■ Sept.10 – An ….
■ Sept.10 - An officer took a complaint in regards to harassment. The complainant said they had a falling out with a former friend and had decided to cut ties with them by blocking their number. The individual continued trying to contact the complainant, calling their workplace 10 times the previous month, and contacting the complainant’s daughter to ask why they weren’t at work.
The complainant stated they had asked the individual to stop contacting them, but the individual had shown up at their residence and knocked on the door a few times before leaving. The complainant asked the officer to speak with the individual.
The officer met with the individual. They objected to the complainant’s accusation of calling their workplace 10 times, stating it was the nature of their job. The officer told the individual that the complainant wanted absolutely no contact with them. The individual said they would stop.
■ ■ Sept.10 - An officer met with a complainant regarding threats they had received from their ex-boyfriend. The complainant stated they had been feeling some guilt as their ex was also the father of their children, and due to a no-contact order, he is unable to see or talk to the kids. Because of this, the complainant had texted their ex in June in regard to the children. The complainant said they had also reached out to the victim witness coordinator with interest in removing the no-contact order so that the ex could see the children. The complainant stated that the ex did not respond to the text until July, and the two talked about the children.
The complainant said a week ago they were on video chat with the ex so that he could speak with the children. They said that the conversation started off fine, but then their ex started to “flex”, waving around cash he claimed to have made selling illegal substances, and showing the complainant the gun he had. Due to his behavior, which had been an issue before, the complainant decided they were not going to remove the nocontact with the ex for visitation purposes.
The complainant admitted to initiating contact with the ex and knew they were wrong for doing so. The officer advised that although the complainant had made a mistake, the ex was responsible for his decision in contacting them back instead of having an attorney contact them. The complainant stated they deactivated their ex’s phone, which was what started the threats. The complainant paid for the ex’s phone and provided a billing statement to the officer as proof. The complainant showed the officer the text messages exchanged between them, in which the ex sent several messages cursing at the complainant and making threats to harm them. The complainant stated they were very concerned about the ex’s threats and believed he would likely act upon them. They said they had not immediately contacted law enforcement as they were scared and also believed they may get in trouble for reaching out to him in regard to the children.
The officer told the complainant that officers would attempt to locate the ex regarding the incident, and advised them to report any suspicious activity at their residence or while traveling in public. The officer advised the complainant not to answer the door, unless they were certain they knew who it was.
The officer conducted a search on the ex and saw that he had an open felony bond through Clark County, which prohibited him from residing in the Abby-Colby area, having contact with the complainant and their kids, and making threats. The officer advised the complainant of the bail bond conditions. He said he did not have a residence, instead bouncing between friends’ houses in Wausau and in Colby.
■ ■ Sept. 10 - An officer was notified by dispatch of a possible vehicle theft. Dispatch advised they received a text complaint from an anonymous individual, who had sent a video of someone recording a vehicle and saying it was stolen. No reports of a stolen vehicle had been filed.
The officer watched the video and observed an older model pickup truck. The officer could discern from the reflection on the windows that the individual recording the vehicle was wearing a black hat and a red long sleeve shirt. The person stepped away from the truck and the officer recognized the location of the truck to be near an abandoned building close to the Abbotsford water tower.
The officer drove to the location, but did not observe the vehicle in the area. They did observe wet marks on the ground that appeared to be condensation marks from a running vehicle. The officer entered the abandoned building and did not locate anyone, but they did observe a bike.
The officer left the area in an attempt to locate the vehicle. They observed several EMS personnel conducting training, and aked them if they had seen a truck matching the description of the truck in the video. EMTs advised the truck had just recently driven by prior to the officer’s arrival, but they were unable to obtain a description of the driver.
The officer continued to check the area for the vehicle, along with a Clark County deputy. The officer observed the individual from the video walking near their residence in Abbotsford, wearing the black hat and red long sleeve they had been wearing in the video. The officer questioned the individual about their involvement with the vehicle.
