Hilliard police: Man stole patients' identities working at addiction treatment facility
A Hilliard man is facing several charges after police there say he stole the identities of hundreds of patients who checked into an addiction treatment facility where he was employed.
Hilliard police said that the suspect — a 33-year-old man whom The Dispatch is not naming at this time — was employed at Evoke Wellness at Hilliard, an addiction treatment facility located at 5471 Scioto Darby Road. According to police, while the suspect was working at the treatment center, he stole the names, addresses, birthdates, and Social Security numbers of at least 240 people.
Many of the victims are in central Ohio, police said, but believe there are more victims nationwide.
A spokesperson from Evoke Wellness at Hilliard could not be reached for comment on June 9.
Hilliard police detectives said that the suspect sold private information on the dark web to criminals who then used the stolen identities to purchase vehicles, rack up credit card charges for hotels and restaurants, and to purchase cryptocurrency.
Hilliard police conducted a traffic stop on the suspect on Oct. 10, 2024, and found him in possession of four fake Ohio driver's licenses, 25 prepaid cards, a loaded handgun, and several cell phones that contained criminal evidence. He was initially charged with identity fraud, forgery, and improper handling of a firearm, police said.
On May 9, officers executed a search warrant at the suspect's home. Police did not say what evidence they found at the home, if any.
'This is a disturbing situation of someone taking advantage of individuals while they were seeking rehabilitation during a vulnerable time in their lives,' Hilliard police Chief Michael Woods said in a prepared release.
'We believe there are many more victims in this case and are dedicated to identifying as many as possible before we present this case to prosecutors.'
Reporter Shahid Meighan can be reached at smeighan@dispatch.com, at ShahidMeighan on X, and at shahidthereporter.dispatch.com on Bluesky.
This article originally appeared on The Columbus Dispatch: Hilliard man stole identities while working at Evoke Wellness
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Would Releasing the Martin Luther King Files Help Curb the Surveillance State?
The federal government is seeking to unseal long-classified FBI surveillance records on Martin Luther King Jr. nearly two years before their court-ordered release date (January 2027) and 56 years after his assassination. The King family and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC), which King founded, have objected to the early release, arguing the files contain illegally obtained wiretaps and personal information that should remain private. However, the compelling public interest could outweigh the family's understandable desire to shield King's memory from renewed smear campaigns. The FBI waged a psychological war against King through its COINTELPRO program, a counterintelligence operation targeting civil rights leaders suspected of communist ties. With backing from FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover and approval from Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy, agents illegally wiretapped King's home, offices, and hotel rooms. What started as a probe into alleged communist ties morphed into a protracted campaign to destroy King's reputation, utilizing fabricated stories, false documents, and anonymous threats. The recordings and accounts of King's private life, deemed likely illegal and unethical by the House Select Committee on Assassinations in 1979, were sealed for 50 years by a federal court in 1977, following a lawsuit by King's associate and the SCLC. A January executive order issued by President Donald Trump directs the Justice Department to seek an early release of the records, although officials claim their focus is only on documents related to King's assassination. On June 4, Judge Richard Leon of the U.S. District Court of the District of Columbia agreed to review the files before determining what will be released. "It's not going to happen overnight," Leon said. "The court is going to move very carefully." King's youngest daughter, Bernice, and son, Martin Luther King III, have asked the court not to release the documents, arguing that it would infringe on the family's privacy. The Kings also cite the botched release of John F. Kennedy files that revealed Social Security numbers, and point to the FBI's attempts to blackmail and smear King as evidence that a premature, unvetted disclosure could be harmful. Matthew Guariglia, senior policy analyst at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, tells Reason that the issue of privacy can be easily rectified. "The FBI or whoever is releasing these files has an opportunity to both preserve the privacy of the surveillance target and also reveal any historically significant facts about FBI methodology just by redacting a lot of the intentionally embarrassing surveillance information," he said. Leon will be tasked with balancing the file's significance in American history against the privacy concerns of those who were illegally spied on. As Guariglia notes, the situation requires a nuanced approach: "Important historical documents should not be withheld and classified forever. That being said, I think motivation here is important." While the King family's concerns are valid, the primary issue remains that the government collected such material in the first place. The Kings' objections are "shortsighted," Patrick Eddington, senior fellow at the Cato Institute, tells Reason. "In an age where government surveillance and political repression has become all too commonplace, I think the release of these records showing the FBI's prurient surveillance of King and attempts to blackmail him into abandoning the civil rights cause would be a powerful reminder to Americans about why the FBI's domestic surveillance activities need to be sharply curtailed." The FBI's surveillance of Americans continues to this day, largely with the approval of