Leechburg couple charged with selling puppy that belonged to neighbor
A couple is accused of using an Internet website to sell a wandering neighborhood puppy instead of trying to find its owner.
Scott Duff, 41, and Roxanne Duff, 38, of the 600 block of Second Street, each face three charges.
Leechburg police Chief Mike Diebold said the tale started on Sept. 3 when a neighbor's golden retriever and a 6-month-old Rottweiler puppy showed up at the Duffs' house.
Police allege that Roxanne Duff left a phone message for police asking what she should do with two dogs. Police said she was told to contact Orphans of the Storm, an animal shelter in Kittanning, or Hoffman Kennels, the borough's dog catcher.
Later, Roxanne Duff said the puppy had run away, according to police.
According to court papers, the golden retriever was given back to its owner, who also lives on Second Avenue, but he was told that the puppy had run away.
The next day, the owner called police to say he believed the puppy was still at the Duffs' house despite what he was told.
When asked if they still had the puppy, the couple allegedly said no. Later, police were told that the puppy was seen in the yard.
Police said they confronted the couple, who allegedly admitted to selling the dog through Craigslist for $50. Roxanne Duff told police who bought the dog.
The puppy was retrieved from a Pittsburgh woman who police said was unaware of the theft.
Last week, police charged Scott and Roxanne Duff with not making a reasonable effort to return lost property, two counts of conspiracy, and filing false reports.
Police mailed the charges to the couple.
A preliminary hearing is scheduled for Oct. 31.
Chuck Biedka is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. He can be reached at 724-226-4711 or firstname.lastname@example.org.
More Valley News Dispatch
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments â either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.