Alaska bootleggers warned of stiffer penalties
by The Associated Press
18 days ago | 1138 views | 10 10 comments | 3 3 recommendations | email to a friend | print


ANCHORAGE, Alaska - Alaska is getting tougher on people who illegally bring alcohol to rural communities.

The state is launching a campaign warning alcohol smugglers they'll face big fines and mandatory jail time if caught.

The effort comes after two rural hub communities - Kotzebue and Bethel - voted last month to remove bans on local liquor sales.

Assistant Attorney General Robin Koutchak said the effort is about spreading the word on stiff penalties enacted by lawmakers in 2008 rather than a response to the recent votes. Some community leaders have said they were unaware of the new rules, she said.

"They wished that the state had made more of an effort to notify people that if you were busted for bootlegging, even one bottle, that you would be going to jail," she said.

Koutchak estimated about 300 people have been convicted under the new bootlegging penalties.

The new rules make the penalty for the most basic bootlegging cases as serious as a drunken driving charge, including three days in jail and a $1,500 fine for first-time offenders. Second offenses carry a sentence of 20 days in jail and a $3,000 fine, and a third offense is 60 days in jail and a $4,000 fine.

If all three convictions are within the last 15 years, the third offense is raised from a misdemeanor to a felony and a minimum $10,000 fine.

Koutchak said a first-time offender caught trying to sneak a few bottles probably wouldn't have seen any jail time a few years ago. Fines at the time ranged from a couple hundred dollars to a couple thousand.

Offenders have also lost the ability to scrub the conviction from their criminal records with good behavior.

The state sent posters to Bethel last warning how much first-time smugglers have to pay if convicted. More posters and pamphlets are in the works and will likely be distributed in Kotzebue, Nome and Barrow, according to Koutchak.

comments (10)
« ChenaSteamer wrote on Tuesday, Nov 03 at 04:41 AM »
To bad law enforcement is not as zelous about bringing drugs into Fairbanks.
report abuse
« velvet_grip wrote on Tuesday, Nov 03 at 02:23 AM »
I remember back during my college days up on the hill I had a roommate from a rural community who, during spring break, brought nearly 2 cases of hard liquor back home with him. He sold each bottle for $120, at that time. I spent $18 on 3 bottles of Monarch vodka, at that time, down at Fred's West, and later got $342 dollars profit! Between now and then, I don't think much has changed except the price of a bootleg bottle and the fine. This is an "EXTREME 10-56" state and nothing is going to change that, ever!
report abuse
« thewayiseeit wrote on Tuesday, Nov 03 at 02:11 AM »
This is the same assistant attorney general that testified in committee meetings on new and improved legislation that was so far out of line it caused Bethel to go from damp to wet. These newer proposed but not passed laws would have made darn near everybody in Bethel a bootlegger if they had more than three bottles of booze in their house in a 30 day period.

So if you ordered the legal three bottles of booze each month but only drank two bottles one month you would be a bootlegger for having four bottles in your house. Kinda like saying if you order it you better drink it or you are a bootlegger by law.

Because of testimony against the bill it was amended to having more than 10 liters of booze in your house in a 60 day period. How they come up with these numbers is unknown but it was obvious common sense did not prevail.

The bootlegging laws you read about here are laws already on the books. Now they are attempting to say the state will start enforcing them. It will start with neighbors turning in neighbors in those dry and damp villages. Soon all will end up as neighbors in jail with their money in the state coffers and not in their fuel tank or pantry.

In time the outcome is obvious. Enforcement will back off or the village will go wet. So the goal of stricter laws ends up creating more problems then it intended to eliminate. If the state would have really enforced these laws immediately after they were passed what you read today would have been in the news years ago.

Bethel stepped up to the plate and gave the state an idea of what can happen when you try to run a village from outside the village. Bethel knew what worked and how to control it properly.

To eliminate all these worthless regulations and controls the village will vote to go wet and the folks in Juneau can start all over again. Job security at its' best!

report abuse
« Yukonjohn wrote on Monday, Nov 02 at 08:05 PM »
Bethel and Kotz are going to be pretty popular destinations this winter is my guess...especially with these new rules.
report abuse
« 1stimestar wrote on Monday, Nov 02 at 07:20 PM »
anonymous, you really shouldn't post on that of which you know nothing...
report abuse
« MedPlt wrote on Monday, Nov 02 at 06:50 PM »
Unfortunately the local option equates to

Wet, a Bottle is $20

Damp, a Bottle is $100

Dry, a Bottle is $200 up.

When I used to work on the slope I was offered a brand new snow machine, an RMK if I remember right, to bring a case of booze into the village. The villager who offered me the sno go was willing to pay for the case too...

So local option helps keep the bootleggers in business and the PSO's evidence rooms stocked.
report abuse
« Pearl=W wrote on Monday, Nov 02 at 12:23 PM »
anon.. -

There's a "Local Option" in AK for villages, to help small communities try to 'customize' solutions to fit their situations, cultural traditions, problems.

Villages can vote to be "wet" [like anywhere else], "damp"[personal importation allowed, within specific limits set by the State, but no alcohol sales in the village], or "dry".
report abuse
« Pearl=W wrote on Monday, Nov 02 at 11:53 AM »
What took them so long?

Ideally small communities stay on top of new legislation when it affects them,especially, but we all know that the 'ideal' isn't reality, a lot of times.

Seems like with such a major change in the law, there should have been a public notification of changed rules, and a noticable change in enforcement, a year ago.
report abuse