HOLDEN, Maine — A 15-year-old local boy was arrested Thursday after reportedly refusing to allow police to pat him down.
The boy was riding his bike around 1:30 a.m. Thursday on Route 1A near the Holden-Brewer line when he came to the attention of Officer Chris Greeley of the Holden Police Department, who was speaking with a Brewer officer also in the area.
Greeley said the bicycle did not have a headlight, which is required when operating after dark. He also said a burglary was reported recently at a nearby Holden business, and he was aware of reports of similar attempted burglaries nearby in Brewer, so he decided to stop the bicyclist.
Greeley said he smelled marijuana as he approached the teen, who he described as uncooperative.
“He wasn’t real excited about speaking with me,” Greeley said.
Greeley said he told the teen that he wanted to pat him down for drugs or any weapons but the teen recoiled and said he didn’t consent to a search.
The officer reiterated his right to search the teen and took him by the arm to begin the pat-down, but the boy reportedly pulled away.
Officer Jeff Gotreau, the Brewer officer who previously had been speaking with Greeley, arrived and helped Greeley handcuff the teenager so Greeley could conduct the pat-down. Greeley said he did find marijuana in the boy’s possession.
The teenager was arrested and taken to the Holden Police Department for refusing to submit to arrest or detention, possession of marijuana and inadequate headlamps.
He was released to the custody of his father and will appear in court in August.
Dont know why they always go after the “Small fish.” But where are this kids parents? Why is he riding his bike around, stoned at 1:30 in the morning? Hes probably lucky the cops stopped him and he didn’t get hit by somebody.
Very well said!!!! If that were my kid and he snuck out of the house (because he sure wouldn’t be out that late on a bike unless he snuck out), I would thank the police officer with a coffee and donut and THEN the boy would wish the police officer were patting him down again because he would be bored silly for a month or so and wouldn’t even DARE ask me about that driver’s ed course coming up!
Maybe he was “staying” with a friend.
What part of this stop allows the officer to pat him down? Is it the smell of pot, or the fact that there were reports of burglaries in the area, and the boy just happened to be there? Also, why did the boy not have the right to refuse the search?
I’m not trying to be smart, I truly don’t know.
He was in violation of the bicycle headlamp requirement. The officer was definitely in the right to stop him and at least warn him about the missing headlamp. Upon closely approaching the individual, the officer smelled marijuana. Officer Greely acted properly; sorry if you don’t like that.
I NEVER said I don’t like it. I just didn’t know what gave the officer cause to search him, so I asked. I was trying to become informed. That’s why I said I wasn’t trying to be smart, I truly didn’t know.
I appreciated your comment, right up until the end. That part was uncalled for. Especially since I explained that I was asking the question because I didn’t know the answer, not because I was trying to be a smart-alec.
Also, it didn’t say that the police officer stopped him because of the headlight. It says that he saw there was no headlight, and decided to stop him because there were reports of burglaries in the area. There was no report of a suspect fleeing on a bicycle, no description of the burglar, just reports of a burglary.
Personally I think the Officer went a little overboard here. He may have been within his duties but it’s acts like this that give the whole profession a bad name.
HUH?? Overboard? Until the kids breaks into your home or does something on drugs that hurts you or your family. oohh you are one of those cowboys!
Like the cops you just judged this kid or anybody out riding a bike at night. Keep throwing your human rights away because of what could happen and you will have none left.
ahhh…he had drugs on him. He was charged with it. The cop knew what his charge is in his nightly duties and did his job. We should be lucky because alot of cops just dont and collect a pay check or run traffic and that is it. I judged this kid based on his treatment of the officer. That IS A PUNK…PERIOD. I read in another post that his daddy works in criminal offense so I am sure daddy tried to teach him the ropes…but he was wrong if what he was taught is what he displayed to the cop
Not that dreaded drug marijuana!!! Damn kids.
just for the record the kid in question HAS NO PRIORS WITH THE LAW, so how can you say until the kid breaks into your house???
The breaking into your house was in general because of the circumstances surrounding this incident. The cop was just doing his job. PERIOD!! Great he has no prior history but was not taught to respect authority when in the wrong.
Well if you get pulled over for having a headlight out on your vehicle, is that justification for your vehicle to be searched?
I don’t think was appropriate but that is my personal opinion on the matter. Not to mention he is a minor, nothing should have been done or said to him without a parent but again, just my humble opinion. :)
You can read right? Pulled over, smelled WEED! If I was stopped for a headlight, officer smelled marijuana then yes that is justification to search my vehicle. Your “humble opinion” really doesn’t mean anything…only the supreme court ruling does. Yes…not even mine!