The individual stated they walked by the abandoned building and observed the truck parked there. They stated they took the video, but did not know how it got there. They stated the truck was still there when they left the area. The deputy stayed with the individual while the officer returned to the EMTs who stated they had seen the individual walking south on the railroad tracks near Abbotsford City Hall. Due to the individual walking from the north side of Abbotsford, the officer attempted to locate the vehicle in that general area. While turning onto Second Avenue from the trail that leads to the abandoned building, the officer observed the truck from the video near the intersection with Cedar Street. The officer observed the vehicle turn east and begin to travel at a high rate of speed down the road. While attempting to catch up to the vehicle, the officer observed the driver make maneuvers in attempt to lose sight of them. The vehicle rapidly accelerated when the officer activated their emergency lights and siren.
The officer alerted dispatch to the vehicle, which was speeding south on North Second Street and disregarding stop signs at several intersections. The officer estimated the vehicle to be going approximately 70 to 80 mph. The officer observed the vehicle turn onto East Spruce Street, and nearly strike a Clark County squad as it drove through the intersection. The vehicle then came to a stop in a gravel parking lot area. The deputy followed the vehicle into the parking lot and advised that the suspect had fled on foot, toward the backyards of the 100 block of Fourth Street. The officer followed the deputy and suspect on foot and observed the deputy on the side deck of a residence, near the main door of the residence. The officer ran to the front side of the house, and a few seconds later, the deputy reported having a subject in custody. The officer met the deputy as they escorted a male individual out of the house. The officer recognized the individual due to previous law enforcement contact and knew them to be a minor. The individual was uncooperative and combative with the officers, so he was seated in the rear caged portion of the deputy’s squad car to calm down.
At that time, a female identified as the individual’s mother approached the scene. She spoke to the suspect, who stated he did not steal the truck, but found it there and took it because the keys were in it. The officer contacted social services and informed them of the incident and the suspect’s involvement.
Dispatch advised the truck was a company vehicle from Dorchester. The owner of the vehicle was contacted and arrived to take custody of the vehicle. The owner did not observe any damage to the vehicle at that time.
The officer received a phone call from a social services supervisor, and a temporary physical custody request was recommended due to the minor’s actions. The advisor later informed the officer that the custody request was approved and the Marathon County Juvenile Detention facility would accept him. He was taken to the police station, where the social services supervisor spoke with the individual and his mother and went over juvenile detention paperwork. The individual was read his Miranda rights, and under the supervision of his guardian, stated he understood his rights and would answer questions. The individual stated his friend told him about the truck through a messaging app, and suggested he should pick it up. He stated he rode his bike to where the truck was parked and observed that the keys were in the truck, so he took it. The individual stated he left his bike in the abandoned building. He then drove the truck to Dorchester to pick up the friend that had told him about the vehicle.
After briefly meeting with the friend, the suspect came back to Abbotsford and was going to drop the truck off where he found it when he noticed the patrol squad coming from the trail that led to the abandoned building. He said he knew it was law enforcement, and attempted to lose the officer. The suspect said he did not know how the truck got to the abandoned building in the first place.
The individual was transported to the juvenile detention facility in Wausau. A juvenile referral was completed on the individual for operating a vehicle without owner’s consent (second offense), fleeing an officer, recklessly endangering safety, and resisting/obstructing officer.
On Sept. 11, the owner of the vehicle advised that one of her workers had parked the truck at one of their shop buildings in Dorchester on Sept. 10. The owner stated they did not believe there was any damage to the vehicle, but had observed that it was extremely hot when they had picked it up from the officers. The owner advised that the truck had been left in four-wheel-drive, which was probably why it was hot.
The officer issued citations for failure to stop at a stop sign, unreasonable and imprudent speed, and operating without a valid license to the individual.
■ ■ Sept. 12 - An officer responded to a Colby residence to address a trespassing complaint. The complainant stated they had kicked their son out of the residence several weeks ago and told him he could come and get all his belongings whenever he wanted, but they had to be home when he did. The complainant said their son had come to get his belongings when they were not home and took other clothing that did not belong to him. The complainant stated they no longer wanted their son on their property and would like him cited or arrested for trespassing if he comes onto the property again.
The officer called the son and told him that he could be cited or arrested for trespassing if he comes on the property again. The son hung up the phone on the officer.
