Law Enforcement
■ ■ Jan. 9 - An officer took a burglary report from an Abbotsford resident. The complainant had received a notification on Dec. 31 from their front door security camera that motion had been detected. The complainant was out of town, as was their daughter. They knew that the daughter had contacted a friend to come to the house to take care of their house cat, so they did not check the camera.
The next day, the complainant did not receive any notifications from the camera, which they found strange as the friend should have come to take care of the cat. The complainant tried to check the camera remotely over an app and found that it was not connected to the internet. The individual thought their daughter might have turned off the house wifi, but the daughter denied doing so.
The daughter returned home on Jan. 2 and turned the internet back on. The complainant checked the last video clip taken from the camera and saw two males dressed in dark clothing walk up to the door. The first suspect wore a dark colored hooded sweatshirt and sweatpants. The second suspect also had dark colored clothing and had a set of keys dangling on a key ring, which was attached to the belt loop on the suspect’s front hip. The two suspects were attempting to cover their faces as they entered the residence. The camera system went offline shortly after. The complainant asked their daughter about the males. The daughter had no knowledge of anyone planning on going to the house. The complainant returned on Jan. 9 and reported the incident. They did not notice anything out of place or appearing to have been rummaged through, but the daughter said a pair of shoes worth $50 and an envelope containing $300 cash was missing. The complainant also noticed that the internet router cords were disconnected.
The daughter named a suspect she heard rumors about. Cameras facing the suspect’s apartment showed the two suspects entering the residence on Dec. 31. The officer recognized the first suspect from prior law enforcement contacts and understood that the suspect’s girlfriend lived at the apartment with the second suspect. The first suspect was seen entering the apartment wearing a red sweatshirt and red checkered sweatpants. A few minutes later, the suspect left wearing the same outfit seen in the complainant’s security video. The first suspect’s vehicle was seen arriving back at the apartment. Both suspects exited the vehicle and walked into the apartment, wearing the same clothes seen in the complainant’s security video.
The officer also recognized the second suspect from prior law enforcement contacts. The officer understood the two to be friends and in a self-proclaimed gang together. The suspects were seen leaving the apartment, with the first suspect carrying what appeared to be the red clothes they were wearing earlier. The first suspect returned to the apartment alone, wearing the red clothing.
The officer was able to obtain video of the suspects’ movements at another location and created a timeline of the incident. The officer also checked the second suspect’s social media page to compare and confirm their profile picture to the security video.
On Jan. 17, the officer went with a Marathon County deputy to arrest the first suspect at their place of employment. The suspect was informed of their warrant and was placed under arrest. The suspect requested that their belongings from their work locker be brought with them. The property was retrieved and searched, and the officer found a vape pen with the image of a marijuana leaf on it. The vape was seized and taken back to the CAPD for testing, the results of which came back positive for THC.
The first suspect was taken to the police station to be questioned. The suspect confirmed that they knew the daughter of the complainant, but denied knowing anything about the burglary. The officer informed the suspect of the video evidence. The suspect still denied breaking into the residence. They claimed to have been at a Christmas Eve party. The officer told the suspect the incident happened on New Year’s Eve. The suspect stated they celebrated Christmas Eve differently from the usual day.
The officer asked where the suspect was at 4:46 pm on Jan. 31. The suspect stated they were driving around Abbotsford with their friend, the second suspect. They stopped at a park, and then drove to Colby. The suspect denied having ever been to the complainant’s house.
The officer informed the first suspect that they were literally on camera committing the act. The suspect then admitted to having entered the residence, but denied taking anything or tampering with the internet router. The suspect said they had not planned on breaking in and it had just kind of happened as they were in a low place lately, and just wanted something of value. The suspect said it was their idea, and they regretted it once inside. The suspect stated they had not gone into any other rooms and had backed out quickly after entering. The suspect told the officer that they had changed their clothes, but it was unrelated to the break in. The officer ended the interview, and the first suspect was taken to the Clark County Jail. Charges of burglary and theft were requested.
The officer interviewed the second suspect on Jan. 18. The second suspect stated they had a party on Dec. 31 and had spent most of the morning in Marshfield gathering supplies for the party. The second suspect said they got back to Abbotsford around 12 p.m. and drove around Abbotsford with the first suspect. They stopped at the first suspect’s girlfriend’s apartment to grab some clothes for the party, but didn’t stop anywhere else and just drove around talking.
The second suspect then asked why they were being questioned about the burglary. The officer asked if the first suspect was involved with the break-in. The second suspect stated they did not know, but knew that the suspect named by the daughter was. The second suspect denied being involved in any of it. The officer then informed the second suspect that the first suspect had admitted to the burglary, and that the second suspect was caught on camera committing the burglary with the first suspect.
