DIXFIELD — Six people from Oxford and Franklin counties are facing charges stemming from an underage drinking party at a Main Street apartment this week.
Naomi Bean, 20, of Main Street, was arrested on a charge of furnishing a place for minors to consume alcohol, and Kylie Miele, 20, of Peru was arrested on a charge of furnishing alcohol to minors, Sgt. Jeff Howe said. Each was booked at the Dixfield Police Department, released on $300 unsecured bail and is scheduled to appear in Rumford District Court on Nov. 3.
Summoned on a charge of being a minor possessing alcohol were: Theodore Collins, 20, Rangeley; Rachel Calden, 20, Mexico; Karissa Pettegrow, 19, Mexico; and Nathan Touchette, 19, Peru. A 16-year-old Rumford girl was also summoned on charges of possession of alcohol by a minor and furnishing alcohol to minors. She was released to the custody of her father, Howe said.
About a half dozen other youths are believed to have fled the apartment when they saw the cruiser drive up, he said.
Howe said Dixfield officer Eric Bernier was on patrol at 11:30 p.m. Sunday when he noticed considerable activity at Bean's apartment. When he and Mexico officer Brad Gallant entered, they discovered about a dozen young men and women at a party where alcohol was being served.
Gallant's help was paid for by a grant from the River Valley Healthy Communities Coalition to specifically target underage drinking. The grant pays for officers from Dixfield, Mexico, Rumford, Bethel and Fryeburg police departments, the Oxford County Sheriff's Office and Maine State Police to assist other departments when needed.
Report a correction
First of all, how does a 20
First of all, how does a 20 year old furnish alcohol without some 21+ to purchase it. Where is this person and why didn't they get arrested?
When there are a bunch of kids all gathering at one location on a Sunday night it would have been reasonable for the officer to investigate. Upon his appearance, I'd say the kids that ran out the back gave him probable cause to think something illegal was going on, and check IDs, not to mention the youthful appearance of the kids as well as the fact that Dixfield is a small town and the officer more than likely recognized some of them. The officer obviously was let into the house because he wouldn't have been able to enter without a warrant.
If it was your 16 year old daughter drinking at a party with adults you would (I hope) be greatful the police checked into the situation.
If a kid at this party would have gotten drunk and fallen down the stairs or gotten alcohol poisoning you would probably be the same people criticizing the department for NOT doing anything, so think about that.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.I still disagree with the
I still disagree with the probable cause theory. If the cop viewed drinking from the street, how could he know it was underaged without checking ID's? What? Was he sitting out there with binoculars viewing the considerable activity? How long? This would be a crime if the neighbor was doing it! Peeping Tom! What gives the cops the right? Were the teens making trouble, or were they just all gathered around talking, what? I guess what I disagree with, is the cops pushing their way into a situation, or onto private property, where there would normally be no trouble, and then making trouble. And then, being glorified for it. We are losing rights everyday, and private property ought to be just that...private.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond."Was he sitting out there
"Was he sitting out there with binoculars viewing the considerable activity? How long? This would be a crime if the neighbor was doing it! Peeping Tom! What gives the cops the right?"
A "peeping Tom" is a "peeping Tom" only if he/she does the peeping on your property.
Police are allowed to investigate, without a warrant, evidence that is in plain view.
We are not loosing rights every day. I think you need to do some research.
BTW dog, I think you protest too much. Guilty conscience?
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.just so you know... it is
just so you know... it is NOT a crime for someone to be looking into your windows with or without binoculars. I had this problem with a neighbor i had when i lived in livermore. i contacted the state police 3 different times about the woman next door peering from her property into my kitchen wimdow. when he came to investigate she claimed that she was "just looking out for her own safety" and was "bird watching". I had 6 children in the ouse at the time ranging in ages 4 to 13 and the cop never gave her anything other than a verbal warning to leave me alone. he told me she had every right to be doing what she stated.... not right but thats the way it goes sometimes.....As for probable cause.... i believe there were reports from neighbors about loud noise and young kids being disruptive.... there's your probable cause to enter the residence.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Maybe seeing a bunch of kids
Maybe seeing a bunch of kids hanging out is not probable cause but once the officer's see the activity that give them probable cause. If teens would follow the rules they wouldn't be "hassled" by the cops. Seeing considerable activity tells them that they should look into why there is considerable activity. If they had not been drinking then they would have been left alone to enjoy themselves..
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.So now, I guess, we can all
So now, I guess, we can all expect the cops to show up at our parties any time they want? This guy Bernier just stopped by for a chat? This is bull---t! Not probable cause. So kids can't hang out together in town without a hassle from the cops, and now can't even hang out at home. What the hell is considerable activity? Let's see a bunch of kids in a backyard, or a ball field, or an auditorium, or what? Yes, there may have been underage drinking, but seeing a bunch of people at a house is not probable cause to enter uninvited, period!
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.I cannot understand why that
I cannot understand why that when a juvenile is involved in a crime, why in the hell can't they print and publish their name? They certainly are old enough to be doing what they're not suppose to be doing. Their name should be put in print the same as anybody elses should, juvenile or not.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond."Eric Bernier was on patrol
"Eric Bernier was on patrol at 11:30 p.m. Sunday when he noticed considerable activity at Bean's apartment."
-This is probably cause? Can someone please elaborate on "considerable activity"...
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.considerable activity
considerable activity includes loud music and a gathering of more than five people....
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.