Fake Target Employee Tries to Steal Electronics, Batters APD Officers Trying to Escape from Custody
© 2024 ABQRAW All Rights Reserved – Please Request Permission Before Disseminating on Other Social Media Platforms
Albuquerque, NM – A routine call regarding suspicious activity at a local Target store escalated into a dramatic showdown between law enforcement and a repeat offender on March 10, 2024. The incident, which unfolded at the Target situated at 9371 Coors Blvd NW, resulted in the apprehension of Curtis Vann, a notorious impersonator with a penchant for electronics.
Authorities responded to a distress call from the store, reporting a man masquerading as a Target employee and he was attempting to procure store keys for the merchandise storage area. According to eyewitness accounts, the suspect, later identified as Curtis Vann, 22-year-old from Bloomington, Indiana, managed to obtain access to the storage room and obtained five Xbox One Consoles.
According to the criminal complaint, loss prevention officers recounted the encounter, shedding light on Vann’s history of deception. Loss prevention employees told police that Vann, had been previously employed at a different Target location in early 2023, but he was terminated under undisclosed circumstances. Since then, Vann had made repeated attempts to infiltrate various Target stores in the area. Vann has been employing the same modus operandi of impersonation to pilfer electronic goods from Target locations throughout the metro.
Upon arriving on scene, law enforcement officers confronted Vann, who was unmistakably dressed in the signature red shirt and khaki pants worn by Target employees. Despite being read his Miranda rights, Vann remained tight-lipped and refused to cooperate with the authorities. Vann was promptly informed of his impending arrest on two counts of felony shoplifting, pertaining to incidents on both March 8th and March 10th, 2024.
Subsequently, Vann was arrested and escorted to the Northwest Substation for processing, where an unexpected twist unfolded. Seizing an opportunity during a restroom break, Vann brazenly attempted to flee, pushing past officers in a desperate bid for freedom. However, Vann’s useless escape plan was thwarted by locked doors, prompting him to seek temporary refuge in the nearby evidence room.
What ensued was a tense standoff as Vann barricaded himself inside, using multiple chairs to fortify his position and resist apprehension. Law enforcement officers, were faced with the long arduous challenge of coaxing Vann out, without resorting to force.
After about 15 minutes of negotiation, Vann ultimately decided to resist authorities, bringing an end to the harrowing ordeal which wasn’t to his advantage or preference. He now faces a litany of charges, including felony shoplifting, and resisting arrest, battery on police officers, and stolen motor vehicle.
Understanding fraudulent returns and mitigation strategies in multichannel retailing
Author links open overlay panelDanni Zhang a
, Regina Frei a
, P.K. Senyo a
, Steffen Bayer a
, Enrico Gerding b, Gary Wills b, Adrian Beck cShow moreOutlineAdd to MendeleyShareCite
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2022.103145Get rights and content
Under a Creative Commons license
Open access
Highlights
- •We explore various types of product returns fraud in a multichannel retail environment and categorise them.
- •We indicate how common they are, whether they have recently emerged or changed, and in which channels they occur.
- •We indicate which retailer related factors enable fraudulent returns and what interventions can reduce fraudulent returns.
- •We present a framework for product returns fraud in a multichannel environment.
- •The framework includes drivers of product returns related to retailers, customers, products, and external factors.
Abstract
The growth of online retailing has exceeded expectations over the last few years. This has resulted in high product return rates, which retailers are struggling with due to complex and costly returns processing, logistics, and financial implications. Additionally, online returns come with increased opportunities for returns fraud. During the pandemic, new types of returns fraud have emerged and returns fraud rates have increased across all channels. Based on a series of semi-structured interviews with retailers and retail experts, we investigate factors that enable fraudulent returns from consumers’ and retailers’ perspectives and outline strategies for retailers to combat product returns fraud in a multichannel environment, leading to a framework for retail fraud. We contribute critical insights to research and practices on understanding and addressing a growing problem that has economic, social and environmental implications.
