Backside line, Wingenroth was charged with a number of violations below the Pennsylvania Sport and Wildlife Code for utilizing a drone to help within the restoration of a deer {that a} hunter claimed he shot however couldn’t discover.
Mockingly, that hunter turned out to be an undercover Pennsylvania Sport Warden. In response to Wingenroth’s lawyer, Michael Siddons, the undercover officer lured Wingenroth from Chester County to Lancaster County as a part of an undercover operation particularly to catch him utilizing a drone.
In response to the Pennsylvania Sport Fee, utilizing a drone to help within the restoration of downed sport is prohibited. A abstract trial was held on February 22, 2024. On the abstract trial Wingenroth was discovered responsible on all counts.
Nonetheless, Wingenroth claims he had contacted PA Sport & Wildlife previous to utilizing the drone. Wingenroth says he was instructed by the division (on a name that was being recorded for high quality assurance functions) that he might use the drone for deer restoration.
In order that’s why he appealed the costs to the Lancaster County Courtroom of Widespread Pleas. A Abstract Attraction trial was held on January 16, 2025 earlier than the Honorable Margaret C. Miller.
By that attraction, it was found that the Pennsylvania Sport Fee had withheld presumably exculpatory proof (the recorded cellphone name) towards the defendant – a Brady Rule violation.
A Brady Rule violation happens when a prosecutor fails to reveal proof that’s favorable to the defendant.
Because of this, the choose dismissed all expenses towards Wingenroth and ordered the return of the drone that had been confiscated by the Pennsylvania Sport Fee.