The officer reported he smelled weed. Always a subjective claim which makes me very uncomfortable. In this case the officer apparently did, but I tend to be very uncomfortable with “smelling” being probable cause, in general.
the old saying when you give up your rights for saftey, you have neither.
There can be many articable facts involving one instance. This case, he saw the person at night in violation of Maine headlight lamp for bike. coupled with the area known for burglary. cleary giving him suspicion. Not needing any more reason to make the approach and talk to him, he made the approach, smelled weed which gives him the authority to search him. The rest is on this little punk for acting the way he did. Typical teenager these days with the entitlement and I know better attitude. If I acted like this when my dad was alive (he did when I was 30) at 15, he might have outlasted me because he would have made sure I was respectful, even if I was in the wrong.
And all of the bleeding hearts feeling so sorry for this poor boy for being arrested and patted down are the reasons WHY teenagers these days are feeling so entitled.
Cops are the ones that feel intitled. They give what ever excuse off the top of there heads to bring in glorified welfare money to keep there jobs going.They know you will never get permission to check out the cops story. Over half of the police force are as big of thugs as what your calling these kids.I was an emt for 15 years and fireman one of the first to be certified with jaws of life. I have known and listened to many cops talk and laugh about what they did to so and so. I wouldnt stop and help one if injured . They make me sick.
You are a pi$$ poor human being! Hope you never need a cop! What does the jaws of life have to do with this? Go brag somewhere else.
Do all of us in Public Safety and TURN IN YOUR EMS LICENSE!! You would willfully withhold care to someone injured? I have been in public safety for 25+ years and have heard all the stories from fire, police & EMTs and 99% is pure imagination and 1% might be the truth. So me one police officer that tells a story and I will show you 6 FFs or EMTs that saved the child when there was no child to be saved.
Oh, by the way how long have you been out of Public Safety anyway? Because you would have to be close to 70 if you were one of the firemen to be “certified in the jaws of life”
The stories came right from the horses mouths so to speak. I cant believe a cop would lie. My Distain for what we call law inforcement is so strong I would have no problem refusing them any kind of help. Im the type of guy that brakes for small animals and rodents.I dont put todays cops Up in that class. I took my class at UMO from a group from Arizona that the school claimed was the first really certified class in the 80s . I did let my liscence go so I wouldnt be put in that position.Cop will harass anybody . Hi class low class kids adults anybody that wont blow kisses there way. We just need to climb on political backs till the police abusing there athority ends.I agree this kid should not have had pot on him. Do I think he should have been stopped for a head light on a bike no. My problem is the kids that are stopped just because they feel like jerking them around.
I’m not sure how we can blame the police officers here. Someone hit and killed someone and chose to leave the scene of the accident.
Obviously I just posted on the wrong thread. My bad! My apologies.
And I apologize. I think I just responded to the wrong post. I will attempt to pay attention next time :)
what about police entitlement? so a cop pulls you over and says you match a vehicle description to a certain crime in the area? can you prove he’s not telling the truth? nope. you do what he says in fear of going to jail…. why do we have to do everything when and where they say? because they have a badge? huh… yet you want to sh** on the victim of this story, and praise the cop. go figure…
So if you car matches the description of a car used in a robbery you expect the police not to stop you? Are you serious?
Funny story. I was riding with my 80-year-old father one day when a police officer whipped his cruiser around and came after us with sirens a blaring. Dad pulled over at the gas station. Apparently a vehicle similar to my dad’s was just reported in a robbery or theft…something obviously important. They came up to the truck, had us both get out and lean over the car. Thankfully they went easy on Dad, realizing his obvious age. Long story short, Dad and I had the best laugh of our life, to think they pulled over an innocent elderly man who probably hadn’t even been guilty of driving 5 mph the speed limit in his whole life. Truth is, we had nothing to hide. I understand people’s frustration with being pulled over unnecessarily. Personally I don’t have an issue with it. I have nothing to hide. Search me, pat me, pull me over. And I am innocent, unlike this person who was pulled over.
With politicians giving away our Human rights away like candy we need to fight for every right we have. I have nothing to hide either but after 3 or 4 times of false stops Im sick of it. Before you know it we will have none left. What else will you roll over for?
Always be careful pretending to know how other people feel.