Keywords
Multichannel retail
eCommerce
Product returns
Fraud
1. Introduction
Fraudulent returns are seen as an inevitable yet regrettable part of business for most retailers because they induce losses and consume a large proportion of resources. Returns fraud can reduce a retailer’s overall profitability by 10%–20%, significantly affecting a retailer’s bottom line (King, 2004). A recent study by Appriss and the National Retail Federation (National Retail Federation, 2021) has demonstrated that the US retail industry suffers a loss of $7.8 billion per year from fraudulent returns, equivalent to 2,188,861 jobs lost assuming a retail salary of $35,800. Also, for every $100 in accepted returns, retailers lost $10.30 to returns fraud in 2020 compared to $8.80 in 2019.
Due to the extended closure of bricks and mortar stores during the periods of national lockdowns, the COVID-19 pandemic affected customers’ shopping and returns behaviours and significantly aggravated the problem of high product returns rates and returns fraud (Cycleon, 2021; Incisiv, 2021; Ward, 2022). Measures for crowd-control and social distancing, as well as changes in returns policies resulted in retailers making changes in their returns management (Barkho, 2020; Downes, 2021; Ryan, 2020). All returned products needed to be quarantined both in-store and at the distribution centre, leading to delays in processing. Due to increased sickness rates, there was (and due to recruitment issues often still is) insufficient staff available, meaning returned products receive less scrutiny, which increases fraudulent returns over time (Zhang et al., 2022a). In addition, the increased financial pressure caused by the COVID-19 pandemic led to more returns fraud. The Head of Fraud Intelligence for Cifas (the UK’s Fraud Prevention Community) suggested that with the financial stress caused by the pandemic and inflation, some households may have become opportunistic in making money (Cifas, 2021). This situation made it essential to gain a deeper understanding of the various types of returns fraud, the factors that drive them, and what retailers can do to address them. It is suggested that COVID-19 tremendously affected the retail industry, through supply chain disruptions and changes in customer shopping and returns behaviour (e.g., PR Newswire, 2020; Roggeveen and Sethuraman, 2020; OECD, 2020). While considerable research has investigated the implications of COVID-19 on retail operations (Mukherjee et al., 2021; Pantano et al., 2020; Pujawan and Bah, 2022), limited research has explored its impacts on returns fraud. To address this knowledge gap, this study seeks to address the following research questions (RQs):
- •RQ1: What are the factors enabling fraudulent returns in multichannel retail?
- •RQ2: What strategies can retailers use to address fraudulent returns?
- •RQ3: What would a framework for product returns fraud management consist of?
To address these questions, we conducted in-depth semi-structured interviews with eight retailers from the UK, US, and Canada, five experts from the retailer associations, and a former police officer specialising in retail crime. We complemented the interviews with observational data from online meetings of the ECR Retail Loss Group, an association of retailers and manufacturers, to have the most updated information on retailers’ experiences in dealing with returns fraud.
2. Literature review
2.1. Fraudulent consumer returns behaviour
According to the 2006 UK Fraud Act, returns fraud includes any approach of using or obtaining the ownership of a product without paying for it and achieving benefits through returns. One classic example is so-called ‘wardrobing’, ‘borrowing’, or ‘renting’, whereby an item is purchased for a specific purpose, such as a party dress to attend an event, and then returned (Akturk et al., 2021; Piron and Young, 2001; Phau et al., 2022). Speights and Hilinski (2005) stated that wardrobing is the most frequent fraud type that attacks retailers’ profit margins. Often, people do not even perceive dishonest returns as being fraudulent or illegal and believe they are just ‘stretching’ the returns policies (Khouri, 2017). However, this behaviour fits the definition of the Fraud Act 2006 as being dishonest and intending to make a gain and causing a loss to retailers (The Crown Prosecution Service, 2020). Returns fraud also violates the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and social norms (Autry, Hill and O’Brien, 2007). With the flood of returns from online shopping, it is important to discuss what is legitimate returning and what is not – and there is a very fine line in-between: it is perfectly fine to try on an item at home, not like it and return it. However, trying it on, taking pictures for social media, and then returning the item is not legitimate (Jadezweni, 2019).
