.

[00:11:27]Uh I don't know if that's likely to happen to me. If you want to take out some bets on Cal Shier or something, knock yourself out.

[00:11:35]Just let me know so I can so I can watch the wagers.

[00:11:39]Um but I do worry whenever I see a situation where there is something in the Bill of Rights that was put there a long time ago to protect us. And then you discover that oh, it was only in the last few years that the US Supreme Court ruled on that for the first time saying it actually covers everybody.

[00:12:00]And now they're still fighting over it because the question is well an excessive fine might be addressed in the Bill of Rights, which it is.

[00:12:10]But then what becomes excessive? What is excessive? So I have to salute Institute for Justice. As always got to tell you, they're a nonprofit organization. They survive entirely on the generosity of their supporters.

[00:12:21]Please check them out. Go to ij.org.

[00:12:24]I'll put a link to them also below this video. And they have a a YouTube channel. Watch that. I've even been on their show once or twice. I might be on there again, you never know.

[00:12:33]Hey guys.

[00:12:34]>> [laughter] >> So Institute for Justice does great work.

[00:12:39]They have a press release with Scott Book. The Supreme Court has agreed to hear their case about the Alaska air taxi pilot who is fighting to keep his plane over in essence some beer.

[00:12:53]And he wasn't drinking it and it wasn't his. Questions, your comments, put them below. Let's talk to you later. Bye-bye.

[00:12:59]>> Thank you for watching Leto's Law.

[00:13:01]It's never too late to have a happy childhood.