■ ■ Sept. 12 - An officer on patrol was flagged down by an individual and their partner in front of their residence. The individual stated they had tried calling the police and couldn’t get through to anyone. The partner told the officer they had gotten into an argument with the individual’s son. The partner stated that the son had wanted to use the bathroom, but they didn’t want him to, so they got in an argument. The officer asked where the son was now. The individual stated they had told the son to take the dog for a walk to calm down. The officer was told that the partner lived with the individual and the son at the residence and that they didn’t have a place to go for the night to separate themselves from the son. The partner then told the officer that they were suicidal with a history of suicide attempts. The partner agreed to speak to someone at a crisis center.
While the partner was on the phone, the officer spoke with the individual about the incident. The individual stated that the son had said he had to use the bathroom and their partner ran into the bathroom, locked the door and told him he couldn’t use it because they were going to use it. The individual told their partner to just let the son use the bathroom quickly. The individual stated they took the son to a restaurant to use the bathroom since they had to go to the bank anyway. When they got back home, their partner got in their son’s face and was yelling at him and trying to get him to hit them. The son then went outside and the partner followed, still yelling at him. The partner came back into the house and tried to throw themselves down the stairs. The individual stopped them and tried calling the non-emergency phone number for the police department but no one answered so the two came outside to wait to see if an officer would drive by.
The son returned and told the same story about having to use the bathroom and the partner not letting him. The son stated the partner never hit him but they were both chest bumping each other. He said that the partner was yelling loud enough outside for the neighbors to hear.
The partner finished speaking with the crisis line. The officer was told that they had volunteered to go to the hospital, but did not have transportation, so the crisis center would call the partner back that night to check on them. The partner seemed to be calmed down after speaking to the crisis center. The partner said they often have trouble controlling their emotions and they believe
See POLICE REPORTS/ Page 8 Police reports
Continued from page 7
they have mental health problems. The officer provided the partner with phone numbers for county services and the crisis line.
The officer asked if the son had any other family members he could stay with that night to separate him and the partner, since the partner had nowhere else to go. The individual called their brother, who agreed to let the son stay over. The officer stayed while the individual took their son to their brother’s house. The officer explained to the partner that a charge of disorderly conduct would be requested from the district attorney.
■ ■ Sept. 13 - An officer received a phone call from a resident stating their dog had run away that morning when they let it out. Later, a good Samaritan brought the dog to the police department. The officer called the owner to pick up the dog. The owner stated they had already left for work and would pick it up that evening.
This is the eighth complaint regarding the owner’s dogs, with the owner having received five previous citations. The officer told the owner they need to figure out a way to keep their dogs in the yard, perhaps by using a long leash line. The owner was cited for permitting an animal to run at large.
■ ■ Sept. 14 - While on routine patrol in Abbotsford, an officer was flagged down by a concerned citizen who informed the officer of someone sleeping in the driver’s seat of a truck parked on the side of the road. The officer drove to the area and saw a vehicle parked on the side of the road. The officer knew that there had been a dance at the establishment next to where the truck was parked. The officer walked up to the driver’s door and saw a male individual sleeping in the driver’s seat. The vehicle was not running and the officer did not see any keys in or near the ignition. They did, however, see multiple beer cans in the center console and a case of beer on the passenger side floor.
The officer knocked on the driver’s door and window several times to get the sleeping individual’s attention. He did not wake up. Seeing that the driver’s door was unlocked, the officer opened the door and tapped the individual on the shoulder to wake him. The officer asked if he was just sleeping it off from the night prior, to which the individual said it was better to just sleep in the truck so that he wouldn’t get a DUI. The officer asked if he had been at the dance the night before, which he confirmed. The officer could smell a strong odor of alcohol coming from the individual as he spoke with him.
The officer ran the individual through dispatch and found that he was on probation. The officer asked the individual what he was on probation for. The individual told the officer he forgot about that. He stated he did not have any restrictions for alcohol and just had to stay out of trouble. The officer asked if he wanted a ride home to Curtiss, which the individual agreed to. The officer took the man home and advised him to let his probation agent know he had contact with police.
