South Connellsville police chief charged with official oppression
The South Connellsville police chief was charged with a misdemeanor count of official oppression for allegedly ordering a member of his department to cite a borough resident for harassment when no crime had been committed.
The chief, Russell P. Miller Jr., 46, of Connellsville allegedly asked a member of his department to cite Mary M. Lubich-Riley for harassment in October, after she came to a borough council meeting and “voiced her concerns in an open public forum,” according to an affidavit of probable cause, filed by Fayette County Chief Detective John Marshall.
Court papers indicated that on May 9, during a public council meeting, Lubich-Riley, 57, addressed concerns with council members, Miller and several others in attendance. The matters she addressed were not specified in Marshall’s complaint.
Three days later, Marshall alleged, Miller wrote Lubich-Riley a letter that instructed her she was not to harass Russell or his family. The letter was notarized and hand delivered to Lubich-Riley at her home, Marshall indicated.
“In addition, the letter advised Riley to remain off all properties and places of employment of Russell Miller,” the affidavit stated.
On Oct. 11, Lubich-Riley again appeared at a council meeting to voice concerns to council, according to Marshall, who did not detail what Lubich-Riley discussed. That day, Miller “ordered” one of his officers to cite Lubich-Riley for harassment, according to court paperwork.
The citation stated that Lubich-Riley was notified by a constable “not to address or have contact or speak to Russell Miller,” yet did so during the public comment portion of a council meeting.
She pleaded not guilty and requested a hearing before Magisterial District Judge Ronald Haggerty Jr. The matter was scheduled for this Tuesday, and Haggerty found her not guilty. Marshall noted in the complaint that Miller did not come to the hearing.
Marshall noted in the paperwork that borough solicitor Timothy Witt, in a Nov. 22 letter, concluded that there were “insufficient grounds on which to pursue the complained of and alleged violation.”
A hearing date in the matter has not yet been set.