Law Enforcement
n July 21 - A phone call was received for a possible theft complaint, with the complainant stating that his friend’s girlfriend had her vehicle’s keys stolen from her locker while working in Abbotsford.
The officer traveled to the business and met with the boyfriend of the woman who had her keys stolen, who stated that he was the owner of the vehicle in question. The officer confirmed that the vehicle was indeed registered to the man and then asked where his girlfriend was at now. The owner of the vehicle stated that she was currently at her home in Dorchester and the officer advised that he would need to speak with her in person about the incident. The owner explained that he only has one set of vehicle keys and requested a vehicle unlock. After completing the vehicle unlock for the owner, the officer advised that he would meet with him at his girlfriend’s home.
Upon arriving at the home, the officer met with the woman in question. She stated that she placed her keys for the vehicle in her purse and the purse was then placed in her employee locker, which was located within an employee-only section of the business. She then said that when she was getting ready to leave, she could not find her keys and that $100 in cash was missing from her wallet inside the purse. The owner of the vehicle interrupted to state that he had found the money in the glovebox of the vehicle, to which the woman said she did not remember placing it there. She said nothing else had been taken out of her purse and that she did not suspect anyone who might have taken the keys, nor had either of them given anyone consent to take them.
The officer had the owner fill out the lack of consent form and received a description of the missing keys. They then advised the owner that in the case of someone having possession of the keys, he should disable the vehicle to prevent vehicle theft. The officer and the owner then traveled back to the business to check the video from security cameras.
After meeting with staff and reviewing all motion activated footage from the business’s parking lot, the officer only observed the woman’s young daughter next to the vehicle, who had been brought along with her to work that day. The officer then reviewed video inside the building but did not observe any evidence of theft. The daughter was observed to be in possession of the purse at a time and she was observed placing keys into a common key bin, though after looking through the bin, all keys belonged to the business. The officer noted that it was possible the keys were moved by the child without the woman’s knowledge as she had been seen with the purse, but there were no cameras inside the room where the employee lockers were located and none of the footage provided any leads as to where the keys might be located.
n July 25 - An officer made a traffic stop of a vehicle traveling through Colby after running the registration and finding that the owner of the vehicle did not have a valid Wisconsin driver’s license and had four warrants through Clark County. After discovering such information, the officer pulled over the vehicle for a traffic stop.
Two men were in the vehicle, with the owner sitting in the back seat as a passenger. The driver informed the officer that the vehicle belonged to the passenger, who they said was their father. After receiving identifying information from both the driver and passenger, the officer returned to the squad car and ran both through dispatch, discovering that neither had a valid driver’s license and confirmed the four Clark County warrants.
The officer returned to the vehicle and explained the warrants and that they were bondable. The driver stated that they would try to get the bond money. The officer then had the passenger exit the vehicle and did a search of their person, finding nothing. They then put the man under arrest for the four warrants, three counts of contempt of court operating suspended and one contempt of court operating without insurance.
The man was then taken to the Colby-Abbotsford Police Department’s intox room and the driver of the vehicle later arrived with the full bond amount. The man was issued a receipt of payment and was then released.
n July 26 - A man came to the CAPD and met with an officer in reference to his identity being stolen. The man stated that he had tried to apply for a job but that the business had told him that he had already been employed there. The man stated that he had never worked for them before and was aware that his social security number had been stolen previously. The man stated that he had informed the business of the fraud and that they had said he would need to file a police report with his local agency before being able to apply for employment there.
The officer took copies of his identifying documents and spoke with an HR employee from the business in question to receive records that had been under the man’s social security number, though further follow up will be needed.
n July 28 - An officer was dispatched to a Colby residence in reference to an accident involving a car and a garage door. Upon arriving on the scene, the officer met with the driver of the vehicle. The driver stated that she had come to the residence to pick up something that she had purchased on Facebook Marketplace and had somehow hit the garage door. She seemed unsure of how it happened, suggesting that the car had possibly been in neutral and rolled into the garage door. The officer observed that the driveway had a slight slope going down to the roadway, so if the car had been in neutral it would have rolled backwards away from the garage door. They then asked the driver if she had the car in drive and forgot to place it into park and took her foot off the brake pedal. The driver noted that it could be possible as the incident had happened so quickly that she was not entirely certain how it had occurred.
