Monthly Review:
Other State Law: 3
Traffic, Non-parking: 39
City Ordinance: 6
Miscellaneous: 9
Traffic, Parking: 2

On 10/3/18 the Nederland Police Department was dispatched to a trespass and theft in progress. Upon arrival, it was discovered that the situation involved a foreclosure and resale agreement, with a theft of architectural plans. The current occupant of the home was legally allowed to continue occupying the property until Oct. 22, however the bank that reclaimed the property had already sold it and the new owners had shown up without a bill of sale and ownership, were not there serving papers, and were blocking the current occupant in her driveway as well as walking the property assessing it for repairs. The current occupant reported that they had taken architectural plans from her and put them in their Jeep, claiming the plans came with the house.

The officers on scene explained to the new owners that they were not within their right to occupy the home until the previous owner had vacated the premises. They were told to return the architectural plans to the current occupant because they were her personal property and not part of the house, and that any future serving of papers or eviction notices should be done through the Boulder County Sheriff’s office due to the confrontation in progress.

Based on the circumstances of the situation, the primary visiting party was issued a summons for theft and for trespassing. The plans were retrieved and returned to the current occupant and rightful owner.

On 10/4/18 the Nederland Police Department received a call from a party identifying as the trespassing person’s wife. She reported that after they had left the scene, they drove to a restaurant in Boulder where it was discovered that the current occupant’s husband had followed them and proceeded to confront them in the parking lot of the restaurant, bumping his chest against the man and “pushing him around the parking lot,” accusing him of calling his wife a bitch. Stating, “This is going to be real fun,” the suspect followed the now victim to the door of the restaurant where he was confronted by establishment staff and told not to “bring that energy in here.” The suspect left the scene.

The now victim’s wife then proceeded to report that on the day before at the scene of the crime she had been approached by the current occupant who whispered offensive language in her ear.

While Ned PD had witnessed the current occupant approaching the trespassing person’s wife at the Jeep, it appeared that they had exchanged words as she was looking for the architectural plans through the window of the Jeep. He suggested to the caller that she report the incident to Boulder City Police and obtain a protection order.

On 10/4/18 at approximately 6:24 p.m., a Colorado State Trooper pulled a man over for speeding and discovered that he had an active warrant from the Nederland Municipal Court for failure to appear. The trooper contacted Nederland Police to take custody of the suspect and transport him to Boulder County Jail, which occurred without incident.

During the transport, the deputy discussed the situation with the suspect who reported that he had paid the citation. The officer let him know that despite paying the citation, the violation also required a court appearance. He also told the suspect he would be required to report to court on November 9. The deputy had the courtesy to ask the jail deputies to remind the suspect of the court date upon his release.

On 10/5/18 a suspect arrived at Nederland Police Department to turn himself in on two valid warrants out of Jefferson County. He was taken into custody and transported to the jail without incident.

On 10/7/18 Nederland Police took a call from a party reporting that he had heard yelling from a green van in the RTD Park-N-Ride lot, a woman yelling and screaming “no” repeatedly, and a male party also yelling incoherently. Upon the deputy’s arrival, the woman opened the side door of the van and spoke to him, claiming she and the male party (also in the back of the van) were having an argument. As she spoke to the deputy, the officer observed that the male party seemed subdued and appeared to have been crying. The female party was asked to step out of the van and stand next to the patrol car, which she did.

While speaking to the male party, he admitted to having ingested some alcohol and marijuana and when asked, he stated that on a scale of 0-10 he was probably at a 3 for impairment. He stated that the female party had been in an abusive situation previous to their relationship and that he had been becoming increasingly verbally aggressive and “pushing her buttons” about the situation to the point that the female party had hit him on his leg twice as a result of his “button pushing.” He partially disrobed to show the officer the skin on his leg where he had allegedly been hit.

The officer then spoke to the female party, putting her in the back of the patrol vehicle purely because it was sleeting outside. Leaving the back door open, he informed her that she was not under arrest and proceeded to ask her about hitting the male suspect. She admitted to unintentionally hitting him claiming that it was due to him shifting his bodily position without her notice and that she had meant to hit the mattress they were both sitting on. She admitted to impacting his leg once. She then informed the officer that she had been in an abusive relationship for the past 20 years and had once been a methamphetamine user but had been clean for the past 4 years.

Both parties admitted to being homeless and living out of the van and a white Oldsmobile sedan parked next to it. They said the argument was about who was the bread winner and delegation of tasks which escalated to “button pushing.” The officer could not establish any intent for the female party hitting the male party. He issued both parties a summons for camping in town and attempted to impress upon them that their argument was quite close to becoming a domestic violence situation which could be prevented if they agreed to separate.

