Law Enforcement

■ March 21 - An officer was dispatched to the residence in Colby in reference to a child custody complaint. Upon arrival, the officer spoke with the complainant, who stated that he had been living at a hotel in Eau Claire with his wife. He also stated that he and his wife had been married for a month and that the day before, the pair had gotten into an argument and she had left the hotel. The complainant said that he had gotten his wife an Uber back to the hotel when another argument ensued.

According to the complainant, he was holding their three-month old child during the second argument and that his wife then took the baby formula and all the other belongings for the baby and left once more. He then stated that she had gone to Minnesota and that he had called a friend to take him and the child to Colby.

Upon looking around the apartment where the complainant was staying, the officer could see that the complainant had everything that he needed to provide care for the child.

The complainant stated that he had a meeting in a week to find out if he could legally move back to Florida with his child or if he had to stay in Wisconsin until the divorce was finalized. The officer advised the complainant that he would have to contact the Eau Claire police department if he wanted to report anything about the arguments that occurred at the hotel.

During the time the officer was at the residence, the complainant had taken a picture of the officer’s vehicle and had sent it to his wife. As soon as the officer had left the residence, the wife had called dispatch and when the officer called back, they left a voicemail advising that she call back.

On Saturday, March 23, the wife called the officer back. The wife told the officer that she had called on Friday but that no one had returned her call. After asking how they would be able to assist her, the wife stated that it was her constitutional right as a parent to have her child with her. The officer stated that because she was married to the complainant and he is the father, that he also had rights as well. The officer added that they were not going to get involved in a child custody case as it is a civil matter.

The wife then stated that the complainant had attacked her in Eau Claire and that she had video of the incident. The officer asked why she had not reported this to the police, to which she stated that the complainant had taken her phone and she had not been able to make the call. She also said that the complainant had deleted all the evidence on her phone and that the police never side with her, stating that she is the one who gets arrested if she reports anything. The officer questioned how she was able to text the complainant but was not able to make a call and also said that the complainant had also recorded the events and had shown them the video. They then said that if she felt she was attacked, she needed to contact the Eau Claire police department so they could investigate the incident. After asking for the officer’s name and badge number, the wife thanked the officer and ended the phone call.

■ March 31 - While traveling between Abbotsford and Colby, an officer observed a vehicle going in the same direction that was exhibiting erratic driving behavior. The vehicle crossed into the opposite lane before correcting, prompting the officer to activate their emergency lights and conduct a traffic stop on the vehicle.

Upon exiting the squad car, the officer observed a liquid hitting the rear window, as if something had been thrown into the back seat. When the officer approached the vehicle, the officer noticed two half-full glass bottles of beer, as well as a case of beer located on the rear floorboard.

As the officer approached the driver side door and indicated to the driver to roll down the window, the driver struggled to do so, eventually resorting to unlocking the door and allowing the officer to open the door. The officer then explained why they had pulled over the driver, citing that the driver had been crossing the centerline, and then asked for the driver’s identification. The driver stated that they did not have an ID card and the officer then took the driver’s information down. During this time, the officer received several different answers from the driver when he was asked for his birthday. The officer noticed that the driver was slurring his words and speaking slowly and that there was a strong odor of intoxicants coming from inside the vehicle during their conversation with the driver.

Another officer on the scene identified the passenger in the vehicle and discovered that they had just come from a bar.

The initial officer returned to their vehicle briefly and during this time, the driver exited his vehicle and began to make his way towards the squad car. The second officer once again questioned the driver as to his identifying information, for which another birthdate was given.

After the driver was told to remain where he was, the first officer returned to their vehicle, where they ran both the driver and the passenger through ETIME. The driver initially did not appear in the system, so the officer asked dispatch to check in-house if there were any names similar to the one given by the driver. Dispatch advised that there was someone with such a name with one of the birthdays that had been supplied by the driver. A Clark County deputy was then requested for a portable fingerprint scanner for identifying purposes.

The deputy arrived on scene and administered a fingerprint scan on the driver, but no identifying information was gathered from the test.

The first officer then asked the driver if he would be willing to do standardized field sobriety tests, which the driver agreed to. During several tests, the driver was observed to not have been able to complete several of the instructions, being unable to adequately follow the officer’s finger when asked to, struggling to maintain balance while standing on one foot and failing to follow instructions when attempting to walk in a straight line and turn around.

The officer then asked the driver if they would be willing to take a preliminary breath test, to which the driver agreed. The result of the test showed the driver’s blood alcohol concentration to be over the legal limit.

Another fingerprint scan was conducted in an attempt to gather identifying information, but once again the scan turned up no information.

The officer then placed the driver under arrest for operating under the influence. After handcuffing the driver and finding nothing evidentiary during a search of their person, the driver was placed in the passenger seat of the officer’s vehicle. The passenger was then informed that he was free to go and walked home. The officer brought the driver to the Colby-Abbotsford police department, where he was escorted to the intox room. A chemical breath test was then performed and during the 20 minute observation period, the officer once again tried to get the driver’s information. After not being able to get an address from the driver, the driver contacted a sibling, who was able to supply an address for the man.

The officer issued and explained the citations for operating while under the influence, operating with a PAC greater than/equal to .15, operating left of center and operating without a valid license. The driver’s sibling then arrived at the station and assumed responsibility for the man.