Fraudsters can also employ many other, more clear-cut techniques to gain benefits through product returns (Speights and Hilinski, 2005): A common approach, especially for online fraud, is called Price Arbitrage, where a broken, lesser quality or counterfeit item is returned instead of the original item for a full refund. Sometimes, less sophisticated variants of this returns fraud include sending back an empty parcel asking for a full refund, hoping retailers will not check. In this way, fraudsters not only receive a full refund (i.e., the product’s retail price) but also keep the product. Retailers lose money at the product retail price and the cost of producing or sourcing that product. In recent shocking news, a 22-year-old was arrested for scamming Amazon out of nearly $370,000 by sending return packages weighted with dirt instead of the returned product (Moynihan and Aguiar, 2019).
Other types of returns fraud happen in combination with shoplifting that happens in-store. For example, receipt fraud includes using a receipt to get a refund on a shoplifted item (Robertson et al., 2020). Nowadays, there are even websites that sell fake digital or physical receipts (Section 4.1). Sometimes, there is collusion with dishonest employees who process illegitimate return transactions for their family members (Speights and Hilinski, 2005). Shipping fraud comes in several variations and often includes people from the same housing estate collaborating to avoid being identified and banned (Jack et al., 2019).
In addition to various types of fraud, fraudsters also vary widely, ranging from organised criminal gangs to individuals with no criminal history who just benefit from an opportunity that arises (Robertson et al., 2020). Harris (2008) identified 10 consumer-related factors contributing to the success of returns fraud, namely: customer knowledge of return policies, exploiting relational ties (collusion with employees), judicious timing, selection of suitable products, interaction style, lack of customer self-consciousness, feigning personal connections, generation of enjoyable interaction, experience of successful fraudulent returns, and targeting employee types. Harris (2010) investigated demographic and psychographic factors of people committing returns fraud, whereby young female customers with lower education levels and thrill-seeking behaviours were found to be the most frequent delinquents.
Chang and Guo (2021) showed that strengthening the personal relation between online retailers and customers reduces fraudulent returns and encourages more ethical behaviour. Following this line of research, they explored the effect of lenient versus rigorous returns policies on consumer behaviours (Chang and Yang, 2022). They demonstrated a strong correlation between moral judgment and unethical returning, meaning that it is useful for retailers to understand the moral decision-making of customers, which in turn relates to the psychology of returns (Spreer et al., 2021). Zhang et al. (2022a) use the revisited Fraud Triangle (Schuchter and Levi, 2016) and the Theory of Planned Behaviour (Ajzen, 2002) to explain what may happen on the consumer side that makes them commit fraud. Rationalisation – a way of committing fraud without violating one’s moral values (Charlopova et al., 2020) – is an element of it, and it can include elements of denial of injury, denial of responsibility, or defence of necessity (Shepherd and Button, 2019).
Furthermore, the extant literature on eCommerce fraud has been investigated in a more complex retailing environment in the Asian context, especially China (e.g., Lee, 2021a, 2021b; Zhang et al., 2013). These studies focus on identifying eCommerce fraud in general including seller fraud, online non-payment fraud, and customer-to-customer fraud. However, there is still a lack of a comprehensive understanding of the enabling factors and the ways of how fraudsters engage in returns fraud. Moreover, the countermeasures remain under-researched. It is plausible that some of the findings of Asian-focused studies may not be applicable in the Western countries’ retailing environment, especially the challenges faced by omnichannel retailers.
To the best of our knowledge, no previous study has focused on the retailer side of fraudulent returns. Furthermore, no previous study has provided a comprehensive review of various returns fraud types and sub-types. Previous studies focus on one or two types of returns fraud (e.g., wardrobing or chargeback), except Speights and Hilinski (2005), which is already a little dated and the data collection is from the customers’ side, whereas our study explores which factors on the retailer side may drive or enable fraud to occur.
2.2. Factors influencing fraudulent returns
Scholars have addressed fraudulent returns since the 1970s. For example, Zabriskie (1972), cited in Harris (2010), highlighted dishonest return behaviours, and suggested that around 12% of returns were fraudulent. Jolson (1974) observed that 22% of returns involved an intention to abuse returns policies, which relates to the observation that lenient returns policies tend to increase purchases (Janakiraman et al., 2016), some of which will be made with bad intentions. The existing body of research concentrating on fraudulent returns has generated insights into dishonest consumers’ motivations.
