Compiled by Bethany Kohoutek bethany@dmcityview.com

911 Call

Dispatcher: Polk County Sheriff’s Office…
Caller: Yeah, how are you doing today?
D: Good.
C: I’m calling [because] one guy stole a TV…
D: What is your address?
C: [provides address]
D: And what is your name?
C: [provides name]
D: Is the guy still there?
C: No, he left
D: What is your phone number?
C: [provides phone number]
D: And they stole a TV?
C: Yes, a TV…
D: OK, we’ll get somebody out there.
C: OK, thank you.
D: Thank you. Bye.
C: Bye.
Officer’s Report: I was dispatched to the location on a theft report. When I arrived, the business owner showed me a digital video of a male subject loading a television into a vehicle at approximately 0425 hours this morning. When employees went to clean Room 114, they noticed that the television was missing, as well as the peep holes from the hotel room doors. The room was rented by [name redacted]. The business owner gave me a copy of a digital photograph of [the suspect] checking into the room. Sgt. Harney and I went to the residence listed… and that residence belongs to [name redacted]’s grandparents. The grandparents stated that [name redacted] does not live there and only stops by from time to time. The business owner is going to save the digital video so it can be recovered by the detectives.

Docket diving

Oftentimes, in court cases that deal with familial disputes, minors, or sexual assaults and rapes, judges do not use first and/or last names in official documents. And case number 06-1446, which was considered by the Court of Appeals of Iowa in November, seemed to involve all three of those caveats, which is why there are no names listed in any of the court documents.

The only facts discernable to the public are the following: In January of 2006, caseworkers at Department of Human Services issued a report about a young girl whom they’d been watching for several years. At the time, she was four-and-a-half years old and living with her mother in Burnett County. Her parents were divorced, and her father was allowed visitation rights.

In 2003, her mother began to notice something strange after the girl — then only two years old — came home from visits to her father’s house. She was wetting the bed, and suffering terrible nightmares. The mother consulted a therapist, who evaluated the child and found indications that she’d been sexually abused.

The Department of Human Services investigated and concluded that the girl’s father was the culprit. A juvenile court immediately placed the girl into DHS custody and issued a no-contact order against the father. At the time, the juvenile court indicated that “the father was in agreement with the continued removal of the child,” according to appellate court records. Eventually, the child was placed with her mother and the no-contact order against the father remained in place.

At the family’s next hearing in March of 2006, allegedly the father changed his tune. He claimed that he had not sexually abused his daughter, and further, that the girl’s mother had a conflict of interest in the case; the wife of the assistant county attorney and the child’s mother both worked at the same local bank. He also requested social services and psychosocial evaluations for the entire family.

The court denied all of his requests except one: It ordered the father to complete a psychosocial evaluation. The father immediately filed an appeal. He complained that the child’s removal from his custody was improper, and that the court had not made “reasonable efforts” at reunification of his family. And he again raised the conflict-of-interest issue.

But the appeals court sided with the mother and the Department of Human Services. Justices wrote, “From the child’s statements and actions and the opinion of the experts, we find clear and convincing evidence supports a finding the child is in need of assistance. Although the father continues to deny abusing his daughter, the evidence is that she has been abused, and he is the only one she identified as the perpetrator.”

Furthermore, the alleged conflict between the girl’s mother and the assistant county attorney “do not present even an appearance of impropriety,” the court ruled. The two had never met, and the attorney’s wife worked in a different department than the mother.

The Court of Appeals also found that the State had made “reasonable efforts” at reunification. State law precedent holds that a parent should “acknowledge and recognize the abuse before meaningful change can occur,” the court wrote, and considering that the father initially consented to the no-contact order between himself and his daughter, then later denied that he sexually abused her, the court found that she should stay in the care of her mother.

20 : percent of sexual-assault cases investigated by the
Des Moines Police Department’s Sexual Abuse/Child Trauma Section resulted in criminal charges in 2000.

Sucks to be you

Name: Jonathan Michael Barbour
Location: Polk County Jail
Posed for this picture because: Barbour called Des Moines Police to report he’d been robbed. But in the end, it was Barbour who took the trip to jail. According to police reports, Barbour called 911 alleging an acquaintance assaulted and stole money from him while the two were at Barbour’s Des Moines home. But when the cops ran Barbour’s name through their records, they found that there was an outstanding warrant for his arrest.

Packing for the slammer

Not that you’re planning on it, but if you find yourself incarcerated in the Dallas County Jail, you’d better pack light. According to the Dallas County Sheriff’s Department Web site, the only items allowed into the jail are: Six pairs of white socks, six white T-shirts (no pockets allowed), six pairs of brief-style underwear, and paperback books (no hardbacks, and all books brought into the jail become the property of the Dallas County Correctional Facility upon the inmate’s release). Inmates can also establish “commissary accounts.” Through this account, inmates can order items like candy, paper, chapstick, stamped envelopes, pens, shampoo, puzzle books, etc.

On the clock

Des Moines Police – Nov. 27

8:50 a.m.
Burglary in the 2900 block of S.E. 22nd. Police were dispatched to Riverwood Elementary School, where they met with a teacher who said that her classroom had been burglarized. The culprit had drawn swastikas and “other shapes” all over the room, according to police reports. A fire extinguisher had been used in the classroom, and as a result, dust covered most surfaces. Some of the teacher’s CDs had been stolen. Police found the fire extinguisher and the CDs outside of the classroom on the ground. The teacher could not name any suspects.

1:05 p.m.
Strong-arm robbery in the 1100 block of 25th. The victim, an employee, reported that the suspect came into the store and ordered a flower. When the victim opened the cash drawer, the suspect lunged over the counter, pushed her back, and grabbed the cash from the drawer. As the suspect fled, the victim attempted to grab him, and he pushed her down again, before escaping from the store. The victim described the suspect as a male in his 40s with full hair and a neatly trimmed beard. He was wearing a black, nylon jacket lined with fleece, and carrying a black binder. He had a speech impediment, the victim recalled. She also described him as “nice looking” and “very neat,” according to police reports.

8:33 p.m.
Assault with a weapon in the 1100 block of Army Post Road. A witness was working at Taco Bell, in the food court at Southridge Mall, when the suspect approached and asked if the witness had seen a certain man (the victim) earlier in the day at the mall. The suspect stated that the victim had assaulted a mutual friend, and the suspect wanted to find the victim. The suspect then allegedly pulled up his shirt, revealing what appeared to be a handgun. After the suspect departed, the witness phoned police. Des Moines police officers and mall security agents searched mall property for both the suspect and the intended victim. In the meantime, the victim received a phone call from a family member, warning him about the search. Apparently, the family member had heard the news on a police scanner. An officer made contact with the victim at his residence, where he stated that he did not assault the common friend, and that he was unaware the suspect wanted to harm him. He stated he had known the suspect for a long time, and they had been friends. When the police located the suspect, he denied showing a weapon at the mall. In fact, he said he did not own a gun or any other type of weapon. He denied threatening the victim. CV

Comment on this story | Return to top