Yes outdoors where people smoke weed and it was on the boy. No I do not agree with that because all you have to say is that you smell it and it is cause to search you? AND at 15?? I think he should of called the boys parents and then while they were there search him. And as the bike thing the kid was in the wrong not having a light especially considering bikers have been getting hit by cars lately.
little punk kid?? this police officer violated this “lil punk kids” rights as a minor…. why aren’t you lashing the cop? instead lashing a person you don’t know?? ever think maybe just maybe this “kid” knew his rights and was acting upon them??? his dad just happens to work in criminal defense, and is going to have a field day with my greely…
The stop was lawful. The subsequent search was lawful. And MRSA 29a is the motor vehicle law in Maine.
So just claiming he could smell weed allows a police officer to cavity search anyone, even my grandmother???
yup at the time. However, his lack of finding anything time and time again my show lack of truthfulness in the eyes of the judge should a lawyer try to prove this officer is just making it up to just search people.
your wrong here my friend, this officer had NO right to search a minor WITHOUT parental consent… look it up your self, MRSA 29-a
MRSA Title 29 is the motor vehicle laws in Maine.
wrong. go back and study CSI please or watch the COPS series…it is on tonight
Let me try to answer your questions.
“What part of this stop allows the officer to pat him down?”
An officer is allowed by SCOTUS decision to pat down any person for the officers safety secondary to a stop. It may seem extreme but the officer has a legitimate concern for their safety and the SCOTUS has sided that a brief pat down for weapons is allowable.
~~~~~
“Is it the smell of pot, or the fact that there were reports of burglaries in the area, and the boy just happened to be there?”
None of the above. The probable cause for the stop was the lack of or failure to display a headlight as required by law. Not being there I don’t know how the teenager reacted to the stop but the officer must have had a concern for his safety to move to a pat down. That concern can take many forms, i.e. pulling away, refusing t answer questions, etc…
~~~~~
“Also, why did the boy not have the right to refuse the search?”
Because the SCOTUS has ruled that a brief search for weapons is permitted and is not intrusive.
The SCOTUS also recently ruled that a person can be stripped search after any type of arrest, and without just cause. Just because SCOTUS decides a certain way doesn’t mean their decision is just. They’ve also decided that corporations are people and money is speech. Since 9/11 we have given up some of our rights and freedoms all in the name of safety and security, but I would argue that there comes a time when we are in fact imprisoned by our own security measures.
Some of these recent rulings by SCOTUS makes me seriously wonder who they are working for if not to enforce the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. Call me cynical, but this is not the same United States I grew up to believe in.
Okay, now let’s hear how I should abandon my country because I’m not in agreement with how things are now being run (into the ground).
Not true. The ruling said that you can be strip searched prior to being placed in jail, not incident to any arrest. Big distinction there. Not everyone who is arrested goes to jail.
not true!
Yep. It’s a “Terry stop.” It’s wikipedia, but it looks basically right, if anyone wants deeper info:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_stop
I believe if you check into the Patriot Act you will see we are all now under Marshall Law, (or is it the NDAA? Honestly can’t recall which one), but we have no rights and the cops can search you any time they want with or without probable cause…
It’s called The New World Order. Rights are continuing to be stripped from us on a regular basis. As I asked above, who does The Supreme Court work for if not to enforce The Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The Patriot Act is a very dangerous thing and is working against us citizens.
exactly, the NWO, coming soon to a town near you……
“Smelling” pot allows them to search you…..which is BS I was stopped for having a plate light out and my car was torn up by police because it had a lingering smell…..OF A SKUNK! The guy had to call for back up…..I was an hour late to work…….try explaining that one to your boss! Luckily he had a sense of humor…..
” Greeley said he did find marijuana in the boy’s possession.” and they arrested him for possession? You can be around others, even their clothing and end up smelling that way. Unless their is more to this story, is sounds a little trumped up. If they stopped every bike without a headlamp, they would be too busy to find drug dealers. Sounds like just a tad over the top. If you stopped every kid out at 1:30 am, they would tend to be a little busy too.
How many 15 year old kids are out at 1:30 AM?
That was the question I had in mind. What was a 15 year old doing out at that hour, and on a school night?
I am sure you would be surprised at how many younger than 15 are out there. It never stated whether he had any tools or things for breaking into homes. He had no drugs on him.
well for sure 1 less now!
