Officer initiated a traffic stop of this vehicle. As Officer was conducting this traffic stop, dispatch informed him that a local business had just reported the occupants of the vehicle for having possibly tried to sell stolen power tools. Officer learned that there was a burglary earlier in the day and that power tools were taken. Officer obtained a list of the stolen power tools. The value of these power tools was reported to be approximately $1,900. Officer spoke with the driver (Driver) of the vehicle separate from the two passengers.
Officer informed Driver of the report he just received. Driver acknowledged that they had just been at the local business and that there were power tools in the vehicle. Driver gave Officer consent to search the vehicle for the power tools. Officer conducted a consent search of the vehicle. Officer was able to locate power tools in the vehicle and was able to confirm that the power tools found in the vehicle matched the description of the power tools which had been stolen. Officer spoke with the first of the two passengers (Co-Defendant). Officer questioned Co-Defendant regarding the power tools located in the vehicle.
Co-Defendant was initially evasive but eventually became more talkative. Co-Defendant claimed that some of the power tools were his and that he had owned them for multiple years, and that some of the power tools belonged to the second passenger, Zachary Chad Koetz, [DOB REDACTED] (Defendant). However, he was unable to provide accurate information regarding basic functions of the power tools. Officer spoke with Defendant. Defendant admitted that he had presented his license during the attempted sale of the power tools.
Defendant denied that the tools were his and claimed that they all belonged to Co- Defendant. Officer then questioned Co-Defendant again about his story. Co-Defendant attempted to explain to Officer how he came into possession of the power tools but his explanation did not make sense and it was apparent to Officer that Co-Defendant was not being truthful. Eventually, Co-Defendant admitted that a friend of his had sold the power tools to him. Co-Defendant explained that this friend had called him on short notice and sold him the collection of power tools for $50 and that his friend told Co-Defendant that he needed to make the transaction quick.
Co-Defendant said his friend did not explain to him how he came into possession of the tools. Co-Defendant claimed this sequence of events did not raise suspicions that the power tools might be stolen. Co-Defendant said that after he purchased the tools he called Defendant and arranged to pawn the tools together. Officer later spoke with the local business that had made the report regarding the attempted sale of the power tools. Officer obtained a video recording of the transaction from the local business.
