There are two cases being considered in Maine today in front of two very different courts. Both have major implications for our understanding of the line between appropriate use of government authority, and its abuses of that power.
The first, you’ve almost certainly never heard of. The second, you undoubtedly have.
Let’s start with the first case. It involves an admitted drug dealer from Washington County who unknowingly invited a police informant into his home and sold him $25 worth of Suboxone, a medicine used to treat opioid addiction, which also has street value as a recreational drug. The informant recorded the conversation and police used it to convict the accused of drug trafficking.
Open and shut, right?
Not according to the drug dealer. He appealed his conviction all the way to the Maine Supreme Judicial Court, arguing that while he did sell the drug, conversations in his home should be private. He said the hidden recording violated his Fourth Amendment right to privacy and protection against illegal search and seizure, and he contended police should have obtained a warrant before secretly recording him inside his home.
The case was heard in October at Hermon High School as part of the court’s annual road trip designed to give students a window into the workings of justice — a look at the real thing, not a TV dramatization.
The court has yet to issue a decision about whether the government — in this case, the police — violated the drug dealer’s rights. All seven justices were present, asked pointed and thoughtful questions of both sides and took the fascinating law enforcement, privacy and constitutional issues extremely seriously.
No one in the audience wanted to see a drug dealer go free. Nor do I. Drug abuse and addiction are burning issues through our state and dealers are fueling the fire. But we also cannot tolerate a government agent breaking the law, even in pursuit of a laudable goal.
The second case involves the controversy surrounding Gov. Paul LePage. In June, he threatened to withhold state funding from an independent school, Good Will-Hinckley, to show his displeasure with the school’s hire of a political opponent, House Speaker Mark Eves. The governor’s threat started a domino effect that caused the school to fire the speaker, rather than jeopardize its funding and risk its financial future.
Many of my constituents, and indeed many lawmakers, believe it was wrong for the governor to use the state’s financial power to get Eves fired. Would we allow the president of the United States to threaten federal funding for the University of Maine just because he took a personal disliking to a new UMaine hire? Surely not.
That case is being investigated by the Legislature, not a court of law. It is, however, playing out in the court of public opinion.
On the surface, these two cases couldn’t be more different. But the underlying issue implicit in both is the same: What are the appropriate limits of government power?
The case heard at Hermon High School seems trivial, perhaps not even worthy of consideration by the court. But the central issue is how to protect the accused — and potentially any of us — from the unchecked power of the state. Our Constitution and laws impose limits on the government’s power no matter how well-intentioned or how much we might applaud its use in a particular instance.
In the LePage-Good Will-Hinckley controversy, we are faced with the same issue: the use of government power. In this instance, is the governor guilty of abusing that power? We must all be concerned when our governor can leverage state resources to punish a political opponent.
The Supreme Judicial Court has not yet ruled on whether the police violated the drug dealer’s rights. Nor has the legislative committee investigating the governor’s actions released its final report.
But both cases demonstrate the need for vigilance to protect our society from the abuse of power. Whether you’re the speaker of the House or a drug dealer, you have the right to expect that the government will act within the limits of its authority. The ability of our democracy to restrain the abuse of power, regardless of the status of the people involved, is an essential component of its legitimacy.
Regardless of the final decisions, we should be reassured that the cases were heard at all, that tough questions are being asked of government officials about their use of the authority given to them. Our constitutional rights can be protected only by a government that is itself law-abiding, and both these investigations are crucial to ensure that it is.
Sen. Geoff Gratwick is a Democrat who represents Senate District 9, which includes Bangor and Hermon.