Retailers’ liberal return policies, setting no consequences for fraudsters’ unscrupulous behaviour, can encourage returns fraud, as it comes at little or no cost to themselves (Chang and Yang, 2022; Speights and Hilinski, 2005; King et al., 2007; Schmidt et al., 1999). The other motivational roots are derived from the fraudsters’ side, including unethical beliefs, financial benefits from returns fraud, as well as economic and social needs. For example, wardrobing behaviour is typically based on unethical beliefs and behaviours of the offender’s social demographic group (Wachter et al., 2012; Harris, 2010; Mun et al., 2014). If there is a rise in the acceptability of opportunistic returns by friends and relatives or social groups, individuals will be influenced to act in the same way (King and Dennis, 2006). Whilst retailers cannot fundamentally change this, they can reduce fraudulent returns by building a personal relationship with their customers (Chang and Guo, 2021) and shop assistants expressing disapproval or anger when dishonest returns are attempted in store (Seger-Guttmann et al., 2018). Moreover, societal changes in shopping and returns behaviours have occurred over the last few years, and the influence of social media has increased significantly. Kihal and Shehu (2022) found that modern marketing tools, such as paid searches, newsletters as well as free shipping increase sales and returns, providing more opportunities for “stretching” returns policies.
Research on how to effectively manage and reduce fraud has developed several related frameworks: the anti-ID fraud framework (Ghosh, 2010), the identity fraud enterprise management framework (Jamieson et al., 2007), the fraud management lifecycle theory-based first-party fraud management framework (Amasiatu and Shah, 2018), and Furlan and Bajec’s (2008) framework of managing health-insurance fraud. Wilhelm (2004)‘s fraud management lifecycle theory introduces eight components (i.e., Deterrence, Prevention, Detection, Mitigation, Analysis, Policy, Investigation and Prosecution) to assess fraud management’s success or failure. This framework was in four different industries, showing the flexibility and compatibility to be adapted to various sectors, including retail. Although these frameworks have suggested essential components for successfully managing frauds, no study has developed a framework for managing product returns fraud specifically. Therefore, it is crucial to develop this, and we propose one in Section 6.
2.3. Rationale of this article
The overall cost of returns in general – especially those created by e-commerce, where customers use their homes as fitting rooms – is likely to dwarf the costs of returns driven by fraud. Also, the sheer volume of returning stock makes it much more difficult to identify fraudulent returns. Yet, based on our literature review as well as our conversations with retailers and retail experts, returns fraud is increasingly being recognised as a problem that needs addressing by both scholars and retailers. Nevertheless, the drivers influencing returns fraud that can be controlled by retailers are under-researched. The extant literature does not directly investigate how fraudsters exploit retailers’ return and refund systems. It is plausible that the economically hard time of the COVID-19 pandemic may push consumers to commit what they see as a harmless act, but in reality, is fraud.
Furthermore, limited studies have explored the types of interventions that retailers can use to reduce fraudulent return rates. The effects of interventions remain under-researched and lack analysis and comments from retailers’ perspectives. It is worthwhile to address these under-explored questions to assist retailers in reducing returns frauds and making better decisions for future improvement in returns management.
3. Research methodology
This study takes an interpretive approach where the world is understood from the point of view of the research subjects (Saunders et al., 2009); truth is thus created in interaction and understood within a context.
3.1. Data collection
To achieve the research goals, a qualitative study was undertaken. We conducted semi-structured interviews with 8 retailers, 3 experts from retailer associations, 2 experts from returns technology service providers, and 1 former police officer specialising in retail crime. A total of 18 people, with responsibilities in loss prevention, data analysis, and store management for returns from both offline and online businesses, were interviewed individually or in small groups. These self-selected organisations retail a wide range of products, some including groceries (which was outside of our research scope), clothing, and general merchandise products such as home entertainment and small electrical goods.
The retailers were selected using purposive sampling. All participants are major omnichannel retailers, with the number of stores ranging from 150 to over 1000. Therefore, they all have significant impacts on society and the economy and should have better strategies in managing returns fraud than the average retailer. This purposive sampling technique is a non-probability method where a specific group is selected for in-depth exploration that can provide information-rich data (Higginbottom, 2004; Murphy et al., 1998).
