OLD TOWN, Maine — An Orono man out walking at 3 a.m. was arrested and charged with unlawful drug trafficking and possession of a dangerous weapon after an Old Town police officer discovered there was a warrant out for his arrest.
Roman Nadeau, 25, of Orono was arrested by Officer Christine McAvoy and charged with unlawful trafficking of scheduled drugs, a Class B offense, and possession of a dangerous weapon, a Class D, after a search.
Nadeau was walking alone down Fourth Street when McAvoy stopped and asked him his name and what he was doing.
“He was in an area where some vehicle break-ins have occurred, so she stopped to check on him,” said Old Town police Sgt. Scott Casey. “After she ran his name through the system, she determined there was an arrest warrant on him for an unpaid fine.”
McAvoy searched Nadeau and found a knife as well as 29 pills that were various types of prescription medications — schedule W drugs — which he had no prescription for.
Casey said the charges may be elevated to aggravated furnishing of scheduled drugs because he was within 1,000 feet of a town-designated “safe zone.” Examples of safe zones are schools, playgrounds and parks. In this case, Nadeau was within 1,000 feet of Old Town High School and the Knights of Columbus Gilman Falls athletic park.
Nadeau was transported to Penobscot County Jail and later released on $500 cash bail. He is scheduled to make his court appearance at Penobscot Judicial Center in Bangor on Dec. 6.
In Belfast the safe zones issue would not have mattered.
Open for Business, druggies.
This will get tossed, Courts have routinely ruled that because someone is walking late is not cause to stop and question. she will claim break ins to cars. Unless there has been a statistical spike in these and someone matching his description has ever been implicated in that region, this will get tossed by any competent attorney, take away the stop and the knife and pills are out. It was a Bad bust, Mcavoy needs more training and will be lucky if she is not sued for violating his 4th amendment rights. Back to school crossing guard for a while.
She will not get sued and I doubt the case will get tossed.
Where’s the probable cause??
An officer can always find probable cause, it is very easy to do.
And Motions to Suppress succeed regularly in Penobscot and Hancock County because of the legitimacy of officers’ “Probable Cause”.
Sounds like you couldn’t answer a very easy question. You seem to think that these charges will be upheld but obviously have no real world experience to back up your claim.
Neither of us where present so nobody can answer the question.
Based on the information reported in the above story… where is the probable cause? Note: it’s not called “probably cause.” You seem to be in bed with law enforcement (figuratively). In this place they call Eh-mere-i-ka they have the saying “innocent until proven guilty.” Please enlighten us where the probable cause in this story is even brushed upon.
Not a bad bust. He wasn’t detained when she asked him some questions, he could have simply stated “I don’t want to talk to you” and walked away but he didn’t. No personal liberties were attacked when she asked him what his name was.
If a law enforcement officer asks you to identify yourself you are legally required to respond. It is the only loophole to the right to remain silent that I am aware of. It also does not apply to anyone except law enforcement if it was a private citizen, then you can refuse any requests they choose to make
*Update: see my post below its not a forgone conclusion you must provide ID but it is a low bar
Actually if you are walking, you can easily decline to answer the police officer’s questions. The only rationale reported in stopping this individual was that there had been car break ins. It seems as if the officer assumed that the Defendant being out at 3:00 AM gave her additional rights to question him. It does not, and since there is no evidence whatsoever that this defendant was breaking in to cars, the original stop, where his name was asked, this will come down to why he was detained, albeit he’ll have to deal with the original outstanding warrant charge (probably an unpaid fine). The rest of this case will get dismissed. No D.A . who doesn’t want to spend the next year mired down in suppression motions will even touch this.; they’ll attempt to get the guy to plead do a deferred disposition, stay out of trouble for a year and it will go away.
Either Way Officer Christine McAvoy just lost any chance she has of being promoted with any responsible police force, ever.
The bar is very low for forcing identification:
1- its part of an active investigation – “I was patroling the street investigating the ongoing car break-ins”
2-Reasonable suspicion of involvement in any crime- (current, past or future)
-he stumbled – “may have been intoxicated in public”
-he looked in a car window, I thought he was checking for valuables
-he turned down a side street – “he attemped to evade me when I approached”
-I thought I saw burglary tools.
