ShareThis Page

Latrobe couple ordered to trial

| Monday, Aug. 26, 2013, 11:26 p.m.

A Latrobe couple who were placed under surveillance because of a confrontation with a city councilman were ordered to stand trial on drug charges Monday.

Bruce Thompkins, 43, and Michelle Muck, 32, both of 518 Weldon St. were held for trial by Unity District Judge Michael Mahady following a preliminary hearing at which police officers testified they seized heroin, cash and drug paraphernalia from their home.

Latrobe Officer Michael Wigand testified that he had set up surveillance on the house at least three times in April after Councilman Robert “Stuffy” Forish, the couple's neighbor, allegedly threatened Thompkins with a gun during an argument.

Charges of simple assault and reckless endangerment filed against Forish were dropped.

Thompkins and Muck were arrested on May 5 when investigators seized 95 stamp bags of heroin, $680 and drug paraphernalia from their home. Muck allegedly sold six stamp bags to a confidential informant on May 4.

During the surveillance, police allege, the couple were seen coming and going from the home and then having brief meetings with known drug users in the parking lots of various businesses in Latrobe.

Patricia Elliott, Muck's defense attorney, asked Wigand how police determined the couple intended to sell the drugs, arguing that because Muck entered a detox program after her arrest, the amount of heroin indicates it could have been for personal use.

“There's nothing illegal about getting in your vehicle and leaving your address, correct?” she asked Wigand.

Wigand said he believed the amount, including 45 bags marked as “Joker” and 50 marked as “Sucker Punch,” and paraphernalia seized, including a digital scale and metal grinder, indicated the drugs were being sold.

Thompkins' attorney, Greg Cecchetti, reviewed the list of evidence seized, including the cash, grinder, a pipe with drug residue, a cellphone and charger.

Cecchetti asked Wigand whether any other items — owe sheets, address books or firearms — were taken as evidence. Wigand indicated nothing was taken.

Wigand told Cecchetti neither the money nor the pipe was analyzed for illegal substances by police.

Assistant District Attorney Judith Petrush submitted a forensics lab report for the stamp bags, which confirmed they contained heroin.

Wigand testified that mail addressed to Thompkins listed the Weldon Street address, and the couple had a 2002 Ford Explorer registered in both their names to the same Latrobe home.

During the search, Officer Joseph Angus was bitten on the foot by a pit bull before police shot the dog, police said.

Muck said after the hearing that she was not given a chance to properly restrain the dog before police entered the home.

“They didn't have to shoot my dog. His crate was six feet behind me,” she said, adding that the dog was defending his family.

“They killed a 10-year-old family member,” Muck said.

Thompkins is charged with manufacture of a controlled substance, possession of a controlled substance and possession of drug paraphernalia. Muck is charged with manufacture or possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver, possession of a controlled substance and possession of drug paraphernalia.

Thompkins and Muck are each free on $25,000 bond.

Stacey Federoff is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. She can be reached at 724-836-6660 or

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using 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 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.