Table 1 provides details about the participating retailers and the roles of the interviewees. We also participated in online meetings of the ECR Retail Loss Group, listening to retailers reporting on their experiences, and we collected feedback from Appriss Retail. On this basis, we developed interventions to reduce different types of returns fraud. The interview questions were designed to learn about (1) the impact of the pandemic on returns and related fraud (which is discussed in [redacted for review]), (2) the various types of returns fraud, (3) the drivers of returns fraud controlled by retailers, and (4) possible interventions for reducing returns fraud. The conversations also evolved naturally with other follow-up questions. Thus, the interviews with retailers deepened our knowledge of the changes in returns since the beginning of the pandemic, in particular regarding the emergence of new returns fraud types. Meanwhile, interviewing people from various departments in an organisation to talk about the problem of returns and related fraud allowed us to gain a comprehensive picture of the problems in returns management.
Locust Police Department News & Press Releases
FOR MORE REGULAR DEPARTMENT NEWS AND UPDATES, VISIT OUR FACEBOOK PAGE AT:
*** LPD WINTER WEATHER UPDATE ***
Sunday 01/25/26 – 8 am
A link to the latest National Weather Service update from this morning is below.
Locust officers report this morning that roads are covered and traffic is minimal which we are grateful for. No reports of downed trees as of yet, and power is still currently on. Weather reports have indicated that freezing rain will accumulate throughout the day, so any power issues will likely occur much later in the day today.
Overnight, Locust officers reported road conditions were deteriorating with sleet and some ice on the roads that was causing some slickness.
Locust officers made one driving while impaired arrest of a driver that wrecked their vehicle due to road conditions in addition to the poor decision making of driving while impaired. Those decisions also put our officers at risk in these conditions.
Officers also had to assist one elderly driver on Hwy 200 where road conditions were slick. This was after midnight and this report is 8 hours later so road conditions have worsened if anything.
We have immense gratitude for the Locust officers and all first responders who are working in these conditions, and thank you to Sergeant Stancil, Officer Wallace, and Corporal Fore for providing specific updates throughout the night.
http://www.weather.gov/…/NWSRaleighLatestBriefing.pdf
STANLY COUNTY EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT STORM INFORMATION
STATE OF EMERGENCY – WINTER STORM FERN
Stanly County has declared a local State of Emergency ahead of Winter Storm Fern. The State of Emergency went into effect Saturday, January 24th at 8:00 AM.
Public Safety and Emergency Services personnel from across the county are actively monitoring the storm and working to ensure the safety of all citizens.
Residents should plan for hazardous conditions, including:
Icy and unsafe roadways
Freezing temperatures
Downed trees
Possible extended power outages
Citizens are urged to prepare now:
Build an emergency supply kit
Sign up for Stanly Alerts
Plan for potential power outages
Stay home and off the roads during the storm whenever possible. This helps keep you safe and allows emergency responders and utility crews to work quickly and safely.
Call 911 only for emergencies.
Updates will be shared throughout the storm via social media and the county website:
County Website: https://www.stanlycountync.gov
ReadyNC: https://www.readync.gov
Stanly Alerts: https://www.stanlycountync.gov/412/Stanly-Alerts
Road Conditions: https://drivenc.gov
Please stay safe and continue to monitor official updates.
JANUARY 23RD, 2026
***LPD WINTER WEATHER UPDATE***
Please regularly check the following sites for Stanly County emergency updates regarding the incoming winter weather in addition to following your most trusted local news source:
If you live in Cabarrus County sections of Locust, most updates received through Stanly County resources would still apply however you can also check with Cabarrus County agencies as well.
For Stanly County, they will announce any resources related to shelters or other assistance stations. Those are resources coordinated through Emergency Services and not through the City of Locust or Locust Police Department. We will pass along information we receive and share any information we see from Emergency Services however our function as a department is to continue serving and protecting before, during, and following the storm.
For assistance, you will need to contact Stanly Communications for emergencies at 911 and non-emergencies at 704-986-3700. For Cabarrus County, the non-emergency number is 704-920-3000.
