Share This Page

Uniontown woman tries to switch sample for test

| Thursday, April 11, 2013, 12:01 a.m.

A Uniontown woman has been charged with one count of furnishing drug-free urine after she admitted attempting to substitute someone else's for a court-ordered drug test.

Angela Marie Sages, 36, of Butler Street told police she planned to submit the urine of her 12-year-old niece when she was ordered to take a drug test because Sages feared she would test positive for marijuana. She feared she would lose her status in a probation program for first-time offenders she was completing for a criminal mischief case to expunge a 2012 guilty plea from her record, police said.

On March 14, city police said, Sages was seen warming a bottle of liquid in a Fayette County Courthouse restroom.

Police were dispatched to the county probation office in the Fayette County 911 building at 22 E. Main St.

Adult probation officer Ryan DeLuca told police he was alerted that Sages was on her way to the office to provide the sample.

When confronted by DeLuca, the woman gave him a jar containing liquid she said came from a 12-year-old girl, and allegedly admitted she planned to pass it off as her own.

Sages was taken to the police station, where she agreed to make a statement, according to police.

She said she brought the urine when she was scheduled to appear before Judge John F. Wagner Jr. for a hearing to revoke her participation in the Accelerated Rehabilitative Disposition program, which allows nonviolent offenders to serve a term of probation to have their criminal record expunged. Wagner ordered her to the probation office to undergo drug testing.

Sages faces a preliminary hearing before Uniontown District Judge Michael Metros on April 30.

Mary Pickels is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. She can be reached at 724-836-5401.

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.