Law Enforcement

■ Jan. 22 - An officer responded to a possible scam complaint from a Colby resident who was skeptical of a check they had received in the mail. The complainant explained that the check appeared to have come from the U.S. Treasury, but they had not requested the check and were not sure why they would have received it.

The complainant showed the officer said they received a yearly life insurance statement around tax time. The complainant stated that the amount of money on the check and amount of money in their account did not match. They become suspicious after reading something about going to jail on the reverse side of the check. The officer read the back of the check, which described the penalty for forging a U.S. Treasury check. The officer observed the check to have all the security features of a legitimate U.S. Treasury check.

The officer told the complainant that they believed the check to be valid based on the security features, but they could not be fully sure. The complainant was advised not to cash the check until they could confirm through a legitimate source that it was a valid, legal check.

The complainant called the officer back on Jan. 23 after learning that their life insurance policy had matured and the check was legitimate.

■ ■ Jan. 23 - An officer received a complaint from an individual who stated that they had sold a vehicle to a friend in early November of 2024. They did not take off the license plates at the time, and the new owner of the vehicle failed to register the vehicle in their own name. The complainant realized the vehicle was still registered in their name after receiving a bill from Illinois for multiple unpaid tolls.

The complainant believes there will probably be more bills from tollways, as the new owner travels often from Wisconsin to Illinois, Ohio, Indiana, and Kentucky. The complainant provided a screenshot of the check they had received from the new owner’s father as proof of sale, since the title is with the vehicle. The complainant reached out to the father, and advised him of the bills, but the father had been unsuccessful in his attempts to contact the new owner.

The officer provided the complainant with a license plate cancellation application, and instructed them to send the completed form to the DMV to get the registration cancelled. The officer also said they would write a report in case it is needed to dispute the toll charges. The total toll charge was $51.90.

■ ■ Jan. 23 - An officer took a report of a possible bond violation from the guardian of a juvenile. The guardian stated the mother of the juvenile was only supposed to have supervised contact with a social worker at a location in Marshfield. The guardian said they had not had previous issues with the mother, and that she did not usually attend the scheduled visitation times.

Recently, the juvenile’s grandmother informed them that the mother was planning on attending a family get-together. The mother allegedly told the grandmother that she no longer had the no-contact provision with the juvenile. Both the mother and juvenile attended the party, though they did not speak alone, if at all, together.

The guardian looked at the mother’s bond conditions and was no longer able to find where it said the visits needed to be supervised. The guardian stated that there were no issues this time, but if she was not allowed to have contact with the juvenile and did not receive any penalty, then the behavior would most likely worsen. The guardian wanted the occasion documented.

The officer checked the bond conditions and found there was nothing regarding contact with the juvenile. The officer called the social worker involved with the case and left a message for them to call back with any conditions/ requirements on the visitations.

■ ■ Jan. 26 - An officer was dispatched to a bar in Abbotsford in reference to an individual who had been trying to start fights. The officer was informed that the individual had gotten into an SUV and was driving away. The officer observed the reported vehicle pulling into a residential driveway and saw the driver exit and begin walking toward the residence.

The officer recognized the driver from prior contacts and stopped them before they entered the residence. The officer could smell alcohol coming from the driver’s breath as they spoke and asked if they had been drinking. The driver stated they had one drink and denied having driven anywhere. The officer informed the driver that they had followed the driver to the address they were at and had watched the driver get out of the driver’s seat. The driver stated their friend had driven them there. The officer did not observe any other individuals get out of the vehicle.

The officer asked the driver if they would be willing to do field sobriety tests to make sure they were good to drive. The driver again denied driving. The officer was then informed that the driver had an open case through Clark County and was not allowed to enter bars or make threats toward anyone.

A second officer arrived on scene and informed the first officer that they had spoken with the complainant. The complainant stated that they had been at the bar when the driver started to yell and call them names before trying to attack them. The driver was dragged outside, but they came back in and tried to start a fight with the complainant again. The complainant stated that they witnessed the driver drink five or six shots and three mixed drinks while at the bar. The complainant then witnessed the driver get into their vehicle and drive away. They had noticed the driver to be stumbling when they walked and slurring their speech.

The officer again approached the driver and asked them if they would be willing to do field sobriety tests. The driver stated once again that they had not driven. The officer informed the driver that they were under arrest for operating while under the influence (1st).

The driver was transported to the police station, where they consented to a breath test The driver blew several time into the Intoxilyzer, but did not blow hard enough to complete the test. The driver was issued citations for operating while under the influence (1st), and disorderly conduct.

The officer later spoke with a witness who was working at the bar at the time of the incident. The witness stated that the driver had been served two shots of tequila and three drinks mixed with rum.