This winter storm that at last update was projected to begin escalating in the early evening hours of Saturday (01/24) and continue through early Monday (01/26) will produce sleet and freezing rain which means ice, very possibly significant ice. No report we’ve received has indicated anything other than that. Though there is still some speculation about the amount, just be very aware that ice does 2 main things that will directly affect you; the ability to travel and electricity.
The Locust Police Department is asking you to please not attempt to travel on Locust streets and highways once this storm begins. Any travel you attempt on icy roads you are greatly endangering your own safety as well as putting our officers at risk who will have to respond to any crashes.
On electricity, if you have not had the means or ability to prepare for a power outage, we encourage you to stay with family or friends who are prepared, and continue to check for updates on available shelters either in Stanly County or elsewhere. If you believe you need to stay at a shelter, we recommend you find it now and be there prior to the storm setting in tomorrow afternoon/evening.
If you need assistance we along with the West Stanly Fire Department and when necessary Stanly County EMS will respond however assistance we can provide related to a power outage is going to be extremely limited.
Please do all you can to prepare for the potential in this storm and take it seriously. It is much better to be overprepared than underprepared. The total effects we will just have to wait until the storm comes through to know.
***STILL ACCEPTING APPLICATIONS!!***
The Locust Police Department is currently seeking lateral transfer officers, recent BLET graduates, current and prospective BLET students for open positions with our department’s patrol division.
The Locust Police Department is a community policing oriented agency that serves one of the fastest growing cities in North Carolina presenting the exciting opportunity for significant department growth, and salary potential. We promote work-life balance, quality of life away from the job, and professional growth. Would you like to work for an agency where YOU matter, YOU are supported, and YOU are appreciated for the difficult job you do?
Apply today to be an officer with the Locust Police Department!
INQUIRE FOR MORE DETAILS AND A NO COMMITMENT STARTING SALARY/BENEFIT ASSESSMENT!!
Contact Assistant Chief Kevin O’Connor at 704-888-4744 or kroconnor@locustnc.gov
Starting Salary Range: $48,000 – $60,400
– Performance Merit Salary Increases Annually
– ADDITIONAL salary increase potential for other achievements (See hiring ad for some listed achievements, inquire for all)
– Lateral transfer officers qualify for $1,000 per year of service up to 8 years or the max starting salary of $60,400
– NOW offering $4,390 annual shift differential pay
– $3,500 annual childcare or tuition reimbursement
– Gym membership reimbursement as part of Locust Employee Wellness Program
– Annual longevity bonus (2% of salary with % increase after years of service)
– Up to 4% annual merit based salary increase. Achievement based salary increases are also available
– Two weeks paid vacation with increased accrual as service continues
– Outer Carriers (Load Bearing Vests) for Locust patrol officers
– New beard policy allowing officers to have beards on-duty
– Take home vehicles for Locust officers within 20 miles “as the crow flies” from Locust city limits
– Off duty security details are available and increasing – $40 hourly rate, $50 hourly rate on holiday events
– City paid health, dental, and vision insurance. $50,000 life insurance. City paid 5% 401k contribution
The City of Locust is the fastest growing area in Stanly County and the 4th fastest growing city in the Charlotte metro region.
JOIN OUR TEAM AND GROW AS WE GROW. APPLY TODAY!!!!
***NOW HIRING PATROL OFFICERS!!***
INQUIRE FOR MORE DETAILS AND A NO COMMITMENT STARTING SALARY/BENEFIT ASSESSMENT!!
Contact Assistant Chief Kevin O’Connor at 704-888-4744 or kroconnor@locustnc.gov
Starting Salary Range: $48,000 – $60,400
– Performance Merit Salary Increases Annually
– ADDITIONAL salary increase potential for other achievements (See hiring ad for some listed achievements, inquire for all)
– Lateral transfer officers qualify for $1,000 per year of service up to 8 years or the max starting salary of $60,400
– NOW offering $4,390 annual shift differential pay
– $3,500 annual childcare or tuition reimbursement
– Gym membership reimbursement as part of Locust Employee Wellness Program
– Annual longevity bonus (2% of salary with % increase after years of service)
– Up to 4% annual merit based salary increase. Achievement based salary increases are also available
– Two weeks paid vacation with increased accrual as service continues
– Outer Carriers (Load Bearing Vests) for Locust patrol officers
– New beard policy allowing officers to have beards on-duty
– Take home vehicles for Locust officers within 20 miles “as the crow flies” from Locust city limits
– Off duty security details are available and increasing – $40 hourly rate, $50 hourly rate on holiday events
– City paid health, dental, and vision insurance. $50,000 life insurance. City paid 5% 401k contribution
The City of Locust is the fastest growing area in Stanly County and the 4th fastest growing city in the Charlotte metro region.