As far as prosecutor’s discretion that is a completely different issue, and if he did not ask “am I free to go?” he willingly gave up his rights not to identify himself.
I was incorrect that you always must always identify yourself, but the bar is very low. you must first determine if you are being detained, thus “am I free to go?” if they say no then you must identify yourself and let the court decide if the low bar for brief detention has been reached.
The bar is incredibly high. Title 17A Sec 15-A says when an officer can demand identification. You must be summonsed or taken into custody. You could be suspected of murder and the officer cannot demand ID unless being take into custody. Any other time that the officer demands ID he is breaking the law. Never talk to cops!!!!!!!!
Actually, that statute only says that a LEO may demand ID when there is probably cause to believe a crime has been committed. It doesn’t specify what a LEO cannot do or when a civilian may refuse. But it’s the U.S. Supreme Court that says they only need reasonable suspicion to stop and ID and may furthermore frisk the individual for their safety (Hiibel V. Nevada, Terry V. Ohio). Hiibel also allows states to criminalize refusing to identify oneself to LE but Maine has passed no such laws.
What it boils down to is that he could have plainly stated that he doesn’t wish to speak with her and if she had still pursued it then it would have been up to the courts to decide whether she actually had reasonable suspicion or not. But as it stands; he freely gave up information that led to his arrest.
you sound like a sleaze ball defense attorney!
So you are suggesting it is okay for the Old Town PD to blow off constitutional rights because its 3:00 AM? you sound like a redneck or a cop who plays fast and loose with the rules.
You lose your rights when you have a warrant! She can check who ever she wants when she wants. She is a good cop and I would love to see you try being in there shoes just for 1 day!
She can’t “check who ever she wants when she wants”. He was not driving so there is no implied consent, he was not on private property, and his behavior was not suspicious. This will be suppressed beyond the original warrant and her cavalier approach suggests she is in the wrong job. Christmas is coming, maybe Macy’s needs another rent-a-cop, oh wait with her approach all those people with things in their arms must be shoplifting, let’s check them out.
Her options in law enforcement are limited and any town council member should make sure that the Police Department has this written up in her file after this plays out as it will. I assure you the profiling that occurs now will be by Defense Attorneys determining if she has a pattern of detaining individuals without cause. Every case she has now will end up with endless examination of her tactics.
You are a joke and a menace to society. Must be a liberal!
Of course, when all else fails and your law and order screw the bill of rights argument falls apart, resort to trying to divide public opinion through political ideology. Nice try.
Just backs up your assumption that commonsense is a redneck.
It seams that like the officer in this story you are learning the law as you go…
Go for a walk at 3:00am and when a cop asks you for some ID let them know you do not wish to talk to them and simply walk away. Let me know how that works out for you. I have a pretty good idea you will be charged with failure to give correct ID. After your arguement with the officer you will then be charged with resisting arrest. Then when you get to court you will realize that you are better off pleading guilty and paying a fine, rather than dragging it out and paying a lawyer.
I think you need to get a clue! And it won’t get tossed because he had a warrant! Think you need to learn about the law before you insert foot into mouth!
The warrant will stand to be resolved for the unpaid fine, however if the nature of the stop was flawed, as he was Walking with no suspicious behavior, the rest will in all likelihood be suppressed with ease. No DA will want this case. The officer will be deposed and will have to claim she was “investigating” at 3:00 AM. She did not know there was a warrant for his arrest and did not know him. She profiled him because he was out at 3:00 AM. Her career advancement is toast if this guy’s counsel advances this. Who knows, maybe she has a pattern of detaining people without cause; we can find out because in testimony she can be asked about every instance in which she has questioned people. County resources, court time and town expense/liability all consumed because she missed, didn’t understand, or slept through Constitutional Law class. I see mall security training in her future.
Does it say anywhere that he wasn’t acting suspicious? Didn’t think so. You have no idea what you’re talking about so leave the law to the police please!
“so leave the law to the police please!” Right. No indication he was acting suspiciously and even if he was what defines suspicious, did you see a weapon, was he screaming, did he throw rocks? None of these scenarios are mentioned, and the presumption of innocence still rules with probable cause still required. This case will get tossed beyond his original unpaid fine which she had no way of knowing about. Any pharmaceuticals and what in all likelihood was a Swiss Army Knife will become non issues. Mall Cops get to ride Segways, at least she has that to look forward to in her next career.
