Uniontown fire ends with drug arrest
Published: Tuesday, Nov. 6, 2012, 12:01 a.m.
Police responding to a house fire on Saturday at 52 Stewart Ave. in Uniontown ended up arresting the occupant for alleged possession of marijuana and a stolen laptop.
Latisha Bryant, 26, was arraigned before Uniontown District Judge Michael Metros on charges of manufacture with intent to deliver, possession of marijuana, possession of drug paraphernalia and receiving stolen property.
City police officers dispatched to the 4 p.m. kitchen fire noticed several clear plastic sandwich bags at the rear of the entrance. On the porch, officers saw a cardboard box containing numerous clear plastic bags with the corners removed. Inside the residence, green vegetable matter was visible in clear bags, according to police.
Police then obtained a search warrant from Masontown District Judge Randy Abraham.
Officers allegedly found more small bags of green vegetable matter in the basement.
A laptop found in a bedroom was determined to have been stolen through its serial number, police said.
Police said Bryant claimed to know nothing about the suspected marijuana, and said “some girl” at Pershing Court asked her to hold onto the laptop.
The vegetable matter in several of the bags tested positive for marijuana, police said.
Bryant was placed in the Fayette County jail in lieu of $15,000 bond. A preliminary hearing is scheduled Nov. 20 before Metros.
Show commenting policy
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 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.