Burglary – or Not? A Case of Unmistaken Identity, Uncertain Intent

A 21-year-old Milwaukee man is standing charges that he broke into a Wauwatosa home, according to court records.

But police reports show that what was initially investigated as a burglary, pure and simple, became instead a case of malicious damage, and yet could turn back into burglary again – depending on whether the homeowner is, in turn, turning up the heat on the accused.

Complicating the matter is that the two are relatives who have developed some strong bones to pick.

According to police reports:

At 8:31 p.m. Monday, the tenant of the upper flat of a duplex in the 2400 block of North 65th Street reported a burglary in progress in the homeowner’s lower flat, and said she knew he wasn’t home.

Police arrived and found a back window broken open and the residence in disarray, but the perpetrator was gone.

The homeowner, when he arrived, toured his residence with police and said he could not find any property missing – and said he strongly suspected a young nephew with whom he’d just had a big falling out.

He told officers the young man had threatened to break up his place – and in fact, the nephew called his uncle while police were interviewing him and told him, “I’m not finished yet, you better watch your truck.”

When police contacted the nephew by phone, he asked, “What’s the worst I could get for this?” He admitted that in his anger he had broken in to his uncle's place to do damage.

Under the circumstances, the Wauwatosa police, believing it might be difficult to prove the young man had "burglarious intent" but rather had committed property crimes out of spite, booked him and sent him to the County Jail along with a request for charges of criminal trespass to a dwelling and criminal damage to property.

However... as they were in the process, the homeowner, his uncle, called back and said that, upon further review, he was missing two handguns, two leather jackets and a watch.

The police officer who had conducted the initial investigation at the scene was somewhat incredulous, because, he said, he had spied a box of ammunition on a shelf in the home and had pointedly and specifically asked whether there were any firearms missing.

The victim had told him "no" at the time, he reported. When, in retrospect, he was asked why, he said he hadn't actually checked and just assumed that his nephew "wouldn't do that."

As for the watch, police on the crime scene had also found jewelry boxes in the homeowner's bedroom rifled, but he declared nothing missing. And the two leather jackets were both distinctive $450 Harley-Davidson jackets, the man was now saying, but he hadn't missed them at the time of the crime.

As of last reports filed, no such property had been recovered and the defendant had not yet been questioned further about the property his uncle said was missing.