THURSDAY, JULY 7
Ÿ An officer was dispatched to a residence in regards to a vehicle broken into. The officer contacted the reporting party who said that she thought she had locked her car the previous night but that her kids might have gotten into the car and left it unlocked. That morning at approximately 8 a.m. she had found that her glove box and center console had been rifled through. There were no signs of forced entry. The reporting party said that her sunglasses and wallet were missing, and that she was most worried about a prepay Walmart card that had $2000 on it. There were two other vehicle owners that called to say someone had been in their vehicles and rifled through their belongings, but that nothing was missing and they did not want to file reports. The officer spoke with the reporting party again that day and she said that she had found her wallet in a yard on the corner of another street, with some items still in it, but missing her debit card, a credit card, and the prepay Walmart card, her Social Security card and two belonging to her children, and some cash. When asked if she wanted to bring the wallet to the police station to have it checked for fingerprints and to get her fingerprints for comparison, she said that she didn’t want to. There are no leads at this time.
FRIDAY, JULY 8
Ÿ An officer responded to City Market Pharmacy for a possible forged prescription. The pharmacy technician showed him a prescription form made out by a local physician to a male suspect. The technician informed the officer that there were two strengths of the drug Percocet, and that the physician does not usually write prescriptions for the higher strength of the drug. When pharmacy staff contacted the doctor about the prescription they were advised that he had written it for the lesser strength of the drug, not the strength shown that was several times stronger; the doctor told them not to fill the prescription and to contact the police. The officer spoke to the pharmacy technician who had taken the prescription from the suspect in the drive-thru. Another tech on duty reported that she had spoken to the suspect when he called before bringing in the prescription, and that he was wanting to know the price. After he called the pharmacy, his grandmother also called wanting to know the price. He dropped off the prescription and was told it would be ready in approximately half an hour. The officer waited near the scene for the suspect to return to pick up the prescription, when he received a call from the tech who let him know that the male suspect had called them and they informed him that they could not fill the prescription because it had been altered. The prescribing physician told the officer that he had issued the prescription for the lower dosage of .5 strength approximately two hours before, and that he did not issue the prescription for 7.5 strength. The officer contacted the suspect on the phone, who stated that he had received the prescription from the hospital, and had dropped it off at the pharmacy. He did not wish to meet with the officer and stated that he was already on probation and going through drug court. When the officer explained that the prescription that he had dropped off had been altered, the suspect denied doing so, and stated that the doctor had made a mistake. The officer explained that he had spoken to the doctor, and the suspect reiterated that the doctor had made a mistake, and then he stated that maybe the people who had given him a ride to the pharmacy had changed the prescription. The officer attempted several times to have the suspect meet with him, but he refused. The tech who had taken the prescription from the suspect stated that she did not know him, when asked if she had looked at his ID, she stated that she did not. She stated that she would be able to identify the suspect in a line up, because she had been watching him because he had been acting strange when he was in the drive-thru. The officer will attempt to obtain a warrant for the suspect’s arrest for the charges of fraud and deceit, a class 6 felony. The original prescription form was placed into evidence, and a photo lineup has been requested.
SATURDAY, JULY 9
Ÿ An officer was dispatched to the recreation center in reference to the theft of a handbag. The reporting party informed the officer that she had had her purse stolen from the family locker room after she went to the rec center to go swimming at approximately 4:30 p.m.; when she went to get her purse at approximately 6:49 p.m., it was gone. Her wallet had contained all her ID, credit and debit cards, cash, and miscellaneous other items. The woman stated that she lives in Grand Junction where she takes care of an elderly woman, and that she had had this woman’s Social Security card and Colorado ID card in her purse as well. The woman did not know who might have taken her purse. When asked if the locker she’d had the purse in was locked, and she told the officer no. She was advised that there had been several thefts from the locker rooms of the rec center. The officer was unable to look at the surveillance system due to no employees knowing how to work it. The employees at the rec center were advised to contact the officer once they were able to access the surveillance system.
SUNDAY, JULY 10
Ÿ An officer was dispatched to the emergency room at Southwest Memorial Hospital, and was advised that a female had been transported there by ambulance earlier in the day from a county address, and a possible assault was being investigated by a sheriff’s deputy in regards to that female. It was learned that the assault took place within city limits. Upon speaking with the deputy, it was learned that the assault had taken place on July 8 at a local trailer park. The victim had a large laceration on her head which required staples. The injury occurred when the female was struck with a pan during a fight with another woman. The officer spoke with the victim who informed him that she had been at a trailer with the female suspect and a man. She and the suspect were drinking and then the suspect wanted to fight. The victim stated that she didn’t want to fight but that she had already been having a bad day. The victim said that she and the suspect began fighting each other, and she eventually was struck with a pan on the head by the other woman. The victim did not really want the suspect to get into trouble because she has kids, and she just wanted the incident documented. In addition to the large laceration on her head, the victim also had bruising consistent with a fight on several parts of her body. The officer notes that he had responded to the trailer earlier on July 8 with another officer in reference to the female suspect flipping off young kids, and both the women at the scene denied the act. The assault – a mutual combat fight – apparently took place shortly after the two officers left.
MONDAY, JULY 11
Ÿ An officer was dispatched to meet with a reporting party in reference to a theft. The man reported that at approximately 8 a.m. on July 7 he stopped at Slavens True Value, parking his vehicle on South Elm Street. He said that he had his laptop computer in a black computer bag on the rear seat. When the man returned to his vehicle approximately 15 minutes later, he discovered his laptop and the bag missing. The reporting party will attempt to provide an identification number for the computer at a later date. He was unable to provide any possible suspects at that time.