The second suspect then stated that there were actually four people that robbed the house. The second suspect named the first suspect, the individual named by the daughter, and a third individual. The second suspect stated that they knew that the two named individuals weren’t on camera, but they also broke into the residence. The third individual knew that there was no one at the residence, and the second suspect went because they had bills and needed to buy some items for their child. The second suspect said that they went inside the residence, tried looking for things, but didn’t find anything and left. The second suspect then stated that “they” went back and found some weed on the second search. The second suspect claimed to be at their girlfriend’s house during the second invasion, and wasn’t sure if the first suspect was involved the second time, but the two other individuals were.The second suspect was placed under arrest for burglary and theft and transported to the Clark County Jail.
■ ■ Jan. 13 - An officer took a suspicious vehicle report from a business owner in Abbotsford. The owner stated that a female employee told them about a vehicle that was making her uncomfortable. The past two times she was working there, a truck stopped in front of the business within five minutes of closing time. No one got out of the truck, and it sat there for five minutes before leaving. The employee had thought it may have been the owner or one of the managers, but both denied being there. The employee said that the timing of the truck showing up at closing time made her uncomfortable, and was urged by her parents to report the matter to the police. The most recent instance occurred on Jan. 12, at about 5:50 p.m.
The officer checked the security videos and observed a dark colored truck enter the camera view at 5:50 p.m, and park in front of the front door on the west side of the building. It sat for five minutes, with no one getting in or out, before leaving northbound on STH 13. The officer was unable to get a license plate number, but observed the truck to be a GMC Sierra, newer than 2020, four door, with a tonneau cover that was in the rolled up/stowed position. The truck had unique rims and chrome door handles. The officer told the complainants that they would notify the rest of the CAPD to conduct extra patrols around the business on the days that the employee worked. They were also advised to call if the truck showed back up.
■ ■ Jan. 13 - An officer met with a complainant to discuss messages they had found between their 11-year-old daughter and a 31year-old family friend. The complainant stated that the family friend lives in Eau Claire and they cut him off after finding the messages. The officer reviewed the messages between the two, which consisted of the man calling the child beautiful and wanting to kiss her. The child expressed happiness at the compliment, and said she did not know how to kiss, but would like to kiss him. She then mentions that her aunts would be upset if they found out about her and the man kissing. The child eventually told the man that if he cared for her he would have to wait until she was older for a kiss or anything further.
The complainant stated that her daughter had met the man in person at their house due to him being a former friend. The complainant talked to her daughter and confirmed that nothing physical had ever happened between her and the man. The complainant had also spoken to the man and told him to stop contacting her child.
The officer told the complainant they would call the man and let him know that the contact needed to stop. The officer advised the complainant to block the man on the daughter’s messaging app, and monitor her usage of the app. The officer later called the man and advised him to stop the contact with the child to avoid any possible issues in the future.
■ ■ Jan.16 - An officer spoke with an individual regarding a child custody agreement that he had with his ex. The individual stated that his ex texted them saying that she would not let him take the children the following day. The individual stated that he had custody of the children that day. He also mentioned that there was currently an investigation through Clark County, and the ex told him that she was not going to give him the children, and they would be staying with her for the weekend.
The officer asked if the ex had gone to court and asked for full custody of the children while the investigation was still ongoing. The individual stated that she did not, and the only agreement they had was out of Marathon County. The individual also mentioned that the ex had told him that she advised officers about the children not being safe with him. He said his ex was allegedly told to keep the children and not follow the child custody agreement. The individual didn’t know which officer she had spoken with.
The officer advised that they would make contact with the ex, as well as the deputy investigating the Clark County case to see if they had told her not to follow court order. The officer called the Clark County deputy, who stated that they did not tell the ex to not follow the child custody agreement, and had not spoken with her that day. The officer then contacted Wood County dispatch to see if the ex had called to ask about child custody. Wood County advised that she did not. The officer then called the ex. The ex stated that her oldest child did not want to go with the individual, and her youngest child was sick. The officer asked if she mentioned that to the individual. She said yes. The officer asked if she had spoken with Marshfield police. She did not answer, and instead she began to speak about the Clark County case. She stated she was not going to let the complainant take the kids until the investigation was over. The officer asked again when she spoke with the Marshfield PD. She stated she had called them in the past, but had not done so recently.
The officer asked if social services told her to keep the children while the investigation was being conducted. She stated that she told social services that she was going to keep the children. She stated that she had not gone to court for a new custody agreement for full custody while the investigation was occurring because the incident had only happened the weekend prior.
The officer advised that she would need to follow the court ordered child custody agreement and warned of the consequences of violating the court order. She stated she would call the Marshfield PD, and if they told her not to force the children, they would not be going with the complainant. The officer advised that the Marshfield PD will tell her the same thing that they had just told her. The officer informed the ex that there is help through the courts for her to get a temporary child custody agreement while the investigation is still ongoing, but if it doesn’t happen by Jan. 17, she will need to follow the current court order agreement.
The officer ended contact with the ex and called the complainant to inform him of the conversation. The officer advised that he would need to contact Wood County if she fails to comply with the court order.
The officer was later contacted by an officer from Marshfield PD, who advised that they had told the ex that she could not violate the court order.