Gee, maybe they should also charge him for OUI and curfew violation. These are applicable laws also that could be applied in this case; and yes, you can be arrested for OUI for driving a bicycle under the influence….may be he got off easy..
you bet ya !! My brother got a speeding ticket going down Bridge Hill in Ellsworth on a ten speed…..cost him$75
Trumped up? This column is really amusing! Perhaps this little “darling” is on his way to being a drug dealer – or a future inmate – he has a great start on it already it appears……
“It says he smelled of” If that was the case, they would be arresting a lot of people.
Text book example of police misconduct.
No clear indicator that the youth was suspected of crimes.
Police strong arm tactics hurt us all.
Good for the youth to assert his rights.
Bad for the police to violate those rights.
If you and I read the same article please explain to me how the police were not in their right to stop him.
On one aspect, I kind of agree with Einstein.
The following paragraph:
‘Greeley said the bicycle did not have a headlight, which is required
when operating after dark. He also said a burglary was reported recently
at a nearby Holden business, and he was aware of reports of similar
attempted burglaries nearby in Brewer, so he decided to stop the
bicyclist.’
Implies that he wouldn’t have stopped him for just the headlight, but he stopped him because of the burglaries reported in the area. Seems to me, that right there is a bit of an ‘excuse’ to see if anything else is up. Nowhere did they say that it was reported the burglar was fleeing on a bicycle, just that there were burglaries.
Now, all of that aside, when he got to the individual, he smelled pot. That changes everything.
I asked earlier which part of this entire encounter gave the police officer the right to search this young man, and why the young man doesn’t have the right to refuse. All I got in response was a ‘non-answer’ about the headlight violation, and the officer acting appropriately. If someone can answer my question still, I’d appreciate it!
The smell gives him the right to search.
Thank you VERY much Jordan for a concise, NON smart alec response! It is VERY much appreciated
Your Welcome.
Actually Jordan a search for weapons secondary to a stop is permitted. The officer does not need to smell anything. It is all about removing risk for the officer. That is why they try to keep people in the car when they stop a vehicle.
I am aware, I was just answering someones question. They wanted to know what the probable cause was to search the boy. But yes, officer safety is a reason to do a quick pat down to make sure he had no weapons.
The probable cause was the “traffic” stop. An officer “seizes” the vehicle and all occupants when they detain a vehicle (and yes a bicycle by law is a vehicle) for a traffic violation. They then have the right to “pat down for weapons” any and all occupants of the vehicle. Does that mean the police search every person they stop? No, it normally depends on the circumstances and attitude during the stop. I personally have been stopped 3 times and each time was never taken out of the vehicle for any reason. The officer had the right to “frisk” me but didn’t why? I don’t know but maybe it had something to do with be respectful throughout all three stops.
They abuse that saying they smell weed just to search someone
The problem with the smell is that this kid was on a bike. Who’s to say where the smell came from? Enclosed space like a car, it’s easy to tell, but on a bike? You might as well say “He was outside”.
Now imagine how this story would go if instead of a youth, it was a black guy. Everyone would be marching to the courthouse by now.
Two words “probable cause”
They dont need dont PC just articuable suspicion for the stop.
Law enforcement uses small violations as a reason to contact people all the time. This officer stopping this young man for a small violation like not having the proper lighting on a bicycle is similar to them pulling someone over for a busted tail light at 1am on a Friday night. Once that contact has been made you’re detained until the officer releases you from detention. You’re not under arrest at that time but you don’t have the ability to just leave.
The probable cause to stop this youngster was due to the headlight but the burglary obviously played a part in the officer wishing to speak with him. The smell of marijuana was the next step and that created reasonable suspecion for the officer to search the suspect. Similar to getting pulled over and having an officer smell alcohol.
I believe that’s how it goes but if I missed something I leave this open for others to fill in the missing/wrong parts. Hope this helped you out.
It did, thank you. Now, if other people could answer questions on this site as clearly, concisely, and kindly as you and Jordan Clark did, things would run MUCH smoother!
The headlight violation is not a “non-answer”. It was probable cause to stop him. That is why one should keep all your car lights, including licence plate, operating if you don’t want to give a police officer an excuse to pull you over “fishing” for other violations.
I understood that the headlight violation was cause to STOP him. However, that person did not answer my question about why the officer was able to SEARCH him. In that case, I feel it was a ‘non-answer’ because he pussy-footed around my actual question, and went on to say he’s sorry if I didn’t like it, but the officer was within his rights. He never really answered the question I posed, which was HOW was the officer within his rights, what gave the officer reason to search this young man?
It’s ok though, many others have stepped in, and given me the information that I was seeking.
