Videotaping suspect from Greensburg doesn't show at hearing
The man charged with peeping on and secretly photographing and filming several people in Greensburg and Unity did not show up for his preliminary hearing on Thursday afternoon, leading District Judge James Albert to issue a warrant for his arrest.
John Robert Miller Jr., 56, of Greensburg is charged in connection with nine incidents. He had been free on bond pending Thursday's hearing.
Miller's lawyer, Lawrence Burns, told Albert he did not know his client's whereabouts. Burns and Miller last spoke Wednesday to confirm the time of the hearing.
“Right now, I'm at a complete loss as to why he isn't here,” Burns told Albert.
Miller was arrested in January after being caught allegedly videotaping a Unity woman in her bathroom.
When police searched his cellphone, they found evidence that he had illegally filmed six other people in various states of undress and sexual activity. In one case, he allegedly filmed a 35-year-old woman and her 6-year-old daughter through a bathroom window.
Several members of Miller's family were at Thursday's hearing. Burns advised them to file a missing persons report.
“I'm worried for his safety,” Burns said.
After his arrest in January, police said Miller told them he routinely parked at Sharky's Cafe, off Route 30, and walked through a nearby neighborhood at night.
Court records show he was convicted in 2003 on multiple counts of burglary.
If he is arrested, Miller will be arraigned and his bond re-evaluated. The preliminary hearing date will be rescheduled.
Jacob Tierney is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. He can be reached at 724-836-6646 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.