policymakers. Despite multiple instances of illegal FBI surveillance, including monitoring protesters after the 2020 George Floyd riots and the January 6 Capitol riot, Congress extended Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act in 2024. This post-9/11 authority allows warrantless surveillance of foreigners abroad and the "incidental" collection of Americans' data. While the explicit targeting of Americans is prohibited, the 2024 renewal endorses nearly all warrantless searches of Section 702 data, inevitably capturing Americans' private conversations in the process. Unsealing the FBI's surveillance records on Dr. King would not violate his legacy—it would reaffirm the values he died fighting for: truth, accountability, and freedom from state repression. The release would be especially worthwhile if it leads to meaningful curbs on federal surveillance powers. The post Would Releasing the Martin Luther King Files Help Curb the Surveillance State? appeared first on
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
SWAT Raid Fallout: McKinney Ordered To Compensate Homeowner
A ruling years in the making affirms property rights in a case previously reported by The Dallas Express. A federal judge has ordered the City of McKinney to pay nearly $60,000 in damages to a woman whose home was destroyed during a 2020 SWAT standoff—despite her having no connection to the fugitive inside. Vicki Baker, a cancer patient and retired grandmother, was preparing to relocate to Montana when police descended on her property. The SWAT team was pursuing her former handyman, who had barricaded himself inside her McKinney home. 'I told them, 'Please don't destroy my house,'' Baker recalled to NBC 5. They did anyway. What followed was a five-year legal battle in which the city refused to pay for the $60,000-plus in property damage, forcing Baker to dip into her retirement savings just to make the home livable again. With the help of the Institute for Justice, Baker took the city to court, arguing that government agents who destroy private property—regardless of motive—should be held financially accountable. 'We're trying to establish that even if the government is acting for a legitimate reason, they must compensate property owners for what they destroy,' said attorney Jeffrey Redfern. The city previously offered a partial settlement, but Baker refused, pushing for full compensation and a broader legal precedent. Last week, a federal judge agreed and ordered McKinney to pay $59,656.69. City officials told NBC 5 they are 'evaluating options for appealing the ruling.' Baker, now retired and living on Social Security, says she fought not just for herself but for others who might one day find themselves in her position. 'It was disastrous for me, but what if it were a single mom with no savings? Someone has to stand up,' she said. The ruling could signal a growing trend of courts reining in unchecked government immunity when innocent citizens bear the cost of public safety operations.
Yahoo
20 hours ago
- Yahoo
LISTEN: Overwhelming number of reports impersonating Springfield police
SPRINGFIELD, Mass. (WWLP) – The Springfield Police Department is warning the community, particularly in the Longmeadow area, about a phone scheme. Springfield man charged with DUI, wrong-way driving in Enfield According to police, the scheme involves callers impersonating Springfield Police sergeants in an apparent attempt to defraud recipients. They said police have been getting inundated with reports from residents receiving calls from individuals falsely claiming to be members of the Springfield Police Department. The schemers are using the real names of both a retired and a currently serving Springfield police sergeant to appear credible. Authorities say no one has reported falling victim to the scheme, but residents have been contacting the police after receiving and hanging up on calls. In the audio file provided by the Springfield Police Department, the recording says they are a sergeant with the Springfield Police Department looking to speak with the person regarding a 'confidential legal matter' and leaves a callback number. The scheme appears to be targeting phone numbers in the Longmeadow area, with reports increasing over the past two days. Police are advising residents to hang up immediately if they receive such a call and not to call the number back. Individuals do not need to notify the police unless they have already provided money or sensitive information. In such cases, or if someone wants to verify the legitimacy of a call, they are urged to contact the Springfield Police Department at 413-787-6355. The Longmeadow Police Department is reminding residents that officers will never ask for payment of any kind over the phone and recommends the following to protect yourself from falling victim: Verify the caller's identity: Always request the full name, identification number, and contact information of the caller. Legitimate law enforcement officers will provide this information without hesitation. Refrain from sharing personal information: Avoid disclosing personal details, such as your Social Security number, bank account information, credit card numbers, or any other sensitive data over the phone. Be cautious of urgent or coercive tactics: Scammers often create a sense of urgency, coercing victims into immediate action. They may threaten arrest, fines, or legal consequences to pressure you into revealing information or making immediate payments. Take a step back, remain calm, and verify the authenticity of the call before making any decisions or taking action. Educate yourself and loved ones: Share this information with your friends, family, and vulnerable individuals within your community. By spreading awareness, we can collectively protect ourselves and prevent these scams from succeeding. WWLP-22News, an NBC affiliate, began broadcasting in March 1953 to provide local news, network, syndicated, and local programming to western Massachusetts. Watch the 22News Digital Edition weekdays at 4 p.m. on Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