Police depts. dont have a “quota” to fill each shift,but they do have what is called Personal Contacts. That simply means the officer is supposed to make contact with x number of people. This dosent mean tickets OR arrests….perhaps this kid started out as a “P.C.” but once the officer smelled weed……
Yes they had a legal right. The kid wasnt bothering anybody. It was ethical BS . There is enough real crimes going on out there they need not be harassing a kid on a bike. Did he think he had a stolen TV or something on his bike. Get real.
suspect for drug posession is a right to search…….period. Disrspect as a teenager to a police officer is too prevalent these days. Obviously the youngster had something to hide……..
Or hes been taught that by his parents that you never have to be searched if you dont want to it is your right. I mean where else would it probably come from?
Do not assume all parents teach kids that. Some still believe that you should respect the police and elders. Clearly if the kid was only 15, the police officer was his elder.
I am teaching my daughter that she should respect the police, but that doesn’t mean she should roll over and take anything they dish out. I am NOT saying this officer was heavy handed or over zealous. My statement is to law enforcement in general.
As for respecting her elders- She is being taught that respect is not demanded, it is EARNED. There are PLENTY of people out there who would be considered ‘elders’, who deserve about as much respect as my left shoe. That does not mean she can be outright rude or mean to them, but that she doesn’t have to respect them either.
re·spect/riˈspekt/
Noun:A feeling of deep admiration for someone or something elicited by their abilities, qualities, or achievements.Verb:Admire (someone or something) deeply, as a result of their abilities, qualities, or achievements.
Thank you for the clarification of the word respect. I did not know that. I guess my Dad and Mom were wrong about respect. That, of course was about a century ago, since I’m 62.
________________________________
From: Disqus
To: frostylobomerlin@yahoo.com
Sent: Monday, June 4, 2012 10:39 AM
Subject: [bdn] Re: Holden teen faces charges after refusing to allow police to search him
Disqus generic email template
jemileesmom wrote, in response to frostylobomerlin:
I am teaching my daughter that she should respect the police, but that doesn’t mean she should roll over and take anything they dish out. I am NOT saying this officer was heavy handed or over zealous. My statement is to law enforcement in general.
As for respecting her elders- She is being taught that respect is not demanded, it is EARNED. There are PLENTY of people out there who would be considered ‘elders’, who deserve about as much respect as my left shoe. That does not mean she can be outright rude or mean to them, but that she doesn’t have to respect them either.
re·spect/riˈspekt/
Noun:A feeling of deep admiration for someone or something elicited by their abilities, qualities, or achievements.Verb:Admire (someone or something) deeply, as a result of their abilities, qualities, or achievements. Link to comment
Thanks for the clarification of the word respect. I guess my Dad and Mom were wrong when they taught me that. Of course that was about a century ago since I’m 62.
Oh I am not assuming I am just saying that it is a possibility. I also had somehow missed where they said that he had weed on him I thought that it said they didnt find anything on him so now I get why he didnt want to be searched :)
Yes, that would be a great reason not to submit to a search. Still no reason to be disrespectful.
________________________________
From: Disqus
To: frostylobomerlin@yahoo.com
Sent: Tuesday, June 5, 2012 8:45 AM
Subject: [bdn] Re: Holden teen faces charges after refusing to allow police to search him
Disqus generic email template
Jaymee wrote, in response to frostylobomerlin:
Oh I am not assuming I am just saying that it is a possibility. I also had somehow missed where they said that he had weed on him I thought that it said they didnt find anything on him so now I get why he didnt want to be searched :) Link to comment
It is clear, Einstein you are not.
Ya got em Barney lets go see what Aunt Bee got for dinner
so all cops have to say is they smell weed and it justifies whatever they want to do…awesome
YES thats what Im saying!
Yep! True story…..
Good bye 4th Amendment.
Goodbye 4th Amendment
It is fairly well-established Fourth Amendment case law that the smell of marijuana on a person gives police probably cause to search you. Unfortunately, it also teaches police exactly what to write in their police report to justify the search….
It is also well established case law that allows an officer to search you subsequent to a traffic stop for weapons for the officers safety. No smell of marijuana is necessary.
Minus the smell of marijuana, a safety search for a weapon, how would a small soft lump in someones pocket be construed as a weapon?
That’s right…could have just been Skittles.
Certainly didn’t expect it to be skittles, and I don’t have any issue with this officer doing what he did under these circumstance. I also am not a conspiracy theorist, but also don’t take my rights lightly and don’t believe other citizens should either. History shows there was a reason those amendments had to be put in place. Trust, but verify.
