Charges withdrawn against Monessen man
Drug charges against a Monessen man were withdrawn after another city resident took responsibility for drugs found in his home.
John Farmer Jr., 50, of 43 Aliquippa Ave., waived his right to a preliminary hearing on three counts each of possession of a controlled substance, and possession of drug paraphernalia, and two counts of criminal conspiracy.
Farmer remained in the Westmoreland County Prison in lieu of $25,000 straight cash bond.
Darnell Howell, 42, of 128 Linden Ave., had been charged with conspiracy-possession of a controlled substance and conspiracy-use/possession of drug paraphernalia. Those charges were dismissed because Farmer claimed responsibility for the drugs, according to Monessen police.
Both men had been scheduled to face preliminary hearings Friday before Magisterial District Judge Joseph Dalfonso in Monessen.
At the time of the incident, Monessen police Lt. James Smith, along with two probation officers, went to Howell's residence at 2:14 p.m. Nov. 5 to arrest him on a parole violation warrant, according to an affidavit of probable cause.
Howell wasn't home, but one of the parole officers had information Howell was allegedly seen earlier in the day leaving a relative's residence in a gray vehicle driven by a man identified as John Farmer Jr., according to the affidavit.
Farmer told police he would send Howell out. After Howell failed to come out of the house, police forced their way in. When Howell was arrested, police said they found crack cocaine and a crack pipe on a bed.
Farmer, 50, was allegedly in possession of one stamp bag of suspected heroin and drug paraphernalia.
Chris Buckley is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. He can be reached at 724-684-2642 or email@example.com.
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.