A female victim went to the sheriff’s office on Nov. 18 to report her catalytic converter had been stolen off her car.
She stated that a male person of interest went to her house Wednesday, Nov. 13, and told her that the man he works for sends him to homes with cars in them because the county wants the yards cleaned up.
The subject gave the victim a business card with the name of a car dealership representative and stated that the representative would call her about the car to come get it. The victim never heard from the representative. The vehicle in question had burned up with a house fire a couple of weeks prior.
The victim then stated that the subject commented that her car was a nice van. She said the subject then parked his car next to her car in front of her house once she went inside. The victim said that when she went back outside, he was on the ground looking at his car because he said it was running hot. She said he had his car parked next to the passenger side of her car, and the subject was on the ground between both vehicles. The victim believes this was when the subject stole the catalytic converter from her car. She said she hadn’t thought anything about it at the time because he said he was fixing his car and it was cold outside, so she went back into her house.
The victim said when she went back outside two days later on Nov. 15, her car was making a terrible noise. She took her car to a mechanic who noticed the catalytic converter was off her car.
The victim said that when the subject went to her house, he gave her his name. The victim told her son about what happened and described the man that had come to her house. Her son sent her a picture of a person with that name, asked her if that was the person who came to her house, and she provided a positive identification based on the picture.
The conversation with her son via text messages and picture of the business card the subject gave the victim were uploaded to the report. The damages are estimated at $5,000, and charges of destruction/damage/vandalism of property have been filed.
You have free articles remaining.
In other reports:
• A deputy responded to a Heritage Highway location regarding a stolen vehicle on Nov. 15. Upon the deputy’s arrival, the husband and wife victims stated the vehicle in question is a 1965 Ford Galaxy that was parked under their carport.
The victims stated that they had gone away for the weekend and when they came back, the vehicle was gone and a note was left on their front door. The note stated, “I repossessed my 1965 Ford Galaxy 500 for non-payment.” The female victim said that she knows it was her uncle who took the car.
The female victim said her uncle had sold the vehicle to her and her husband for $800. He then wanted more money for it, but her dad told her not to give him any more money and just keep the car. She also said that she had not known the vehicle did not belong to her uncle. She then found out the vehicle was in her dad’s name.
The victim’s dad attempted several times to call his brother. Finally, the victim’s uncle called her father, and her father told him to return the car. The victim’s father then handed the deputy the phone, and the deputy explained what was going on.
The subject said the victim’s father owed him money for the car, but the deputy explained that he could not sell or get money for something he did not own. The deputy also told the subject that he should return the money he took from the victim.
The subject stated he would return the car the morning of Nov. 19. The deputy informed the subject that if he did not return the car by Nov. 19, he would proceed with a warrant. As for the money the victim gave the subject, it will be determined later to see if that case is civil or criminal.
• On Nov. 17, dispatch received a call in reference to an attempted break in. Upon deputies’ arrival, one deputy made contact with the female victim who stated that her ex-boyfriend was trying to kick in her back door. She said that she had told him she was calling the police, and he had run off property prior to the officers’ arrival.
The deputies rode the area but were unable to make contact with the subject. Body camera video is available.
• On the night of Nov. 17, deputies arrived at an Ehrhardt Road residence and spoke with a male who stated that he and his father had gotten into an argument about taking care of the dogs on the property. The victim said that his father was mad because he had not fed the dogs that day and told him he was going to shoot them. He said his father had then gone outside and shot.
A deputy then talked with the victim’s father, who stated that he was upset about his son not listening to him and not doing his chores. He then told the deputy that he and his son had argued about the dogs and about his son not feeding them. He did say he was going to shoot the dogs but only shot up in the air. The dogs were unharmed and looked healthy.
The deputy advised the subject that the act was above and beyond proper response for his son not feeding the dogs. The victim said that he was going to stay with his grandmother for a few days until his father calmed down from the situation.