His having a warrant has nothing to do with probable cause in this case. The officer contacting him on the street had no idea that he had a warrant – just got lucky. Any lawyer worth their fee would get this tossed so fast it would make your head spin.
You need to understand that police officers just can’t go with the “throw it and see what sticks” method. That type of police work will never be upheld assuming a competent attorney is retained.
You have no idea how the legal system works – in the future you should keep editing you posts until they don’t show total ignorance.
McAvoy was just upset because her booster seat in her cruiser wasn’t cooperating.
Law Enforcement doesn’t need probable cause to ask him questions. The probable cause attached when the name he willingly gave came up in the system with an arrest warrant.
*edit* this was actually a reply to Madein Maine, not sure how it ended up as a separate post.
*Edit because new posts are closed, replying to MadeinMaine*
I know that because I’ve studied case law. Try reading Terry V. Ohio (Not just the wikipedia page on it, read the judgment and opinions).
Also, I find it funny that everyone who has ever watched an episode of some crap cop show thinks they’re an expert on probable cause.
Correct.
You are not required to provide identification to a LEO while you are walking down the street.
And you know that how?
I don’t understand our laws nowadays. Who was he trafficking too if he was out walking? What is wrong with carrying a knife? I agree he should still have been arrested for his warrant but why tack on these other silly charges? I guess the police are so bored they have to make mountains out of molehills whenever they find any infraction of the law. I feel bad for the young people that have to live without the Constitutional protections we once had.
Trafficking equals the 29 various illegal schedule W pills he had on him.
Silly charges? Suppose he was heading to the home of one of your family members who has a drug problem. Do you want LE to address this or not. The officer here did what we want our officers to do. She got out of the car to see why the guy was walking at 3AM. If he was heading to/from work, great, have a nice morning. The warrant allows the search and the evidence seized is admissible. Officers can talk to anyone they like, without probable cause. They do it nightly, even in your neighborhood.
Profiling much? He had no obligation to answer her questions and if she was singling him because it was 3:00 AM, that doesn’t fly. Unless she can demonstrate that people at 10:00 were stopped, people, at midnight etc, she screwed up. As for where he was headed, while you expressed your concern, that part is irrelevant. McAvoy needs to spend some time at UMaine taking a Constitutional Law 101 Course. Her fast and loose understanding of the 4th amendment as well as Maine’s own constitution will end up getting Old Town sued. This isn’t the Dukes of Hazard, cops can’t just detain people ” just because” and expect to get away with it. the Defendant was unknown to her, she had no probable cause other than it being 3:00 AM to question him and that does not hold .
he could have been heading to the river to throw the pills away so his girlfriend wouldn’t take them, thus the possibility of saving her life. Making a knife a dangerous weapon is justification to a search, how are your freedoms to walk the streets doing?
The trafficking charge is most likely due to the amount of drugs he had on him. The charge for the knife was probably due to it, most likely, being a knife that is illegal to posses in Maine, such as a switchblade, butterfly knife, or a knife with a spring assist which can be opened very quickly. The spring assist knives can be purchased in Maine, however are still illegal to posses. Possession of any of these knives usually carries a trafficking dangerouse weapons charge
Then they should call it what it is. Charge him with possession of too many drugs and possession of an illegal type knife. When they call it trafficking without selling anything then they lose all credibility.
I agree with you. To me trafficking means selling. This is just language the DA’s office uses to make charges more than what they really are. I guess they figure that if you are charged with trafficking then you will be more apt to plead guilty to a lesser charge of possession when they make that offer in court.
I am glad Officer McAvoy stopped this guy. Get the scum off the streets! Good job Old Town PD!!!!!
There has to be a legitimate reason for the police to stop you even to ask your name. Absent probale cause for the stop any evidence taken is subject to suppression. You cannot be stopped by law enforcement for walking on the street. There is no justification here for this police officer to have detainned this individual to think otherwise is to acquise to the police state where you have no rights against unreasonable search and seizure.