Law Enforcement

■ Oct. 28 - An officer met with an individual at the police department who wanted to know how to stop the welfare checks being conducted on him. The officer told the individual that if police receive calls for a welfare check, they will respond and assess the situation. The officer said it seems someone was concerned about the individual if they kept requesting welfare checks. The officer asked the individual if they have ever been diagnosed with any mental health problems. The individual stated they had not.

The officer advised the individual that police had received a call regarding him disrupting a church service in Abbotsford. The individual said they had been at the church that day, but was offended that someone would accuse him of disrupting the service. The individual asked what they had to do to prove there was nothing mentally wrong with him. The officer asked the individual if he would be willing to speak to a mental health professional if provided with a phone number. The individual asked if the police would stop contacting him if he agreed to speak to someone. The officer said if the individual speaks to a professional and they are deemed to not have any mental health concerns, they can share that with the concerned party, but if they are diagnosed with a mental illness, it would be good to get help. The individual agreed to schedule an appointment with a mental health professional.

■ ■ Oct. 28 - An officer was dispatched to a Colby residence in reference to a theft complaint. The complainant stated they had let an individual live with them for about a month. The complainant had an argument with the individual and told them that they are no longer allowed in their residence.

The complainant had received a text message from the individual saying they wanted to come to the residence to pick up their belongings. The complainant told the individual they were not allowed in the residence and they would gather all the individual’s belongings and give them back after work. The complainant stated that the individual told them they were going to the residence to get their belongings. The complainant then told the individual that they did not have permission to enter the residence and, if they did, the complainant would press charges.

The complainant stated they returned home from work, and the individual had already taken their belongings out of the residence. The complainant believed that others had been with the individual. The complainant said he noticed eight sweatshirts missing, which they valued at $400. The complainant stated that the only person who would know where the sweatshirts were would be the individual.

On Oct. 29, the officer spoke with someone who knew the individual and asked if he had gone over to the complainant’s residence the previous day. He stated he had driven the individual over to the residence, and when they arrived, the individual exited the vehicle and went into the residence alone. He stated that several minutes went by before the individual exited the residence and got back into the vehicle. He said the individual told him they were missing some of their clothes. The individual had not mentioned anything about sweatshirts to him.

The acquaintance stated that the complainant had come over to his residence on Oct. 26 and was screaming about how the individual was supposed to come to her residence and not be there. He told the complainant to leave his residence, and they did so. The acquaintance stated he had never talked to the complainant before the incident and did not believe they would have a reason to yell at him.

■ ■ Oct. 29 - An officer was patrolling in Abbotsford when they ran the plate of a vehicle traveling southbound on STH13. The registered owner had a revoked driving status, so a traffic stop was conducted.

The officer met with the driver and asked for a driver’s license and proof of insurance. The driver stated they did not have either. The driver verbally identified themselves, but the officer recognized the driver from previous contacts and knew they had given a false identity.

The officer requested a fingerprint scanner from the Clark County Sheriff’s Office. The officer then conducted a DOT check on the driver and found them to have a suspended driving status and an active warrant. Dispatch was able to provide a picture of the driver for identification.

A sheriff’s deputy arrived and scanned the driver’s fingerprints, but nothing came back. The officer then re-approached the driver and asked if they were lying about their name. The officer said they had previous contact with them and remembered their name to be something else. The driver admitted they had lied and provided their real information. The driver stated they had lied because they were afraid and did not want to get in trouble. The driver was told that they would be cited for lying, but would not be cited for obstruction if they cooperated. The driver was informed of the warrant, placed under arrest and transported to the Marshfield Police Department. The driver was issued a citation for operating while suspended.

■ ■ Oct. 29 - A teacher notified an officer that a black lab type dog was running around in the front of Abbotsford High School. The officer went to look, but did not locate the dog. The officer drove around the area and observed a black dog without a leash crossing Fourth Avenue.

School staff were able to put a leash on the dog while the officer checked if the dog belonged to the owner of a residence. The staff started walking the dog around the neighborhood in case someone recognized it. The officer called the police secretary and informed them of the dog’s description. The secretary believed the dog belonged to a residence pointed out by a neighbor and noted that the dog gets out often. The officer took the dog to the address and put the dog in the garage as it appeared no one was home. The owner will receive a citation for permitting an animal to run at large.

■ ■ Oct. 30 - An officer received a report of an ordinance violation at an Abbotsford residence. The owner of the property was reported to be running a vehicle repair garage out of their residence and having numerous vehicles parked on the lawn. The officer arrived and observed the vehicles parked as described in the complaint. The officer was unable to contact the owner at that time.

On Nov. 3, the officer met with the owner, who confirmed they worked on other people’s vehicles, but as a hobby. They stated they helped out one or two people, and word got out, leading to other people coming to him for vehicle maintenance. The owner pointed out five vehicles that were theirs and actively registered.

