July 29, 2019
- A caller reported glass in the roadway near Washington and Pinet streets. An officer cleared the debris from the street.
- Teresa Gaver reported an Iphone and checkbook missing from 1000 W. Adams St., #6. An officer found no evidence of foul play.
- Jon Forkner reported a suspicious female in the 500 block of N. Chestnut Street, asking people for food. An officer located the female, who said she was waiting for a ride out of town after being released from jail.
- Pam Hulburt reported receiving a phone call from a male who said he works for the U.S. Social Security Administration. He requested her date of birth and Social Security number. Hulburt recognized this as a scam call and did not provide any information to the caller.
- Nicole Chisum reported the machine at the laundromat at 301 E. Reed St. took her money but failed to service her clothing. The officer contacted the business owner, who refunded the money.
- Teresa Gaver requested an officer to check her apartment at 1000 W. Adams St., #6, before she goes to bed. Gaver believed a family member was hiding in her apartment. The officer found no one in the apartment.
- John Sturgeon reported a female conducting door-to-door sales in the 500 block of W. State Street.
- Jennifer Ashby reported a family member stole her paycheck at 108 E. Central Ave. #66. Ashby provided an officer with a suspect but no way to reach the suspect. The officer is investigating.
- A traffic stop at S. Elm and 250th streets resulted in Jullian Lepe of Texas being issued a citation for excessive speed.
- An officer assisted a female in the 1000 block of W. Washington Street in turning off the hazard flashers on her new vehicle.
- An officer issued 11 parking violation notices on the city square for street sweeping violations.
*A criminal charge is merely an accusation, and the defendant is presumed innocent until and unless proven guilty.
Should you be reporting the name of an individual who is having mental health issues? I understand it is a matter of public record, so shame on the Jefferson Police Department as well. It opens the family up to gossip and possibly even exposes her to con artists or scammers.
Thank you for raising an important point. We publish more or less everything they send us, and we commend the Jefferson Police Department for the thoroughness and timeliness of their reports. Sadly, not every department is so forthcoming. As for the cases we believe you refer to, we have seen similar situations in which a town resident makes repeated reports of suspected crimes or suspicious activites to which the police respond and which they repeatedly find to be unfounded. Such cases seem to reveal the obscure line between medical issues and criminal-justice issues. We believe law enforcement is obliged to respond to all calls for service, even those issuing from callers who are, for instance, in thrall to paranoid delusions. If the experts in mental health evaluate such a person and determine that he or she is a threat neither to himself or herself nor to others, then that person’s civil liberties presumably cannot legally be curtailed, and he or she remains free, for instance, to call the police and, frankly, to waste their time on imaginary crimes. The potential risks such a person is exposed to, whose repeated calls for service are made public in the police log, seem quite real, as you rightly say. Intervention seems in order, but whose responsibility is that in a state notorious for its extremely exiguous mental-health resources?
Thank you for the reply.
I know you as a journalist walk a fine ethical line between the public’s right to know and an individual’s right to privacy.
Obviously, law enforcement should respond to all calls.
I suppose my criticism of the Jefferson Police Department would have been better addressed to them. It is at their discretion as to what details are given to the press. I often see reports where names and addresses and certain details of the incident are not reported.
I appreciate your paper publishing this information. I also understand that it is much easier simply to format the report and publish it.
At the same time, you are an editor, and is publishing the name of a clearly disturbed woman vital to the general public’s safety or whatever justification beyond freedom of the press someone uses?
Again, understanding the limitations of your position, and I don’t expect you to change your policy.
My time will be better served by addressing my concerns with the Jefferson Police Department.
Thank you for your time and effort in publishing a quality newspaper.