Two Boulder County officers were in attendance assisting with the mediation effort. It seemed their efforts fell on deaf ears, however, as an hour and a half later they were called back through a 911 call placed by the male party reporting that they were arguing again, and the female party had hit him, again. He claimed she also started the argument, took his phone from him and threw it, and upon his retrieval of the phone, she took it again and hid it under her leg. When questioned, the female party denied all of it and claimed to have moved to the sedan when they started arguing. The officer called dispatch to find out details on the call and was told that the initial call from the reporting party had been a hang up and that when she called the number back there was no background noise.

The officer then inspected the phone for damage but saw none, as the case was very durable. The male party claimed there was a piece missing and that the plastic was poor quality. The parties were separated and due to conflicting stories, the officer was unable to establish events that occurred. As the male party temporarily moved to the patrol car, the female removed her property from the van to the Oldsmobile. Being equipped with an interlock device, the female could not get the car started so it had to be rolled to the opposite side of the parking lot under a light. Both parties were told to stay away from each other until daytime and sobriety set in.

On 10/10/18 the Nederland Police Department received an email forwarded from a reporting party that was from the suspect in question regarding her son and his teacher. The suspect sent a threatening email to the teacher despite being directed to only communicate with the principal due to harassing and threatening behavior. The principal requested police presence at the up and coming parent teacher conference due the following Wednesday because the parent made statements in the email. A harassment warning was issued to the parent/suspect.

On 10/11/18 Nederland Police were contacted by a woman regarding her dog having been bitten by another dog whilst walking down the sidewalk on Highway 72N. The woman had just left the vet, so the officer requested that she bring her dog to the PD. The woman arrived with a male party and her dog and proceeded to show the officer an area on the dog’s neck that had been shaved by the vet in order to treat two highly visible puncture wounds. They reported that they had been walking along the north side of 72 when a dog came out from the area between the library and the counseling business building. They had seen a man walking with the dog in question just prior to it attacking their dog, somehow managing to suddenly get through the fence to do so. They managed to separate the two dogs and immediately took their bitten dog to the vet where they incurred a $125 bill for treatment. They presented the bill upon request and called the vet to release their dog’s medical records for the report. The officer also took pictures of the injuries.

Later that day, the officer made contact with the male party that was walking with the suspect dog just prior to the attack. The man admitted his dog had gotten into an altercation with the victim’s dog, explaining that his fence had been damaged by a moose recently. He had not been aware that the damage in the fence provided an escape hole until his dog had taken advantage of this damage to emerge and attack the victim dog. He reported that he had immediately secured his dog in his residence once the fight had been broken up and then repaired the fence, adding reinforcement to the structure. The male party/attacking dog owner provided the officer with papers proving his dog was currently on vaccines.

The next day, the officer went to the vet’s office to obtain documentation on the victim dog’s visit. The time of the documented visit was consistent with the report from the injured dog’s owner. The officer then returned to the male party/attacking dog owner’s residence and issued a summons for the incident.

On 10/12/18 a Nederland Police Officer was directed to contact a party about a civil issue. He contacted a female party and took a report about how her former common-law husband was being aggressive toward her during child exchanges at the Nederland Community Center. She specified that it wasn’t in his words but his body language displayed aggression and intimidation. Since they are only supposed to communicate through email, his insistence on speaking to her during these transitions and his parking on the road in front of her house to watch her has her concerned for her safety. She wanted to file a report to make these behaviors known in case something should happen to her. The officer advised her to pursue a restraining order at the Boulder County Justice Center and advised that she should consult an attorney about affects to the custody agreement. He informed her that if she wanted to file a report, she would need to come down to the station to write a written statement.

The female party showed up at the station and filled out a written statement that consisted of a detailed account of the abusive 3-year relationship and concerning ways in which he now displays aggressive behavior. The officer once again advised the female party to file for a restraining order and to call the NPD if she ever sees the male party parked outside her home. Despite it not being a criminal act for him to do so, it could establish a pattern that could result in a criminal case.

On 10/13/18 the Nederland Police Department took a call from the Calvary Chapel Church maintenance person who reported finding tagged property under the church in a crawlspace. An officer went to the church to inspect the situation and found the maintenance person already had the property pulled from the crawlspace. He explained that he had done a routine nighttime check on the church and when he came in the building that morning, he smelled cigarette smoke. He proceeded to check the crawl space and discovered several bags and insulation pulled up from the floor and stacked in the corner with blankets over them, a bucket nearby that smelled of urine and feces, and an electrical outlet that had a cellphone charger plugged into it.

