A 26-year-old Carson City man was booked Monday for 281 counts of alleged violation of a domestic violence temporary protection order and 281 counts of contempt of court for alleged phone calls with the female who had the protection order against him. Both charges are misdemeanors but the volume of alleged offenses pushed the man’s bail amount to $843,000 bondable.
According to a Carson City Sheriff’s Office booking report, phone records for the inmate were collected via the NCIC inmate communication system. The records show the inmate attempted to contact the female, who had the protection order, on numerous occasions, doing it by proxy.
The report states the female is heard on a call saying that a “random” phone number has texted her asking for the inmate to reach out. The inmate is heard expressing his interest in the “random” phone number and he later sends the female a message in which he asks for the number. A message sent by the inmate to the female states “what was the phone number you were sent? Tell them to send a message on here or tell them you can send a message to me.”
The female responds to the message stating she will let him know the number when they speak on the phone next. On Dec. 6, at approximately 12:23 p.m. a phone call between the female and the inmate occurs in which the “random” phone number is spoken about. The inmate is heard acknowledging the last four digits, going as far as stating he possibly recognizes the number, the report states.
Immediately after the phone call with the female on Dec. 6, the inmate began making repeated calls to the number. During one of the initial phone calls on Dec. 6, the inmate can be heard addressing the party on the other line, the report states.
Overall, there were a total of 137 answered calls and 144 unanswered attempts made between Dec. 6, 2025 and Dec. 22, 2025, the report states.
In listening to each of the 137 calls that resulted in a conversation, a jail officer noted each time the person answering calls was the same. In every call, the female who answered used a similar tone of voice, pitch and likeness while conversing with the inmate, the report states.
A jail officer interviewed the inmate on Jan. 18, 2026 and advised the man of his Miranda rights. He stated he understood his rights and wished to speak. All interactions were recorded with a body-worn camera.
During the interview, the inmate acknowledged that he was served a copy of the temporary protection order while in custody. He corroborated the findings and stated contact with this “unknown” phone number, the report states.
The report states the inmate was reluctant in most of his statements, but ultimately did not deny the evidence that was presented to him. He revealed that he had no bad intentions behind the phone calls and didn’t want the “wrong picture to be painted,” the report states.
The inmate continued to go along with the conversation during the interview and expressed the fact that he had already spoken about this topic in court. He stated that once the District Attorney’s Office brought up possibly pursuing charges, he promptly ceased contact with the number, the report states. Given that the calls to the number abruptly ended on Dec. 22, 2025, the inmate is likely referring to what occurred during his court appearance on this same date, the report states.
Due to the fact that the inmate says the female’s name on the phone on Dec. 6, 2025 and provides the phone number as a contact number for the female, it is clear the inmate is aware that the number belongs to the female, the report states.
Because of the jail deputy’s assignment in the detention division, the officer opted to do a phone interview with the woman on Monday, Jan. 26, 2026 at around 10 a.m. The officer initiated a phone call with the woman. Initially there was no answer and the officer left two voicemails. The officer called the other number in the jail’s data base listed and the female didn’t answer. The officer left her a voicemail on this number as well.
The female later called back from a number and left the deputy a voicemail. The deputy called back once more and was able to speak with the female, who denied having any contact with the inmate despite the evidence that was presented to her. She stated she did not feel comfortable speaking with the deputy. The officer ended the phone call, the report states.
In speaking with the female, the deputy was able to further match the voice, tone, pitch and likeness from the prior phone calls between Dec. 6 and Dec. 22, 2025. The deputy also reviewed body camera footage from the initial interaction deputies had with her on the date of Nov. 18, 2025, when the man was first arrested and can confirm this voice matches the phone calls made between the two parties after the temporary protection order was issued, the report states.
Due to the inmate listing the number as a contact, saying the female’s voice on the phone, it is clear the man knew he was speaking the the woman and continued to do so for a total of 281 individual phone calls made from detention phones, the report states. He was booked for 281 counts of alleged violation of a domestic violence temporary protection order and booked for 281 counts of contempt of court. His bail was set at $843,000.
— All information for the crime log (unless otherwise noted) is public information and supplied by the Carson City Sheriff’s Office through probable cause reports. All subjects are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Go here to view Carson Now’s policy on naming defendants.
