TUESDAY, JUNE 14

Ÿ A deputy responded to the scene of a cold attempted break-in at a mobile home park. The reporting party told the deputy that the break-in attempt had happened overnight while the two residents were at home. In the morning they discovered the window screens had been removed from a south-facing window, and there was evidence of a forced entry. The deputy collected fingerprints on the window’s exterior for evidence. A shoe print and a ladder that did not belong to the residents were also found in the yard underneath the window. The ladder was taken into evidence. A manager of the park said he did not see anything during the time he conducted a walk through, as he does each night. The manager mentioned that there had been a transient female in and out of the park who had been befriended by park residents, but whose visits are followed by reports of missing items. A neighbor also provided information that she had seen an unknown male, described as thin and wearing a dark hoodie, walking up to her trailer with a flashlight.

SUNDAY, JUNE 19

Ÿ A deputy was dispatched to a location on U.S. Highway 160 in reference to someone shooting varmints on a woman’s private property. The reporting party stated that she had been inside her residence when she heard two gunshots outside. She looked out of her window and saw the suspect and two of his dogs on her property. She approached him and asked him why he was shooting varmints on her property. He told her he shot into the air to try to get his dogs off her property. The reporting party told the suspect to stay there and to leave the varmints where they were until someone from the sheriff’s office arrived. She said he then walked off, carrying one of the dead varmints by the tail, while his dog carried off the other varmint. The woman said there were baby whistle pigs in an unused irrigation pipe where the suspect had been shooting. The woman did not see a firearm on the suspect when she approached him. The deputy contacted the male at his residence, and he said that he went onto her property to get his dogs, which took off chasing a varmint. He denied shooting varmints, and denied having any guns at his residence. His father confirmed this. When asked if he or his dogs had carried a varmint off of the woman’s property, he said that he didn’t, but that his dog did. He told the deputy he could show him the varmint that his dog had dropped. The deputy checked the irrigation pipe shown to him by the woman; it had dried blood smears on it and he could hear the squealing of animals inside. He was unsuccessful at getting any animals out of the pipe. The male suspect brought over a whistle pig he said his dog had dropped, carrying it by the tail; its condition indicated that it had died recently, as it was still warm, and the blood was fresh. The deputy did not see any bullet wounds on the varmint, and did not find evidence at the suspect’s residence consistent with someone carrying a dead animal. The deputy confirmed with the suspect that he had been advised by the woman not to trespass on her property, and issued a summons to him for dogs not under control and for third-degree criminal trespass.

TUESDAY, JUNE 21

Ÿ A deputy responded to a residence in regards to check fraud reported by a woman with an in-home business. The reporting party stated she had received an email from a woman claiming to want to buy some products and have them shipped to her daughter in Houston. When advised to order from the reporting party’s website using a credit or debit card, the suspect asked if she could send a check and have the items mailed; the business owner agreed to do so. The suspect said that she was receiving a check from an insurance company for an auto accident, and would have the check cut in the reporting party’s name. The suspect then contacted the reporting party and said the insurance company had made a mistake and had cut the check in the amount of $1,950, her entire insurance payout. She asked the reporting party to deposit the whole check, take out the $128.63 for the products she was buying, and keep an extra $50 for gas, and to send the rest via Western Union to her doctor in Darlington, S.C., to cover the bills from her auto accident. The reporting party said she felt it was a scam but was unsure, and agreed. She next received a call from a man claiming to be the suspect’s husband, and was given further instructions on how to handle the transaction, and provided her with a FedEx tracking number for the check being sent to her. The reporting party received the check in the amount of $1,950 and shipped the package of products to an address in Coosa, Ga. She went to her bank the same day and deposited the check; since her account balance showed it as a credit, she assumed that it had cleared and withdrew $1,772 from her account. She sent it via Western Union, also paying $146 in fees to do so. The reporting party then received a call from her bank letting her know that the deposited check did not clear and that she was going to be responsible for the full amount that she withdrew, plus fees. She has not been able to contact the woman and man who she transacted with in this matter. The house the products were sent to in Houston turned out to be vacant. The insurance company that the check was issued from is nonexistent. The woman suspect’s name is tied to many Internet scams in and outside of the United States, and the phone number called from was a San Diego landline. The names and address provided in Coosa, Ga., are fictitious.