The officer recognized some of the bags from a previous case last month as belonging to the person listed on the tags, as well as finding prescription pill bottles in one of the open bags that had the same name and travel tags all consistent with the suspect. The bags that were pulled from the crawl space had been retrieved by the suspect after the last case at the end of September when he told the officer he would be staying in Boulder and had gotten special permission from the RTD bus driver to take his stuff on the bus. Therefore, the officer was able to look up the suspect’s last known phone number and attempt to call him, but he only got a recorded message stating, “The subscriber you have dialed is not in service.” He recalled being told that the phone service required Wi-Fi to place and receive calls.

The next day, the maintenance person went to the police department to give his written statement and said someone had kicked in the door to the crawl space. The officer went over and took pictures, witnessing that the maintenance person had placed the door to seal it prior to repairing it.
A week later, the Nederland Police Department received a call from a Boulder Community Hospital Mental Health staff member who stated that the suspect was inquiring about his property, stating specifically he was asking about the property from the church. The officer went down to the hospital to speak to staff and ask to visit with the suspect who agreed to speak with him. They had a private conversation where the suspect admitted to not only placing his belongings below the church but also kicking the door in on a night when the outside temperature was 14 degrees and he needed his belongings to stay warm. He had gotten frostbite on his feet as a result.

The officer reminded the suspect that he had had options for dealing with that situation other than criminal acts. He issued him a summons and gave him 30 days to retrieve his belongings.

On 10/19/18 Nederland Police performed a follow up on an alleged criminal mischief charge by a landlord against two of his tenants. The report was that two days prior, one of the male tenants had come to his residence and began pounding on the door so hard he left dents in it. He yelled at him for several minutes and left, slamming the door behind him. The landlord reported he believes that is when the door frame got damaged. He had replaced that door himself with a brand-new door and reinforced the frame with sheet metal due to a problem he had been having with bears and raccoons trying to gain access to the residence. He also claimed to be a carpenter with experience building homes since the 70s, stating that he knew how to build properly.

The officer witnessed evidence of damage on the frame above and below the latch and where the deadbolt would engage. The landlord claims that another of his tenants, a male party, had come over to his residence after the other tenant had come and damaged the door and frame. This other tenant had also banged on the door in the same area of the door and frame, causing further damage. The landlord had not come to the door, preferring to wait for him to go away. The officer reports that prior to meeting with the landlord, he had met with the first tenant and saw a picture that the landlord had sent to his phone claiming he had done damage when coming to his home. The officer believes that the striker plate for the deadbolt may have secured the door enough to prevent the door from opening when the second tenant had pounded on the door or that the section of the door frame had not completely detached at that time.

The officer asked the landlord if he often kept doors and windows open or had been open the day the damage had been done, causing less resistance to shutting the door than expected, to which the landlord was unable to reply with a clear answer but in his written statement he stated there was no wind. Upon further investigation of the door, frame and broken off piece, the officer was unable to definitively say the door and frame were damaged from closing the door.

When speaking with the first tenant, it was reported to the officer that the trouble started when the landlord had posted on social media about a new recycling business in Nederland directing people to deposit any items in the carport that was currently being used by both tenants. The tenants objected to total strangers having access to the property, the car port and their personal property in the car port. The first tenant also reported that while he does not reside at the residence with the car port, he does use it and checks on it periodically. The second resident had reported to the first one about the social media post, prompting the first resident to seek out the landlord to discuss the issue. He reported feeling that it was the landlord who was being unreasonable, and that the landlord never buys new things because he prefers to buy used items and repurpose them.

The next day, the officer sought out the two tenants for further discussion about the incident. The second tenant admitted to having gone to the landlord’s house after the first tenant had gone over. He reported not getting to speak with the landlord and at the time of his visit the door had never been secured and that it would move back and forth with each knock. Having been a two-and-a-half-year renter from the landlord, his experience is that the door is never secured, the landlord would always request he shut the door when leaving because windows and doors were often open, causing the door to fail to stay secured. In fact, the landlord had locked himself out of his own home in the past and was forced to break in to gain access.

While the officer was speaking with the two tenants, the landlord arrived and threatened to evict the second tenant which prompted the second tenant to attempt to speak with him and ask why he was threatened with eviction. The landlord addressed the officer and stated he would only speak with him and no longer intended to speak with the tenants. Due to the mental distress experienced by the second tenant over being evicted, the officer was concerned that he would attempt to speak with the landlord again with the good intention of pleading his case and inadvertently commit a criminal act by doing so. He advised the second tenant several times to not attempt the communication.