The owner of the residence was not present at the time of the crash. The driver gave the officer the name of the person she had spoken to through Facebook and that they had already sent the man a message explaining what had happened. The officer then photographed the damage and asked if they could give the owner of the residence the driver’s phone number when they made contact with him. The driver said that the officer could and that she would pay for any damage she had caused. The officer called the owner of the residence and explained what had happened and passed along the driver’s phone number.
n July 29 - An officer was dispatched to a residence in Colby to speak with a man in reference to information about his stolen motorcycle. The man stated that he had a recording on his phone of a conversation between himself and the man that he believed had stolen the vehicle. After observing the video, which had the owner of the motorcycle asking the other man to confirm over the phone that he believed the vehicle was in Waupaca, to which the other man affirmed that he indeed believed it was there, but did not know specifically where. The officer asked the owner of the motorcycle if the other man had provided any further details to which the owner said no. They then advised the owner that they would look into the information further and left the residence.
The officer contacted the other man over the phone and questioned him, asking him why he had told the owner that the stolen motorcycle was in Waupaca. The man stated that he was sick of the owner calling him about the motorcycle, saying that the owner would call him 30 times a day to ask about it. The man stated that he just wanted the owner to stop calling him so he made up that the bike was in Waupaca in an attempt to get the owner to leave him alone. When asked why he did not just tell the owner he did not know where the bike was, the man said he had tried to do that several times but the owner did not believe him. The officer then asked if the man had any information regarding the stolen motorcycle, to which he replied that he did not and the officer thanked the man for his time and ended the phone conversation.
In an attempt to locate the motorcycle, the officer contacted several of the owner’s family members but did not come across any useful information. They also did a sold/reverse lookup on Facebook Marketplace but did not find anything sold by the man the owner believed had stolen it.
The next day, the officer contacted the boss of the man the owner believed had stolen the vehicle, who also owned the truck that the pair had been pulled over in previously. The officer asked the man’s boss what he knew about the motorcycle, to which the boss replied that his employee had borrowed his flatbed truck to pick up the motorcycle when it had a flat tire. The boss said he the motorcycle remained there for two days until his employee fixed the tire. The officer then asked if he had seen the motorcycle after the incident, to which he replied that he had, as his employee had been riding the motorcycle in to work a few days later and that he had stated that he had purchased it. At the time, the boss had not thought much of it.
The boss also informed the officer that he had picked up his employee from jail after he had gotten an OWI while on the motorcycle in Price County. He then stated that his employee had told him shortly after the incident that he had traded the motorcycle to another man for a Chevy pickup truck and cash. The boss stated that he knew the man that his employee had stated he had traded the motorcycle with, as he does business with him on a fairly regular basis. The officer asked the boss if he knew whether or not this customer still had the motorcycle, to which he replied that he did not but he could find out. The boss stated that he would find out more details and call the officer back and the phone conversation ended.
Following the conversation, the officer looked up the OWI citation and was able to find the incident the boss had referred to. Only a VIN number was listed in the report, which did not return anything after running it through the WI DOT database. Further investigation into the matter is necessary.
n July 30 - An officer was dispatched to Colby in reference to a property damage complaint. Upon arrival, they met with the complainant, who informed the officer that she had noticed scrapes in her lawn that went around the front and north side of her property. The scrapes in the lawn were only on the complainant’s property and did not extend to any of the neighboring properties. The complainant stated that her mother mowed the lawn the day before and that the marks were not caused by the mower, nor were they there the day before. The complainant then stated that it happened between midnight and that morning and also said that she would check to see if any neighbors have doorbell cameras that could reveal more. The officer then photographed the damage to the lawn and advised the complainant to call if she noticed anyone in her yard.
n July 30 - An officer went to an Abbotsford residence in an attempt to contact a man in reference to an active warrant for his arrest. The officer met with the man on his front porch and after confirming his identification confirming his warrant, the officer showed the man that he had missed his court hearing in Clark County in late June. The officer was told that the man had court in both Marathon County and Clark County on the same day and that he had gone to his court appearance in Marathon County. The man stated that he was supposed to get paperwork in the mail to change dates but it never came. The officer explained to the man that in the future if he knows he has court in two separate counties on the same day he needs to call one of the courthouses and explain that to them so they can reschedule.
The officer placed the man under arrest for failure to appear for his second OWI and then he was transported to Clark County Jail and turned over to jail staff.