_
tsmdesigns wrote, in response to jrbangor:
That’s right…could have just been Skittles.
Link to comment
I agree that it is well established case law to allow an officer to search you subsequent to a traffic stop for weapons for the officers safety. For arguments sake and clarification of the 4th amendment, let’s take the smell of marijuana out of this situation. In a search for “weapons” would a small soft package in someones front pocket constitute a weapon? If the person stopped refused to display what was in his pocket if questioned by officer after “feeling it” (obviously not a weapon) is he in violation of the law or is the office in violoation of the 4th amend? Again this is for arguments sake. I believe the office was justified in this situation due to the smell.
The pat search or “Terry Frisk” is only for weapons. If an officer discovers an object or item on a person during a lawfull pat search that would be covered as “plain touch” so long as the object or item was immediately and clearly known to be contraband, e.i. a small bag of weed in the front pocket. It uses the same legel theory as “plain view”, the requirement is that the officer be conducting a legal Terry Frisk.
Much of what the officer did was based on reasonable suspicion, not withstanding the initial stop, which was pretextual in nature and based on probable cause for a lighting violation. The training and experience of this officer led him to suspect criminal activitey beyond the lighting violation was being commited. Recent criminal activity in the area (burglaries), the time of day, behavior of the bicyclist, and the age of the person would all contribute to the “reasonable suspicion” based on the OFFICER’S training and experience…not that of an arm chair quarterback wanna be legal theorist.
For those who feel the need to opine on subjects that they truely know nothing about, I encourage a quick google check of “Terry vs. Ohio” from SCOTUS. As G.I. Joe used to say, knowing is half the battle! Not riding around at 1 am with a burned out headlight and a bag of weed is the other half, I guess.
You said it far better then I ever could.
That’s why I’ve never been pulled out of my car and searched for weapons…..just for a skunk smell…..if you don’t think a little bit of profiling was happening here ( which does violate this youngsters rights) well then I hope your are never “profiled” by the police yourself
And the “profiling” would be what?
Only if they have “reasonable suspicion” which is easy enough to make up.
I am sad to hear that this 15 year old child is facing charges. Mom, Dad, or the legal guardian should be facing charges.
It’s 1:30 in the morning: do you know where your child is?
It is not against the law to be out at the time of night. What kind of trumped up charges are you pushing for with the patents?
Wrong, there is a curfew law in this state for juveniles; learn what the state laws are….
There is no “State” curfew law! curfews are set by Cities and Towns and most have no curfews.
I’m not sad at all that this kid is facing charges. I can only hope that it scares the heck out of him and he learns a lesson from this. Otherwise, it will likely get worse and worse as time goes on. Kids NEED to learn these lessons. He is a year from gaining independence via a driver’s license and just 3 years from being an ADULT.
I agree. Where are his parents? As another poster said, it could be that he snuck out. Hopefully, if that’s the case, they do give him a swift kick in the rump. If they are a poor excuse for parents, hopefully the arrest and charges against him will be enough to teach him to get his life on the right track.
A 15 year old does not have the same legal rights as an 18 year old since they are in the hands of the legal guardian(s), hence my belief that he shouldn’t face charges. My dog wouldn’t be charged when failing to obey leash and clean up laws…that would be my responsibility. Developing minds are much different than those of an adult. In most cases dealing with the law at that age pushes children to grow into adults that further disobey the law and disrespect the law enforcement. That’s clearly not legal speak, but it’s developmental psychology and it’s important. Charging a child seems counter productive. Respect for the law and good choices start inside the home. Regardless of who/what is charged, I think we can both agree that whoever is responsible for this child should certainly be an active participant in helping correct the current problem and prevent future problems.
We do both agree that the teenager (although the news reports haven’t confirmed that, in fact, it is sounding like they are referring to a “woman” instead) should be a participant in correct the problem. That being said, there is no correction here. A man has lost a life. Teenagers have far too much liberty and too much leeway in my opinion and until they are held more responsible, these things are going to happen. Their developing minds in themselves make them think “it won’t happen to me”, but then when they see this type of thing happen to their peers and their peers get no obvious punishment, we are only reinforcing their thoughts of “no big deal.” Well, it is a big deal and kids need to learn that (by both parents, society and the legal system, in my opinion).
Why is a 15 year old boy ridding his bike at 1;30 am? Where are the parents.?