JOIN OUR TEAM AND GROW AS WE GROW. APPLY TODAY!!!!
2025 NEWS AND PRESS RELEASES
LPD RECOGNIZE/THANK AN OFFICER PROGRAM
August 27
LPD RECOGNIZE/THANK AN OFFICER PROGRAM
August 14
HAPPY BIRTHDAY RICO!
August 13 – Happy 5th birthday to the most popular member of the Locust Police Department…… K-9 Rico!!!
Though he is on duty for his birthday today, make sure if you see him you give him some birthday wishes……..and ignore Corporal Dietz’s attempts at being included.
Happy Birthday Rico!
LPD HOSTS 2ND ANNUAL JUNIOR DETECTIVE CAMP
July 29 – Last week the Locust Police Department hosted our 2nd annual Junior Detective Summer Camp created, planned, and conducted by our awesome Locust Elementary School Resource Officer Daniel Longtin.
This year’s Junior Detective session included 12 campers consisting of rising 4th and 5th grader students from Locust Elementary School. Our Junior Detectives for the 2025 edition were tasked with solving “The Case Of The Missing Money Mischief” that included a bank robbery for our Junior Detectives to solve. Role players for this year’s case were expertly played by the thespians of the City of Locust staff and included Ms. Margaret Ellington, a teller at the bank, Ms. Spellman who was seen flashing large amounts of cash at a Locust business after the robbery, Anastasia Willows who had perhaps been involved in a fishy bead jewelry trade with Mr. Flowers who refused to talk to police and wanted a lawyer. And Mr. Smith played by last year’s offender, the very suspicious Scotty Efird who was or was not possibly being framed for the robbery. Junior Detectives also received helpful tips from their FBI partner Agent Morton during the week.
Presentations and demonstrations on law enforcement and detective topics such as fingerprints, warrants, community interactions, crime scene response, K9, and first aid were given through the week. Campers used the information they learned and notes they took to both learn more about law enforcement as a career and to help solve their first Junior Detective case. Our detectives used their learned skills and followed clues, money trails and even raisins to identify and arrest Ms. Ellington, the bank teller responsible for the “inside job”.
Campers also participated in tours and demonstrations of law enforcement and first responder related fields such as the West Stanly Fire Department, Stanly County EMS, and the Locust Police Department. Campers were also involved in daily teamworking building games and activities hosted by New Life Church. Lunch and snacks were provided to our campers each day as well.
At the conclusion of a successful week, our Junior Detectives were congratulated by Chief Shew for a job well done, and presented with completion certificates, gift bags, and a department challenge coin that are only awarded by Chief Shew for outstanding accomplishments. In his closing remarks to our newly minted Junior Detectives, Chief stressed to the campers the importance of listening to and obeying their parents, doing the best they can in school, and being positive contributing members of their school and community. He also said if one day they decided they wanted to be a police officer to come talk to him and maybe they could be the first graduates of the Junior Detective camp to become Locust police officers.
The Locust Police Department thanks our friends at the Stanly County Sheriff’s Office, Stanly County EMS, West Stanly Fire Department, New Life Church, Emricci’s Pizza, Pinnacle Bank, and Walmart for their partnership and support during the week.
We also thank City of Locust staff members for their participation in the “case”, Locust officers who assisted with the camp and campers in a variety of ways, and Detective Sergeant Tucker for her tremendous assistance in the organization and planning of the camp.
Lastly, we thank SRO Longtin for all of his hard work, planning, and dedication to Locust area children in putting on this camp. We are extremely proud of all the work you do!
We will see you next year!