■ ■ Sept.14 - An officer received an ATV complaint in Abbotsford. The complainant told the officer that a male was driving his ATV in the alley at a high rate of speed and kicking up rocks. The officer met with the complainant and was shown a video of the ATV in the alley. The complainant told the officer they spoke with the ATV driver and told them the police were called. The ATV driver swore at the complainant then went home and was seen leaving in a vehicle. The officer was shown where the ATV went.
The officer went to the ATV driver’s house, but no one was home. The officer spoke with the upstairs neighbor who confirmed it was the individual who lived there that was driving and stated they had almost struck the neighbor’s vehicle with the ATV as they were leaving the driveway. An officer made contact with the driver later in the evening and warned them about their driving behavior on the ATV.
■ ■ Sept.15 - An officer was dispatched to the police station for a potential domestic disturbance complaint. A male had called and stated he hit his wife in the face and she was bleeding and needed an ambulance.
The officer arrived at the police department, but did not locate anyone there. Dispatch then advised them that the caller was now at his residence in Abbotsford. The officer arrived at the residence and met with the couple, who began arguing. The officer recognized the male from previous contacts. The wife told the officer that nothing physical happened. She said they had been arguing, and the husband had been drinking.
The officer spoke with the husband first. The husband expressed frustration with his general life situation, but denied any intent to harm himself. The officer asked why he had called the police. The husband stated he and his wife were at a friend’s house drinking and got into an argument. He said both had gotten mad and the wife drove off and he followed her. He stated they had been screaming at each other, but nothing physical happened. He claimed to have hit her because he didn’t want to see his wife and wanted to leave and go to jail. He said he didn’t want to see anyone and wanted space. The officer asked what the argument was about. The husband stated anything and everything. The officer suggested the husband stay at a hotel instead of trying to go to jail. The husband seemed to accept the suggestion.
The officer then spoke with the wife, who stated they had been arguing about relationship issues after they got home from their friend’s house. The husband had gone inside the residence and locked her out. She did not want to knock, so she went back to her car and was going to drive to her parents’ house. The husband ended up following her in his own vehicle and was driving recklessly, so she pulled into the police station and parked. He followed and then called dispatch and reported that he hit her. She stated she just sat in the car and did not get out. She stated she did not make the call and did not feel that she was in danger. She said the husband called the police again on her phone to tell them they were at their residence.
The officer advised the couple to separate for the night. The officer asked the husband if he still wanted to go to the hotel. The husband once again requested to go to jail, and when the officer denied the request, he decided to stay with a friend instead.
■ ■ Sept.15 - An officer was dispatched to the police station for a potential domestic disturbance complaint. A male had called and stated he hit his wife in the face and she was bleeding and needed an ambulance.
The officer arrived at the police department, but did not locate anyone there. Dispatch then advised them that the caller was now at his residence in Abbotsford. The officer arrived at the residence and met with the couple, who began arguing. The officer recognized the male from previous contacts. The wife told the officer that nothing physical happened. She said they had been arguing, and the husband had been drinking.
The officer spoke with the husband first. The husband expressed frustration with his general life situation, but denied any intent to harm himself. The officer asked why he had called the police. The husband stated he and his wife were at a friend’s house drinking and got into an argument. He said both had gotten mad and the wife drove off and he followed her. He stated they had been screaming at each other, but nothing physical happened. He claimed to have hit her because he didn’t want to see his wife and wanted to leave and go to jail. He said he didn’t want to see anyone and wanted space. The officer asked what the argument was about. The husband stated anything and everything. The officer suggested the husband stay at a hotel instead of trying to go to jail. The husband seemed to accept the suggestion.
The officer then spoke with the wife, who stated they had been arguing about relationship issues after they got home from their friend’s house. The husband had gone inside the residence and locked her out. She did not want to knock, so she went back to her car and was going to drive to her parents’ house. The husband ended up following her in his own vehicle and was driving recklessly, so she pulled into the police station and parked. He followed and then called dispatch and reported that he hit her. She stated she just sat in the car and did not get out. She stated she did not make the call and did not feel that she was in danger. She said the husband called the police again on her phone to tell them they were at their residence.
The officer advised the couple to separate for the night. The officer asked the husband if he still wanted to go to the hotel. The husband once again requested to go to jail, and when the officer denied the request, he decided to stay with a friend instead.
