Man leads police on car, foot chase in Cecil
A man wanted on warrants out of Harrisburg led Cecil police on a chase by car and on foot Sunday evening that left a K-9 police dog injured, authorities said.
Washington County's emergency dispatch center notified Cecil authorities at 6:23 p.m. that a vehicle reported stolen from Washington had been tracked via GPS to Weirton, then to Route 50 in the township, said police Chief Shawn Bukovinsky.
Officers located the vehicle, which did not pull over and attempted to flee.
The chase ended at the intersection of Muse-Bishop and Cumer roads, when the stolen vehicle crashed into a ditch. The driver, identified as Chuck E. Buchko, 36, fled on foot, Bukovinsky said.
Officers and K-9s from Cecil, Pennsylvania State Police and North Strabane searched the area, tracking Buchko onto the Montour Trail. Firefighters using infrared imaging cameras found an individual acting suspiciously as he walked on a nearby road; when police approached, he fled again.
A police dog chasing Buchko was struck by a car during the second foot pursuit, but Buchko was taken into custody by about 8:40 p.m., Bukovinsky said. The dog's injuries were not believed to be severe, but it was taken to an emergency veterinarian to be checked.
Arrest warrants out of Harrisburg for Buchko were for assault and parole violations, Bukovinsky said. Investigators still were piecing together charges against him and checking for other warrants Sunday night, he said.
Matthew Santoni is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. He can be reached at 412-380-5625 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.