Due to the inconsistent evidence gathered, the officer does not believe the damage is due to forceful closing of the door. He is unable to ascertain the origin of the dents in the metal door.

On 10/20/18 the Nederland Police Department was notified of a trespass in Chipeta Park by several parties through a town employee. Upon arrival, the officer could not locate the original complaining parties but witnessed a suspect fishing and gutting fish along the creek and throwing the guts back into the waterway. The officer approached the suspect to confirm if he had a license to fish of which the suspect turned to him with a knife in his hand.

The officer had to tell him to stand down, and the suspect immediately dropped the knife and reported to the officer that he had caught 6 fish and admitted he did not have a fishing license. The officer then called the Division of Wildlife to request the district manager come to the location. He then called dispatch to look into any priors and discovered that the suspect had a warrant for failing to appear, so he requested assistance from Boulder County Sheriff’s Office. The officer then detained the suspect in handcuffs in the back of his patrol vehicle for safety while awaiting the requested back up.

When the Boulder County sheriff arrived, the NPD officer went to the location of the incident and retrieved the suspect’s property from a picnic table under the pavilion as well as the fish he had caught (placed in a brown plastic bag). After collecting the property, the officer noticed a marijuana pipe sitting out in plain view on the picnic table. He brought everything back to the patrol car and had the suspect confirm ownership. The officer confiscated the pipe and the marijuana that the suspect had on his person and informed him that it would not be returned to him but destroyed.

When the wildlife manager arrived, he confirmed a count of five fish in the suspect’s possession as well as a lack of fishing license. He issued the suspect a citation for unlawful possession of wildlife and fishing without a license. The Nederland Police officer issued the suspect a warning for leaving drug paraphernalia in a public space. The suspect was transported to jail without incident; upon return, the Nederland police officer weighed the marijuana, placed it in evidence and marked it to be destroyed.

On 10/23/18 Nederland Police were dispatched to Ace Hardware on a report of a DUI leaving the premises. The black Ford F-150 was not on sight upon arrival but was sighted 10 minutes later in the Visitor’s Center parking lot. The officer proceeded to follow the truck but was unable to prevent a car from coming between them in the process. The officer followed the truck south, out of town on 119, and observed it swerving and crossing both the center yellow line and the white line on the outside of the lane in which they were traveling, at around the 25 mile mark. The officer planned to pull the truck over at the intersection of Highway 119 S and Magnolia Road.
When the officer got the truck pulled over as planned, the driver immediately got out of the truck. As the officer approached, he noted a slight odor of some type of alcoholic beverage coming from the driver.

When he requested the driver’s license, registration and proof of insurance, the suspect could not locate his proof of insurance despite it being visibly next to the registration in his vehicle book. The suspect did not display the balance of a sober person and his face was flushed red consistent with that of a long-time heavy drinker.

When a Boulder County Sheriff officer arrived to assist, the Nederland Police officer explained to the suspect that based on his driving, he wanted to ensure he was able to safely drive home by completing a voluntary roadside sobriety test. The suspect agreed, stating he did not have any alcohol in his system. Sometime after arrival, the BCSO turned on a body camera. The suspect proceeded to complete the tests after providing a voluntary partial breath sample, but not as a sober person would. When asked if he had any physical problems that would cause him to have balance problems, he replied that he has a DVT in his left arm and an old knee surgery on his left leg. He also reported being on Warfarin. He was wearing glasses and had a piece of candy in his mouth, which he was asked to spit out.

After observing the suspect perform a series of road side sobriety exercises in a manner inconsistent with that of a sober person, the officer took the suspect into custody, explaining to him that despite barely passing the PBT, his behavior was indicating that he was too impaired to drive. He again asked the suspect how much he had had to drink, to which he replied that he had drank a half quart of vodka about an hour or more prior. The suspect then attempted to pop another piece of candy in his mouth. The officer told the suspect of the express consent, asking if he wanted to take a blood or breath test and described how each works. The suspect chose a breath test. He was placed in the patrol car with his hands cuffed in front of his body for his comfort and age and transported to the Boulder County Jail.

During the drive down, the suspect began searching his front pockets.

Knowing he only had candy and a handkerchief, the officer watched the suspect again pop another piece of candy in his mouth in what he thought was an attempt to alter the breath test. Sometime later he was fidgeting in his pockets and when asked, he stated he was trying to locate his comb, so he could comb his hair. He was able to pull out a handkerchief and place it in his mouth. It seemed obvious to the officer that the suspect was doing anything possible to alter the up and coming test. When they arrived at the jail, the officer helped the suspect from the vehicle and told him to spit out whatever was in his mouth. That is when the officer saw a white ball of cloth come from his mouth.

