ShareThis Page

Drug evidence seizure lacked search warrant, lawyer for ex-Washington County judge says

| Wednesday, May 21, 2014, 11:39 a.m.
Former Washington County Judge Paul Pozonsky leaves the Washington County Courthouse Wednesday, May 21, 2014 after a hearing to suppress evidence in his case.
File photo by Bobby Kerlik
Former Washington County Judge Paul Pozonsky leaves the Washington County Courthouse Wednesday, May 21, 2014 after a hearing to suppress evidence in his case.

Former Judge Paul Pozonsky smiled and shook his attorney's hand on Wednesday as he exited the Washington County Courthouse, where he presided for 14 years, though he doesn't yet know whether corruption charges against him will be dropped.

Pozonsky appeared relaxed, conversing with police officers — including one who investigated him — and sheriff's deputies as he left. It was his first public appearance since he waived his right to a preliminary hearing in September. He declined to comment.

Pozonsky, 58, who now lives in Alaska, faces 15 charges stemming from allegations that he stole cocaine from evidence envelopes and replaced at least one with baking soda. Pozonsky was responsible for drug-treatment court, among other duties.

His attorney, Robert Del Greco, argued that the evidence against his client should be thrown out because state police and prosecutors failed to obtain a search warrant before seizing items from the courthouse chambers in May 2012.

Police relied on a court order from President Judge Debbie O'Dell Seneca that directed troopers to seize and audit evidence that Pozonsky kept in his chambers.

Bedford County Judge Daniel Howsare, who is presiding, did not rule on the request to toss the evidence against Pozonsky.

“The Pennsylvania Constitution requires a search warrant,” Del Greco said. “Essentially, they did an end-around.”

If Howsare agrees and throws out the evidence, it likely would cripple the case.

“The courts clearly have a right to issue an administrative order in this type of situation,” said Deputy Attorney General Michael Ahwesh, who is prosecuting.

Ahwesh spent part of the hearing questioning witnesses and pointed out that police did not search Pozonsky's inner office.

Questions about Pozonsky's handling of drug evidence arose in late summer or fall of 2011. Former District Attorney Steve Toprani turned over the investigation to the Attorney General's Office, and prosecutors charged Pozonsky last May.

District Attorney Gene Vittone testified that he relied on state law, which he believes gives the president judge authority to audit evidence. Vittone said he was worried that drug evidence that Pozonsky had was disappearing.

“The bottom line is that I had evidence in (Pozonsky's) custody that I had to preserve for other cases,” Vittone testified.

The allegations involve drug cases against nine defendants in which Pozonsky sought or ordered police and prosecutors to give him evidence, which ranged from less than a gram of cocaine to more than 100 grams. He wrote a court order in May 2012 saying he was destroying that evidence. Vittone's office objected two days later.

Pozonsky's hearing will continue on June 6. Del Greco wants O'Dell Seneca to testify.

Bobby Kerlik is a Trib Total Media staff writer.

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.