Local, State and Federal Law Enforcement Cooperation Leads To Indictments Of Four Alleged Armed Drug-Dealers In Luzerne County

SCRANTON - The United States Attorney’s Office for the Middle District of Pennsylvania announced today that, as the result of ongoing cooperation among local, state and federal law enforcement agencies, indictments were returned late yesterday by a grand jury in Scranton charging four men in separate cases with possession of firearms in connection with drug-dealing activity in Luzerne County communities.

The charges were part of an ongoing cooperative effort by federal, state and local law enforcement against violent crime in Luzerne County.

According to United States Attorney Peter Smith, on February 4, 2015, Jeffery Stevens, 32, of Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania, was arrested by agents of the Pennsylvania Attorney General’s Bureau of Narcotics Investigations following an alleged heroin transaction at a hotel room in Plains Township. At the time of his arrest, the defendant was allegedly in possession of heroin, a .380 semi-automatic pistol with an obliterated serial number, a 9mm semi-automatic pistol with an obliterated serial number, a .357 revolver, 135 rounds of ammunition and $1,410 in United States currency.

On June 12, 2015, Dennis Couvertier, 43, of Luzerne, was arrested by Kingston Police detectives allegedly following the third of three cocaine transactions that took place between June 3 and June 12. At the time of his arrest, Couvertier was allegedly in possession of a .45 caliber semi-automatic pistol, a 9 mm semi-automatic pistol, 43 rounds of ammunition and $2,916 in United States currency.

On July 11, 2015, Joshua Harris, 26, of Newark, New Jersey, was arrested for allegedly distributing marijuana and possessing marijuana with the intent to distribute it following a routine traffic stop by the Edwardsville Police. At the time of his arrest, Harris—an alleged felon who is not permitted to possess firearms—was allegedly in possession of a Chinese assault-style rifle with 30-round magazines, 50 rounds of ammunition and $669 in United States currency.

The investigation of these cases was conducted by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives working in conjunction with the Attorney General’s Bureau of Narcotics Investigations, the Kingston Police and the Edwardsville Police. Prosecution is assigned to Assistant United States Attorney Peter Hobart.

A fourth Indictment charges Aaron Bangaroo, age 35, of Kingston, with possession with intent to distribute heroin and cocaine, two counts of distribution of heroin, possession of firearms in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, and being a convicted felon in possession of firearms.

The charges stem from an investigation in which police made two purchases of heroin from Bangaroo and then obtained a search warrant for Bangaroo’s residence, located on South Gates Avenue in Kingston, and seized heroin, cocaine, two firearms and ammunition from a bedroom in the residence.

The investigation was conducted by the Kingston Police Department and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF).  Prosecution is assigned to Assistant United States Attorney Robert J. O’Hara.

Couvertier faces a minimum term of 5 years and up to life imprisonment as well as fines totaling $1,250,000.   Harris faces a minimum term of 5 years and up to life imprisonment as well as fines totaling $500,000.  Stevens faces a minimum term of 5 years and up to life imprisonment  as well as fines totaling $1,500,000.  Bangaroo faces a minimum term of 5 years and up to life imprisonment as well as a $250,000 fine.

Indictments are only allegations. All persons charged are presumed to be innocent unless and until found guilty in court.

A sentence following a finding of guilt is imposed by the Judge after consideration of the applicable federal sentencing statutes and the Federal Sentencing Guidelines.

Under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, the Judge is required to consider and weigh a number of factors, including the nature, circumstances and seriousness of the offense; the history and characteristics of the defendant; and the need to punish the defendant, protect the public and provide for the defendant's educational, vocational and medical needs. For these reasons, the statutory maximum penalty for the offense is not an accurate indicator of the potential sentence for a specific defendant.

# # #