Monday, Nov. 6
A cautionary tale
11:06 a.m., 1300 block of Boulevard of the Arts
Civil dispute: A tenant called law enforcement about broken pipes in the apartment above her that flooded her apartment. An officer spoke with the apartment community manager who advised that the complainant did not purchase renter’s insurance and that the building is not liable for damages incurred. No further action was taken.
Not a good plan
8:59 p.m., 500 block of South Tuttle Avenue
Domestic dispute: Wanting to have his ex-girlfriend trespassed from his residence, a complainant told police the woman was inside his house and would not leave. He advised an officer that she showed up at his door during the night and, rather than putting her out on the street allowed her stay overnight. When he left for work the next morning, he said he told the woman she needed to devise a plan to leave the house and “get her life back on track.”
When he returned home from work, she was still there, apparently not on track at all. But she did have a plan.
The subject told the officer she was picked up by the complainant the night before and brought to the home, and denies having arrived on her own. She also said that since the man wanted her trespassed, she countered with a demand that officers pursue charges of battery against him.
That prompted a second investigation, which produced no evidence of the woman’s claim. Instead, she was issued a trespass warning.
Tuesday, Nov. 7
A Wii bit of trouble
8:11 p.m., 200 block of Herons Run Drive
Dispute: A dispute that began between a man and woman near the intersection of North Osprey Avenue and Main Street led officers to an address where they interviewed both people. Officers first spoke with the woman who said the subject was following her and asking for money to buy drugs.
After confirming the two had a past relationship, the man said he had given the complainant a Nintendo Wii, for which he now wanted payment. Both parties said there was no physical altercation and they were advised to contact the court regarding the civil matter between the two.
Wednesday, Nov, 8
8:57 a.m., 2700 block of Hidden Lake Boulevard
Dispute: An ongoing conflict over a barking dog in a multifamily community was really about a woman’s disdain for the dog owner because she has Hispanic friends, according to the complainant who told police the neighbor yelled at her about the barking. She also alleged the subject said she owned firearms and would shoot the animal.
An officer spoke with the subject who claimed the complainant's dog barks constantly and she cannot enjoy peace and quiet or open her windows because of the noise. She also denied making any threats toward the dog. The officer advised the two take the matter up with the community’s management or board of directors.
No dogs allowed
4:08 p.m., 1300 block of 45th Street
Civil dispute: A woman alleged that her ex-boyfriend is using her temporary custody of his dog as an excuse to see her. The complainant was upset because the subject arrived at her home wanting to see the dog. The two had lived together at the home for approximately a year, but the man has moved out and is currently living in a short-term rental that does not allow pets.
As a result, the complainant volunteered to keep the dog for the time being.
The subject said he arrived at the residence to take the dog to the park. Because the complainant does not want regular contact with the man he was advised to contact her only after he finds a residence that allows pets.
Tired of flats
7:21 p.m., 1800 block of 22nd Street
Property damage: An apparent case of unrequited affection may have resulted in tire-slashing incidents. While out of town, a woman said she received a text message from an old friend whom she allowed to stay at her residence for about a week in September that read, “You need a new tire honey.” The complainant said the man showed up at her home a few minutes later to show her the damage.
The complainant said she asked the man to leave after staying that one week because things “got weird” as he began having feelings for her that were not mutual.
After the tire was repaired, the complainant advised she had visited a retail establishment and, as she returned to her car the tire was once again damaged. She provided the man’s contact information who, when called, said he had no idea what happened to her tire and “would never do anything like that.”
There was not enough evidence or probable cause to charge the man with criminal mischief.