The suspect was initiated into the DUI process by all proper procedures with an end result of .065 BAC. A rough calculation based on the time of the whole incident estimates that the suspect was likely .110 at time he was first observed at Ace Hardware.

On 10/24/18 the Nederland Police Department received notification of a vehicle repossession via fax from Boulder County Communications. A blue 2015 Mitsubishi Lancer was repossessed at 10 p.m. on 10/23/18 from an address in Nederland, CO. The vehicle was repossessed by United Auto Recovery for Lien Holder American Lending Solutions.

On 10/25/18 the Nederland Police Department was dispatched to investigate a report of someone throwing rocks from Chipeta Park to an adjacent residence. When arriving at the park, the officer could not see anyone or hear any sound of rocks impacting anything, nor the sound of anyone crossing the waterway separating the park and the residence. It was estimated that it is approximately 15 yards from the edge of the water to the windows of the residence.

The officer went to the residence and spoke with the homeowner in residence and a friend who was visiting at the time. The reporting party stated that approximately 25 minutes ago, she heard a single impact to her window, and 4 minutes later she heard multiple impacts upon the window. At that point she called Boulder County dispatch to report the incident. At that time, the impacts stopped but she thought she heard approximately 3 voices. She had a flood light on but it didn’t point toward the park and she was unable to see anyone. She checked her window and could not see any visible damage. The officer asked her to check in the daytime and report any new findings as she sees them. He also advised her to adjust her floodlight to point in the direction of Chipeta Park. Additionally, she was told that if the incident continued, she could direct a light out her window to illuminate any suspects and take pictures.

On 10/29/18 the Nederland Police Department responded to a page request to call a reporting party regarding cold property damage at his residence. The reporting party lives in the downstairs level of a split-level home with entrances on the opposite sides and levels of the home. He and his son share the upstairs level with another female renter who was fighting with her girlfriend on the morning in question. As the caller came home at approximately 1 a.m., the reporting party stated that it sounded like large things were being thrown about for an hour before he finally went upstairs to investigate. He reported that the place was “trashed” and there were milk and eggs strewn about. His roommate claimed she could not get her girlfriend to leave so he let her dog out the door causing her to chase after it and he was able to lock her out. He told his roommate not to let her back in, which caused the girlfriend to proceed to pound on the door and argue through the door for several hours, accusing the female roommate of “hiding behind the men” when she told her girlfriend she would not let her back in because she “threw her down the stairs.” Despite this chaos continuing for several hours, no one called the police. The reporting party then stated that upon leaving the premises, the suspect had rammed both his Ford pickup and his Saab with her Jeep and left damage on the right front and right door of the pickup as well as the left rear quarter panel of the Saab, leaving drag marks in the light snow and dirt where it was parked.

On 10/31/18 the investigating officer returned to investigate the claims of damage to the vehicles, finding orange lenses broken on the ground by the pickup. Since the Saab was not present to gather evidence from, the officer looked into any priors on the female suspect in the town of Ward and discovered both females had prior reports of domestic violence and an expired protection order in Ward.

Further investigation on subsequent days in November revealed that the female roommate did not witness the truck and car damage, denied any fight or home damage and there was a complete lack of assistance with the investigation. The officer discovered more broken orange plastic lens evidence on the ground outside of the residence in question near the truck, having been left clean and neatly lying on the ground. During a phone call to the reporting party, his son answered and corroborated the report given by his father.

The officer left a message for the suspect when trying to contact her to provide information for the crash report, but the call was not returned, and the suspect did not come forward. The officer finally made contact when discussing damage details with the reporting party and was told the suspect was back at her girlfriend’s house that day. Upon arrival, the officer questioned the suspect and was told she hadn’t received any messages from him. When he explained the reason he had contacted her, she responded that the reporting party was trying to pull something in response to her confronting him about doing drugs with his son and skipping out on rent. During the conversation, the officer observed damage to the suspects Jeep consistent with the report from the victim. The suspect claimed the damage had been done at her place of residence when she hit a rock wall adjacent to her driveway. Subsequent investigation of said claims by the officer with assistance from the town of Ward Marshal showed no evidence of damage consistent with the suspect’s claims.

Later in the month, the officer served the suspect a summons and told her to not contact the reporting party as he had been told not to contact her either. She reported to the officer that the reporting party had been served a three- day notice to vacate the premises he shared with her girlfriend.

(Originally published in the December 20, 2018, print edition of The Mountain-Ear.)