■ ■ Jan. 26 - An officer met with an individual in Abbotsford in reference to a fraud complaint. The complainant stated they had received a phone call at their place of employment. The caller claimed to be an “Officer Bishop” from the CAPD and asked the complainant to take all the money from inside their place of employment and exchange it for $500 gift cards from a store in Abbotsford. “Officer Bishop” then sent a bar code through text message, which the cashier at the store scanned after taking the gift card. The complainant then went to a gas station to send more money to “Officer Bishop,” but the cashier there would not let them as it appeared to be a scam.

The complainant stated that they thought they were talking to a law enforcement officer and needed to listen to him. The officer informed the complainant that law enforcement doesn’t ask for money to be sent to them. The officer advised that if they received a phone call like this again to contact law enforcement. The officer then contacted the owner of the business to inform them of what had happened.

■ ■ Jan. 27 - An officer took a fraud complaint from an individual who had posted an ad on social media offering a cleaning service. They received a text message from an individual interested in the cleaning service for a property in Abbotsford he had just purchased. The individual claimed to be a doctor in California, but said he would be moving soon and needed the house cleaned before the move. The individual said an electrician would be at the residence for repairs and asked the complainant if they could do them a favor and pay the electrician for their services. The complainant thought they would be nice and help the individual pay the electrician.

The individual sent the complainant a series of “checks” through text message. One check was for $2,015 and another for $1,100.50. The checks were made out to the complainant by a company, which the complainant had looked up and found to be legitimate. This, along with the individual’s claim of being a doctor, gave the complainant the confidence to trust them.

The complainant was instructed to go to their local bank, cash the checks, buy prepaid gift cards at multiple establishments and give the card numbers to the individual so they could pay the electrician. The complainant printed out the checks on normal printer paper and brought them to the bank. The clerk stapled the back signature page to the front of the check. The complainant signed both checks and was given cash for them. With the cash, the complainant purchased ten $100 cards and a $465 card in Abbotsford, as well as two $500 gift cards in Marshfield.

The complainant was instructed to give the codes for the cards to the individual over text, and to keep $500 for themselves as gas money for the drive to Marshfield. The complainant became suspicious of the individual’s intent after the individual gave a different name for the electrician than the first time. The complainant was sent another check for $1,400 to make additional payments to the electrician. Due to their suspicion, the complainant did not cash this check, and deleted it from their messaging app. The complainant also contacted their realtor, who advised them that the property in question was for sale, but no offers had been made.

The officer informed the complainant that it was indeed a scam, and explained how the scam worked. The officer advised the complainant to contact the bank the next day and expect that the checks would bounce. The officer notified the bank of the complaint. Staff said they were aware, as one of the two checks had not cleared. They stated the complainant was informed the checks were possibly fraudulent, but they continued with the transaction. Bank staff were worried that the complainant knew the checks were fraudulent. The officer did not believe the complainant knew the checks were fraudulent, as they were a victim of a scam.

■ ■ Jan. 27 - An officer was made aware of an ordinance complainant at an Abbotsford residence, involving an unregistered vehicle that had not moved in a month. The officer went to the residence and observed the vehicle that did not have a registration plate attached. The officer contacted the owner and notified them of the complaint. The owner stated they just got a new vehicle and were waiting for a warmer day to clean the old one out so they could sell it.

■ ■ Jan. 28 - An officer was notified by the director of a care facility in Abbotsford of a fall that had occurred the night prior. A resident had fallen out of bed and injured their hip, requiring medical attention. The resident was able to get the attention of staff shortly after the fall and was attended to.

■ ■ Jan. 28 - An officer responded to a report of a crash that had taken place in Abbotsford. The officer met with the individual who had reported the incident. The individual stated they had been plowing with their tractor on East Spruce Street and were being followed by a truck. The tractor had turned to plow around a mailbox, when the truck behind them attempted to pass in a no passing zone, and as the tractor turned, the truck passed by in the oncoming traffic lane. The tractor bucket struck the truck’s front tire and scraped down the length of the truck. The truck continued driving.

The individual stated that the incident did not cause any damage to their tractor, but wanted the incident reported in case the other driver eventually came forward. The officer checked cameras at the address near the incident and found the truck leaving the scene of the accident.

■ ■ Jan. 29 - An officer took a complaint from an individual who said someone attempted to break into a vehicle parked in the driveway of their residence in Abbotsford. The complainant stated one of the doors to the vehicle had some damage to it, as it appeared whoever tried to break into the vehicle used a crowbar. The complainant did not know who tried to break into the vehicle and did not have footage of it as their door camera was dead. The complainant also mentioned that there has been someone attempting to break into vehicles in Colby over the last couple months. An unidentified individual actually caught someone trying to break into their vehicle and chased them off. The complainant did not want the officer to take pictures of their vehicle, as they just wanted law enforcement to be aware of the incident.