The officer told the owner that the vehicles couldn’t be parked on the lawn and would need to be moved by the following weekend. The owner stated it would not be an issue. The officer also advised that they could not run a business out of their house and would need to stop operating as such. The owner stated they understood and would get the property taken care of.

■ ■ Oct. 31 - An officer was dispatched to a Colby daycare in reference to a suspicious vehicle. The caller stated that a vehicle had parked in the parking lot around 7 a.m. that morning and stayed there for 5-10 minutes with no one exiting or entering the vehicle. The vehicle left, but returned at around 7:30 a.m., and again no one left or entered the vehicle. The caller was unable to see anyone inside the vehicle due to lighting conditions and tinted windows.

The officer checked the area and observed the vehicle in the parking lot with two occupants, who exited and started walking along the daycare’s property. The officer stopped the parties, a male and a female, and asked them what was going on. They verbally identified themselves to the officer. The female was confirmed by the school resource officer to be a student at the high school. The male individual gave an incorrect name and address to the officer.

The officer questioned their reason for being at the daycare. They said they were waiting for the man’s brother to drop off his nephew. The officer asked if the nephew went to the daycare. The male said he did. The officer asked if he was picking up the nephew from his brother. The male said he was. The officer asked why they would meet there when the address he gave was a few streets over. Neither had an answer for that and kept saying they were just meeting there.

The officer then asked the female how she knew the man. She stated he was a friend. The officer questioned why she was hanging out with the man, as he was 22 years old, while she was only 15. The female stated he was close with her brothers and they were not concerned about them hanging out.

The officer said it did not make sense as to why they were there. Their story details changed frequently, and the female eventually admitted that the male had lied about his name. The officer had the man write his real information down. The information was run through dispatch, which reported an active felony warrant for failure to appear on possession of meth charges. The officer placed the man in handcuffs and searched him. An accurate ID card was found in a wallet, as well as folded money. Inside the money was a white powdery crystal like substance. Also located in the wallet was a gem bag with similar looking white powder. The officer asked the male what the white substance was and he said both were methamphetamine.

The officer took the evidence and transported the male to the Clark County Jail, while the school resource officer took the female to school and notified her parents of the incident. The substance tested positive for methamphetamine. Charges of resisting/obstructing an officer and possession of methamphetamine were recommended.

■ ■ Oct. 31 - An officer received a call from the manager of a rental property in Abbotsford who requested a report to document messages received from a tenant. The manager said the tenants were in the process of being evicted and were not happy about it. The manager had received messages from one of the tenants threatening to mess with manager’s property if the manger or the owner messed with their property. The tenant had previously accused the owner of moving their property The manager stated the owner only moved items in the yard for mowing purposes.

The manager wanted this documented in case their property was damaged or missing once the tenants left. The officer advised the manager to photograph or video the property they had there so they could see if anything was missing or damaged. The manager stated they would.

■ ■ Oct. 31 - An officer took a walk-in complaint from a property owner in Colby. The owner stated they went to their property for yard work and saw the neighbor to the north had blown leaves into their property. The owner believed that due to the distance from the property line, it appeared that the neighbor had walked onto the owner’s property. The owner wanted the officer to talk to the neighbor about staying off the property and not blowing leaves onto the yard. The officer said they would speak with the neighbor.

■ ■ Nov. 1 - An officer was dispatched to an Abbotsford residence for a civil complaint. The complainant stated that their ex took their vehicle keys and would not give them back. The complainant explained that they had an agreement with the ex that they would make payments on a vehicle they had been using that is owned by the ex. They did not have enough credit to get a loan for the vehicle, so the ex bought it, and they had the agreement notarized. The complainant provided the officer with a copy of the agreement.

The complainant stated that they had met with the ex at their bank in Colby that afternoon to make a change in the loan. Once the meeting was over, the complainant noticed that the ex had their old phone. The complainant asked for the phone back, but the ex would not give it to them. The complainant then attempted to grab it but was unsuccessful. The complainant then stated that out of pettiness, the ex told them they were going to take the vehicle.

The complainant said they threw the vehicle’s keys on the ground. The ex took the keys and told them that they would be taking the vehicle later that night as the vehicle was at the complainant’s residence. The complainant then asked for their other keys, which were on the same keychain. The ex did not answer the complainant and left. The ex came to complainant’s residence later that day, and the complainant told the ex that they could not be on the property.

The ex then told the complainant that they would call the cops and left. The officer advised that the incident would be a civil complaint, but if the ex wanted the vehicle, the complainant would need to give the vehicle to them.

The officer made phone contact with the ex on Nov. 2, and the ex requested a civil stand-by when they picked up the vehicle that day. The officer advised the ex that since the complainant won’t be using the vehicle, they would need to make the monthly payments and would have to go to the city hall to let them know about the situation. The ex stated they understood.

The exchange occurred later that day without incident.