Ex-Tarentum constable guilty of falsifying warrants; acquitted of theft
An Allegheny County judge on Tuesday convicted a former Tarentum constable of falsifying arrest warrants to illegally collect more than $2,800 and sentenced him to serve 18 months' probation.
Timothy Dzugan, 49, must repay the amount he took as restitution, Common Pleas Judge Edward Borkowski ruled.
Dzugan was acquitted of theft — the two most serious counts he was facing.
During Dzugan's non-jury trial last week, prosecutors said he submitted and was paid for nearly 150 invalid warrants.
District Judge Carolyn Bengel, who serves Tarentum, Harrison, Brackenridge and Fawn, ended her office's relationship with Dzugan after discovering the irregularity.
According to court documents, Dzugan collected $350 owed to the court by a defendant but never turned the money over to Bengel's office. He instead held it until the defendant could raise the total amount due.
Dzugan later returned the money to the defendant after another constable picked him up on the same warrant and he was brought before Bengel for nonpayment of fines.
Authorities said Dzugan's actions were a violation of proper constable procedures, which prompted the investigation.
Dzugan, who was employed as a code enforcement officer for Tarentum, was last elected as a constable for Tarentum in 2009.
He works in the Tarentum Public Works Department.
Tarentum Mayor Carl Magnetta and Manager Bill Rossey separately said they hadn't heard about the verdict.
Rossey said he couldn't comment.
“As far as I know, he's a good worker,” Magnetta said.
He said he would talk with the borough's solicitor about any impact of the verdict on Dzugan's borough job.
Adam Brandolph is a staff writer with Trib Total Media. He can be reached at 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.