1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32 | [CONTINUED FROM LIC 809]
According to the facility administrator, who soon met with R1 in their bedroom, R1’s roommate was not present at the time, there were empty jewelry boxes inside R1’s dresser drawers, and there was no sign of forced entry via the one window inside the room (something the police detective corroborated during their own inspection). The room was thoroughly searched, but there was no sign of the missing jewelry. S1 was working as a caregiver on this day, but abruptly left work following the incident, citing a personal emergency.
R1 told SDPD that “no less than 14 items of jewelry” were stolen. S1’s name was checked against a law enforcement database of pawned items, leading police to a pawn shop located 1.7 miles from the facility, where they were able to locate and photograph 9 items which S1 had pawned, of which 4 were pawned on or after 01-28-2022. Of these 4 items, R1 was able to positively identify one as their property: it was a gold bracelet pawned on 02-02-2022 for $550. Although police were not able to locate R1’s other 13 jewelry pieces, they officially concluded that those items combined were worth at least “$1,000 fair market value.” Facility records established R1 as a reliable historian with no cognitive or psychotic impairment; their testimony remained credible and consistent across their three interviews with licensee, SDPD, and CCLD, respectively. Although S1 never confessed to the crime, they impaired their credibility. S1 told police they have never pawned an item in their life, yet database records showed they pawned 42 items totaling $30,000 since 2017. When confronted with photos of items they recently pawned, S1 changed their story and claimed the pawned items belonged to them.
On 02-10-2022, SDPD arrested S1 on two felonies: “459 – PC – Burglary (Residential) (F)” and “368(D) – PC – Theft of Elder/Dependent Adult (Larceny Over $950) (F).” The San Diego County District Attorney’s Office reviewed the case, determining there was sufficient evidence to prosecute S1 before a “felony jury trial.” A court judge also approved R1’s restraining order against S1, leading up to the trial.
[CONTINUED ON LIC 809-C, 2 of 2] |