The following information came from the Westford Police Department. Anyone arrested is considered innocent unless proven guilty by a court of law.
Sept. 8, 10:29 a.m. – Construction vehicles closed off a portion of Providence Road and an officer was there directing traffic. At this time, the traffic detail officer saw a driver coming off Lowell Road he knew from an arrest in May.
This driver was arrested for alleged driving with a revoked license. The driver’s license had been revoked in March 2015, and by July 2015 the revocation timeframe had grown to four years.
Later, the officer and another officer went to the driver’s home and asked if he remembered driving down Providence Road. The driver said he did remember that moment.
At that point, the officer asked the driver why he was driving with a revoked driver’s license and the driver became upset. In response, the driver said his license had not been revoked, a claim the driver had made prior to the arrest in May. The officer indicated that this assertion was incorrect and the driver would need to contact the Registry of Motor Vehicles if he disagreed.
Additionally, the driver’s owners could face criminal charges if they continued to allow him to drive.
The driver was issued a citation.
Sept. 8, 8:41 p.m. – A woman contacted police after a dispute with a roommate over rent. The woman found the roommate on Craig’s List and agreed to rent him a room on a trial basis for two weeks to make sure there were no issues.
After the first week, the woman said the man was argumentative and was making her uneasy with his comments. He was requested to leave, but the man said that he had paid a month’s rent. The agreement was verbal and nothing was in writing.
Eventually the man said that he would leave, but could not gather all his belongings tonight.
The woman said she had no problem with the man returning to get his belongings tomorrow. He gave back his key.
Two days later he returned to the residence with an officer to remove items from the domicile.
She had agreed to refund him his $1,000 deposit. The male roommate asked if the officer could be the middle man on any other contractual issues, but the officer said he could only keep the peace and anything else was a civil issue.
Upon the arrival of the officer, the roommate and a person helping the roommate move out his things, the woman was upset that there was only one officer there. She said did not feel safe with only one office on the premises and would not permit the helper inside. Additionally, she ordered that the basement door be closed between trips in and out of the building.
At this point, the officer believed that the items would be moved out of the building quicker if both individuals were able to carry items, limiting the amount of possible conflict, so he allowed both men to enter.
However, the woman became upset at this and requested to speak with a police supervisor, indicating that the officer had unlawfully gone through several sealed items.
The woman also claimed that the roommate had damaged the drawer of a wooden desk. The roommate did not deny this, but was able to fix the drawer within five seconds according to the report. Still, the woman did not believe the desk had been repaired appropriately and took photographs.
After moving everything out, the man received a check for $750, with $250 withheld for a deposit. Later, the officer ask that she give the man the $250 as agreed. She stated she would give the roommate $1,000. However, she said she declined to mention that included the deposit.
The officer acknowledged her response and informed the roommate.
