Law Enforcement

■ Sept. 24 - An officer took a scam complaint from a resident of Colby, who stated they had received a piece of mail addressed to them, claiming to be part of the CARES Economic Stimulus Plan. The document appeared to be legit and was offering to lower their home interest rate to 2%. Thinking it was a good opportunity, the complainant began following the process outlined in the document. They contacted the supposed agent in charge of their account and were sent paperwork that also appeared legit. They were told they would not have to pay August or September mortgage payments through their current provider, as they would be switched to another company.

The scammers told the complainant they would need to write a $1,700 check for the processing fee to switch the mortgage over. The complainant did so and provided a picture of the check to the scammers. After receiving other forms from the scammers, the complainant was contacted by their mortgage company asking about the previous two months’ unpaid bills. It was then that the complainant realized they were being scammed and contacted their bank.

The complainant filed a fraud form with the bank and was told to file a police report in order to receive the funds. The officer provided the complainant with the FBI Online Scam Reporting website and advised they would complete a report on the incident.

■ ■ Sept. 25 - An officer pulled over a vehicle traveling south on South 4th Street in Abbotsford for a warrant issued through Clark County on the vehicle’s registered owner. The driver was arrested and taken to the police station. The driver was released once the full bond amount of $300 was paid.

■ ■ Sept. 26 - An officer received a noise complaint related to a truck that drives north on North First Street in Abbotsford every day, blasting music loud enough that the windows on nearby businesses rattle. The officers had been made aware of this same truck in the past for a similar complaint. The officer observed the truck parked at the owner’s residence and spoke with them. The owner was made aware of the complaints and given a warning. The officer advised that any further complaints would result in a citation.

■ ■ Sept. 26 - An officer met with a complainant in regards to an animal bite. The complainant told the officer that on Sept. 24, their cat saw another cat on the back porch, so the complainant opened the door to shoo the stray cat away from their house. They stated that when they came back into the house, their cat bit them on the top of their right foot. The complainant informed the officer that their cat had received vaccines when they adopted it about five years ago, but it had not received any since then. They advised that the cat is strictly an indoor cat that never goes outside. A rabies control form was completed and the complainant was instructed on the quarantine process.

■ ■ Sept. 28 - An officer was dispatched to a residence in Abbotsford for a criminal damage to a vehicle complaint. The officer met with the complainant, who was visiting from out of state and had rented the vehicle from the airport. The officer observed the passenger side window of the vehicle to be broken, with pieces of glass on the ground, as well as inside on the passenger seat and floor.

The complainant reported nothing had been stolen and stated the car had not been damaged when they parked it there at approximately 3 a.m. The complainant’s father stated they had come to the residence around 10 a.m. and did not see the damage at that time. The complainant had noticed the damage just before the officer’s arrival. They did not believe anyone would have reason to damage the vehicle. The complainant said the lawn had been mowed that morning and believed a rock accidentally thrown by the lawnmower may have caused the damage. The residence had a camera facing the driveway, but the complainant was unable to retrieve the footage. The neighbors also had a camera facing the scene, but the officer was informed that it wasn’t working either.

The officer took pictures of the damage and filed a report.

■ ■ Sept. 29 - An officer was flagged down by an Abbotsford resident who wanted to report a stolen political sign. The complainant stated the sign was outside of their apartment and suspected that the landlord removed it. The complainant told the officer that since the new owners had taken over, they were changing everything and enforcing a bunch of dumb rules. They advised that there had been a meeting with the tenants that the complainant had been unable to attend, and later learned from the other tenants that one of the new rules was that no political signs were allowed on the property.

The complainant stated the tenants had been told that a mailer with the new rule changes would be sent out and the tenant would have until Nov. 1 to get into compliance. They had yet to receive the mailer and were upset because the supposed deadline was a month out yet. The complainant was sure the landlord or manager had removed the sign and wanted it returned or charges of theft to be pressed against the landlord. The officer had the complainant fill out a lack of consent form in case the landlord was not responsible for the sign’s removal.

The complainant described the sign to have sayings making digs as the Republican candidate and estimated its worth at $22. The officer asked if the complainant had attempted to contact the landlord. The complainant was very upset and refused to speak to the property owner, and said that if the sign was not returned, they would be pressing charges. The officer told the complainant they would attempt to call the landlord to see if they had the sign.

The officer was unable to reach the landlord at that time. They left a message about the complaint and asked for a return call.

A few hours later, the complainant called again and said that if the sign was not returned by the end of the day they would be pressing charges against the landlord. The complainant said that they were not satisfied with the landlord waiting until it was convenient for them to return the sign. The complainant thought a proper punishment would be them making a trip into town to return the sign on a Sunday afternoon. The complainant said they had done some research on laws regarding political signs and did not want to escalate the situation, but said they would if it was not remedied that day.

A follow up was needed with the landlord to see if they were even responsible for removing the sign or could assist with looking at the cameras for a suspect.

On Sept. 30, the officer was contacted by the complainant who wanted a follow up on the theft. They complained about the new management’s policies and believed them to be against the law. The officer explained to the complainant that if the new property management has rules and policies in place, then they need to follow the new rules or find another place to live.

The officer asked if the complainant had asked the landlord for their sign back. The complainant stated they had, and said the landlord had called the complainant poverty stricken and other hurtful names. The officer asked the complainant if those were the landlord’s exact words. The complainant changed the subject and continued to rant about the new management. The officer said they would contact the landlord again and ask them to return the sign.

The officer spoke with the landlord who explained that since the property is low income and funded by the state, there can be no political signs on the premises or in the windows visible to the public. The landlord told the officer they will return the sign to the complainant and explain the rules. The landlord stated that these rules and policies were in place before their company had taken over, but were never enforced.