Well I guess you never know. Maybe they are negligent parents, or maybe they were sleeping and he snuck out.
Both are plausable, but clearly he needs a swift kick in the rump either way.
If he had played it smart then he wouldn’t have been arrested. Possession of weed under 2.5 oz is a civil offense and would have just received a summons. Resisting a pat down will certainly get you arrested. Word of advice…do whatever the cop says and don’t resist anything. If he does something wrong you can fight it in court.
Don’t resist? That’s a sure way to kill a democracy.
Are we still a democracy? Just asking.
Truth be told we are a republic.
If you dont think Democracy is dead now I feel sorry for you…lol
Always decline them (the police) the permission to search you. Keep your hands in plain site at all times, but never ever ever surrender your constitutional rights.
The article gave me a good chuckle. I am not going to take sides, but in the bigger picture of all the global problems, and crime in large cities. I am glad this is something that is on the front page of the paper it could be far worse.
from cosmopolitans most eligible bachelor to this. man what a slide.
=========
I DON”T LIKE IT. We are living more and more in a big brother nanny police state, where we need to be told what is good for us. A headlamp and smoking dope should NOT be up to big brother. As we lose our freedoms, one by one, soon we’ll realize the predicament we’re in and it will be very difficult to get them back.
What is he doing out riding around at 1:30 a.m.? I would want the officer to stop and question what he was doing since there had been burglaries nearby.
If someone had broken into your car and taken your cell phone, cd’s, and any other valuables, you’d be wanting the police to catch the thief.
He has to be getting money from somewhere to buy his pot. The parents better keep track of where their kid is or we will read about him in court news again.
POLICE STATE MUCH?
Boy didn’t have a headlight on his bike? Really?
The police have NO respect for our 4th amendment.
What the police did here will cause much more harm than
marijuana ever could.
A couple of bullies with badges, who target the weak and the poor nothing more.
Here are a couple of good Bangor attorneys:
Marvin Glazier (207) 942-6915
Jeffrey M Silverstein (207) 992-9159
The lack of the headlight provided probable cause to make the stop. Same thing if your car has a headlight or taillight out. Nothing “police state” about it.
A headlight on a bicycle or lack there of is at best articulable suspicion… what happened after that is that two large grown men used force to search a child without the presence of a parent. It may in fact been lawful but it is despicable.
So why hate the cops? Why not hate the folks who make the laws. The cops are only there to uphold the laws as written (which was done here).
I don’t hate Cops. I dont hate anyone. I do work with the Legislature which in my opinion is like being ruled by a hundred little kings, but it is the system I live in. However I will speak out against some actions by police or government whether it is legal or not.
I don’t get it..
He had a headlamp out on his bike so they are allowed cavity searches???
Your saying he didn’t get the personal search, maybe not, but I’m sure it’s allowed.
So they made enough laws that everyones a law breaker and your rights to refuse a search is now against the law. We must have been all sleeping durning this….
Big Brother is not coming, he is already here.
If it was a special persons kid, they would have brought him home and the Officer would have be repremanded.
They boy is lucky. If he was in Florida, he could have been shot for carrying Skittles.
since when is it legal to search a minor without parents consent?
Always has been – learn the laws of the state; I teach in public schools and the kid’s are indoctrinated by each other to believe they can not be searched; our resource officer dispels that myth quickly.
and you are proud of that? No wonder you don’t want to teach the constitution in schools.. Nice screen name.. we need big brother..
i kno tha laws i need to aint been a teen for decades
It may have been a while since you were a teen, but you sure write like one.
didnt know this was a grammar class FOH!!!!
You pat my boy down with no reason other than because you have a badge and feel like it and your going to have a broken nose. I had 2 Uncles at Pearl harbor and 1 at normany that risked there lives so I can walk down the street not to fear anybody as long as Im not commiting a crime and minding my business . I have been pulled over twice and the only excuse given after taking my liscence and registration and running it was have I seen a certain color car or a person walking this way just because of the time of day I was out. If you think that the cops play by the rules you are mistaken. You will never get to prove it with the you cover my back and ill cover yours.I think its a crime to step on civil Rights the way cops do today. It is legal to free carry a weapon in the state without being harrased but you go ahead and try it. I dare you. Unless you have a badge .
Pop an officer in the nose which is within your legal right to do will result in you spending a night at the Penobscot “Hilton” and a date with the man in the black robe.
Some things are worth fighting for and paying the price. Thats why we are lossing our right every day because people are becoming lazy cowards.
