By Meladi Brewer

DailyAdvocate.com

Aug. 31

UNRULY JUVENILE: At 10:05 a.m. officers arrived at the 200 block of Surrey Lane in reference to an unruly juvenile. Upon arrival, the complainant advised her son was inside being unruly via not listening. She said he was about to get cereal from the kitchen and take it to his room, and when she told him he was not allowed to have food in his room, an argument started. The complainant stated he told her no and that he was not going to listen to her. That is when the argument got heated and slightly physical. There were no injuries to either subject, but the son attempted to punch her after she disciplined him by smacking his mouth. The complainant advised that this behavior has been common lately with him. The son advised his older brother did step in though, and he felt like they were ganging up on him. Officers explained to the son that is was not right, and they would talk to the brother and mother before explaining to him that he needs to listen to his mother.

Sept. 3

VANDALISM: At 3:01 p.m. officers responded to the 300 block of Thirteenth Street in reference to vandalism to the house. The female stated on Sept. 2 around 10 p.m. she heard what she believed to be someone knocking at the door, when she checked her cameras and did not observe anyone at the front door. She stated on that date she was outside painting when she observed a broken window on the front porch and some of the boarded up windows were damaged. Her cameras do not face where the damage had occurred. A victim’s rights form was filled out, pictures were taken of the damage, there are no suspects at this time.

Sept. 4

CPO VIOLATION: Officers were dispatched to the 300 block of W. Water Street on the report of a possible CPO Violation. The CPO stated that the suspect cannot use any form of electronic surveillance on a protected persons. The female stated the suspect had a camera pointing at their residence, and officers were able to observe it as well. The camera was a small white camera that appeared to be pointed at the front yard of the listed address. She stated the camera had been moved that day from it’s original position pointing towards the vehicles. While on the phone with the Assistant Law Director, the suspect exited his residence. Officers spoke with him about the complaint. Johnson stated that his mother must have moved it that day. He also explained to officers that it was a “360” camera that is motion activated. The complainant advised that the mother had not been home. He stated that the placement of the camera would block the view of the street which lead him to have “reasonable belief” it was moved just to record his residence. The case will be forwarded to the Assistant Law Director for review.