Two county officials are seeking the dismissal of a federal court petition by a former Butler man who is claiming violations of his federal and state constitutional rights when he was convicted of violating a sexual violence protection order.

William Halle filled out the habeas corpus petition April 11, 2024, and it was received in U.S. District Court in Pittsburgh on April 17, 2024, the day he was released from the county prison for violating terms of parole he was given for violating a sexually violent predator order stemming from having contact with the girl in 2023 before she turned 18. The protection order was filed by her father.

The petition alleges violation of Halle’s rights to due process of the law, freedom of speech and publication, against unreasonable search and seizure, and prosecutorial misconduct.

A response representing District Attorney Rich Goldinger and warden Beau Sneddon was filed June 21, 2024, by assistant district attorney Mark Lope. Lope wrote Halle’s petition should be dismissed as moot because the requested and appropriate relief is release from prison and Halle was released from prison.

A writ of habeas corpus is a court order for prosecutors to bring a prisoner before the court to determine if the person's imprisonment or detention is lawful.

The protection from abuse order was issued to keep Halle from interacting with a 17-year-old, who worked at the Net Cafe Center, which was connected to the now-closed Grace Youth and Family Foundation in Butler, a facility Halle used to run. He now lives in Westmoreland County.

Halle’s petition named the girl’s father and the state as respondents, but a federal magistrate issued an order in May 2024 saying a prisoner challenging a conviction or sentence in a habeas petition shall name the state officer who has custody of the prisoner. The officers, in this case, are the district attorney and prison warden, according to Magistrate Judge Kezia Taylor’s order. The order also terminates the girl’s father and the state as respondents.

In the petition, Halle argues that his right to due process of the law was violated because his attorney withdrew from his case and he was not advised of his rights that are triggered by the filing of an indirect criminal contempt complaint, did not receive proper service of the hearing notice and was not advised of his right or ability to appeal the sentence or conviction.

He said his due process rights and his right against unreasonable search and seizure were violated because the evidence used against him came from search warrants and affidavits of probable cause from a criminal case and a temporary protection from abuse order that were both dismissed due to lack of evidence.

The case against Halle was dismissed in January 2024, but charges were refiled later.

Due to the withdrawal of his attorney, Halle said he did not become aware of his appeal rights until after the appeal period had expired.

He argues that his right to freedom of speech and publication was violated because his conviction was based on a social media posting. He said he was forced to delete all of his social media accounts causing him to lose 13,000 contacts.

In his claim of prosecutorial misconduct, Halle said the prosecutor in his case ignored evidence and statements made by the teenager and her refusal to testify against him under threat of incarceration and being found in contempt of court. He also said the prosecutor ignored dismissal of a temporary protection from abuse order and dismissal of four felony charges due to the teenager failing to provide evidence.

Halle’s petition asks the court to reverse his indirect criminal contempt conviction, change it to indirect civil contempt or amend his sentence that includes a Jan. 12, 2024 parole violation conviction.

Lope said a federal court review is improper because Halle did not appeal his conviction in any state appeal court.

In his indirect criminal contempt conviction appeal to Superior Court, Halle argues the protection from abuse order violated his free speech rights. That court ruled that the protection from abuse order prohibition on social media activity was narrowly tailored to support the government interest in ending abuse in a formerly intimate relationship, according to Lope.

Lope countered Halle’s unreasonable search and seizure claim by saying he never sought to suppress any evidence in court. Since he didn’t exhaust all available state court remedies, he cannot seek federal habeas corpus review, Lope said.

He also said prosecutorial misconduct claims must be raised with the trial court so it can be preserved for a future appeal court review. Halle did not raise the issue in court and did not exhaust state court remedies, so he is not entitled to a federal habeas corpus review, Lope said.