An officer does NOT have the right to search you just because they feel like it. They need a reason. After a “terry” type stop i.e. “reasonable suspicion” of criminal activity, but short of probable cause, a lawful search of the person is allowed if the police have a reasonable suspicion that the person is “armed and dangerous”. They can search the outer garments for weapons.
Terry v. Ohio, US Supreme Court see: 392 US 1 (1968)
That is a slighty different standard than for a search after lawful arrest. So your resource officer may want to brush up on the law. People still have rights, the question is for how long?
Actually Fault this wasn’t so much a “Terry” search as it was a search for drug contraband after the officer smelled the odor of cannabis from the person of the 15 year old. The odor provide the officer with probable cause and guess what….the officer nose was right.
Always has been legal to search a minor.
1:30 am on a school day — hmmm. I am sure he was out doing his Boy Scout good deed for the day. Just wanted to transfer that coin early.
How many of us smoked pot with Chris Greeley back in the 80’s?
Bored cops at 1:30am. HEY LOOK A KID ON A BIKE! At least they didnt shoot him for wearing a hoodie!!
did someone say that it has always been legal to search a minor? minors don’t have 4th amendment rights? the police can do a terry stop and frisk ONLY when the officer REASONABLY believes the person is armed and dangerous. as citizens we should all be protective of our constitional rights.
The comment was in response to a factually incorrect statement that minors may only be searched with parental consent. That statement is wrong. A minor may be searched incidental to a stop for the safety of the officer.
—
As a nightshift worker heading home at 3am, I often see teens on bicycles on our streets. There is no reason for this at 3am, other than prowling neighborhoods and unlocked cars. Most are too young to be returning home from work. The Shaw house has a curfew for their teens, so it is not the homeless teens who are wandering late at night.
Ok, at the risk of getting jumped all over again for my desire to seek information, I have another question. Why was the officer in this case ‘within his rights’ to search this 15 year old boy, when it is stated clearly in the article I’m posting a link to that the man in this story was within HIS legal rights to refuse the officer’s request for a search?
http://www2.tbo.com/news/news/2012/jun/02/1/lakeland-man-arrested-for-spitting-on-sidewalk-ar-411097/?referer=None&shorturl=http://tbo.ly/KUg8e9&hpt=ju_bn4
Now, I realize that it’s a different state, and that may well be the answer right there- different state, different rules. I also realize the situations aren’t EXACTLY the same, but they are awful freaking close.
The moral of the story is if you’re going to smoke weed and ride your bike at night in public, have a light, wash your hands and brush your teeth. Cops love dumbasses who make their job easier.
Too bad the right wing in this country has conviced Joe the Plumber and “everyman” that the 2nd Amendment is more important than the 4th.
ALL the amendments are equally important. One is no more important then another.
Um, no — the officer may have a duty to search him, but he most certainly does not have a _right_ to search him. He _does_ have the right not to consent to be searched.
I guess what puzzles me is why was a 15 year old boy out riding his bike at 01:30 in the morning. Why didn’t he give the father a ticket for not knowing where his son was at 01:30 am.
No one has said or asked y a 15yr Old was out at 1am? That alone makes me wonder and if I were a cop would go ask why and where he is going.
The officer wanted to pat him down for drugs or weapons after a minor traffic infraction.?
No search allowed for drugs, but if the officer had a reasonable concern for his safety and had cause to believe the person was armed and dangerous then the seach for weapons would be okay. The safety of the officer is what is the overriding concern. Again, from the article it doesnt seem the officer was concerned for his safety or that he had reason to believe the kid was armed and dangerous.
Based on the article, the officer did not have a concern for his safety, he just wanted to search the kid.
Nothing wrong with riding your bike at night, I don’t care if it was 1:30 am. The kid had every right to refuse the search. I would have refused to. It seems like a simple fishing expedition by the officer.
Those who give up liberty for sercurity deserve neither.
We are inching closer and closer to having no 4th amendment rights. Since 9/11 this is what is happening in this country and most people are happy to just sit back and watch it happen.
Ps: nice comment from a poster who stated “how many of us smoked pot with chris greeley back in the 80s?” :)
With all these comments of Big Brother is here or it is coming. Really? The ignorance of some people is mind boggling. If you are not doing anything wrong, you having nothing to be afraid of. Laws are made for a reason. You may not agree with all of them, but get over yourselves and deal with it. Stop complaining about your first world problems and be happy with how great life is here in the United States.