■ ■ Jan. 31 - An officer took a possible theft report at a nursing home in Abbotsford. The officer met with a social worker at the facility, who advised that a male resident had taken another resident's last four cigarettes sometime the previous night. The cigarettes had already been replaced and the male resident had been spoken to about the incident. The male resident admitted to taking the cigarettes, and the staff agreed to work on preventing him from accessing other rooms.

The officer spoke with the complainant, who stated that they had observed the male

See POLICE REPORTS/ Page 8 Police reports

Continued from page 7

resident in their room over night, and he had grabbed their last few cigarettes. The complaint said they had been heavily medicated from a recent surgery and were pretty loopy, but knew the male resident was the culprit. The complainant wasn’t too concerned about the stolen cigarettes and was mainly upset about the male resident taking their things. They asked that the officer talk with him about it.

The officer met with the male resident, who stated he did go into complainant’s room the night prior and asked them for their last two cigarettes. The other resident woke up and told him they were in the coat pocket. The male resident claimed he had permission and thought the complainant was possibly retaliating against him due to him declining their sexual advances. The officer advised him to avoid contact with the other resident and no longer go into their room. The male resident stated he would not do that anymore.

■ ■ Jan. 31 - An officer received a call from an individual regarding their ex’s refusal to participate in their scheduled child custody exchange. The complainant said the ex was supposed to meet them at the Marshfield Police Department, but had not shown. The complainant had texted the ex earlier in the day, and said that they would pick the kids up from school to save the ex a drive. The complainant called the school to inform them of their intentions and the ex did not respond to their message. The complainant later found out that the ex had picked the kids up just prior to school letting out.

The complainant was bothered by the ex not following the court order and asked what could be done. The officer advised it would be something they would have to take to family court. The complainant stated they had just filed paperwork with the court earlier that day about the ex violating the order.

The complainant stated they were not sure where they should be reporting the incident, as the exchange was supposed to occur in the Marshfield PD parking lot. The officer advised that incidents like this were typically reported in the jurisdiction the exchange is supposed to take place. The officer told the individual that since they already told the CAPD about the incident, the officer would type up the report and send it to Marshfield PD. The officer advised the individual to notify the local PD there in the future for issues concerning this specific matter.

■ ■ Feb. 1 - An officer received a complaint from someone in Abbotsford who witnessed a male subject exit his vehicle and urinate outside. The witness had video and pictures of the behavior if needed, and noted that children play near that area. The officer ran the license plate provided by the witness and found that the registered owner was on probation for drunk driving causing injury and had a warrant for failure to appear through Waupaca County.

The officer located the vehicle parked where it had been reported, and observed two males inside, with three cases of beer opened in the back seats. The officer met with the male in the driver’s seat, later identified as the owner, and the passenger. The officer explained the reason for the contact and asked if either of them had urinated outside the vehicle. Both males denied the act. The officer told them there was a witness with video of one of them peeing outside. The owner then admitted he had been the one that urinated outside.

The officer asked the male in the driver’s seat for his identifying information. He stated he did not have any form of ID on him, and wrote down a false ID. The passenger provided his accurate information. The officer checked the name written down by the driver, and it did not come back on file. The officer looked at the photo listed under the owner’s probation, and it appeared similar to the male in the driver’s seat. The officer requested a Clark County deputy identify the male with his fingerprints and asked dispatch for a booking photo for the owner.

While waiting for the requested information, the officer spoke with the witness, who provided a picture of the male urinating. It showed the passenger as being the suspect. The officer asked if the driver had gotten out to do the same. The witness stated they only observed the passenger do so. The officer then went back and issued a citation for urinating in public to the passenger, who admitted he had urinated outside the vehicle.

The officer then told the male in the driver’s seat they suspected he was lying about his name. The officer asked if he would tell them his real name. The male maintained his name was what he had written down. The officer received the booking photo, the subject of which appeared to be the same individual as the male in the driver’s seat. The Clark County deputy arrived and took the male’s fingerprints, which were a match to the prints on file for the owner.

The officer informed the owner of the warrant and placed him under arrest. The owner stated he knew he missed a court date and had attempted to call, but did not receive any calls back. The owner consented to a preliminary breath test, the result of which was 0.096. The officer called probation and parole to inform them of the incident. They advised that they would be placing a hold on the owner. The suspect was transported to the Clark County Jail. The officer requested a charge of obstruction.