Woman accused of scuffling with police after fleeing Latrobe DUI stop | TribLIVE.com

Woman accused of scuffling with police after fleeing Latrobe DUI stop

Paul Peirce
Latrobe Police cruiser

A Derry Township woman who allegedly poked a Latrobe police officer in the eye after she refused a blood draw for her DUI arrest is charged with aggravated assault, resisting arrest and multiple traffic offenses.

Amber R. Hill, 35, was taken into custody at the Sheetz store on Ligonier Street in Latrobe after police allege she fled a traffic stop at 2:30 a.m. Sunday for driving erratically along Raymond Avenue.

Police said after Hill fled the scene in her 2003 GMC Envoy, she drove into the parking lot of the convenience where police were speaking to a manager about a fight there. She began cursing “and interrupting police as they were attempting to interview witnesses.”

The manager told patrolman Matthew Reeves that Hill had been asked to leave the store earlier because of her behavior.

When Hill was attempting to walk into the store, police said she fell and suffered a laceration to her head. After being treated at the hospital and refusing the blood draw, police allege Hill became combative and “poked officer Michelle Preston in the left eye, causing pain and a scratch.”

Hill was arraigned and released on $20,000 unsecured bond pending a hearing.

Paul Peirce is a Tribune-Review staff writer. You can contact Paul at 724-850-2860, [email protected] or via Twitter .

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.