An Arbuckle man, previously arrested in February on suspicion of violating two of California’s peeping tom laws, was booked into Colusa County Jail on Friday, Aug. 25, on suspicion of “possessing or controlling matter depicting sexual conduct of persons under 18” and an enhancement for “matter that contained more than ten images involving a prepubescent minor under the age of 12,” a booking sheet from the Sheriff’s Office said.
“The findings of our investigation met that bar, and the investigation is still ongoing,” Colusa County Sheriff’s Sgt. Mark Contreras said of the arrest on Monday.
Wolfenbarger posted his $50,000 bail the following day, Saturday, Aug. 26, Colusa County Sheriff’s Office Jail Lt. Miguel Villasenor said on Tuesday. Villasenor did not say what time Wolfenbarger was released on bail.
“Basically, when you are arrested, officers or the jail set a bail. If you post that amount before your arraignment, you can be released,” Colusa County deputy district attorney Brendan Farrell explained.
A press release from the department stated that Wolfenbarger was re-arrested by detectives at the department, and was booked on the new felony charges.
Wolfenbarger had previously been arrested and booked on suspicion of “peeping” on and recording a minor victim earlier this year. However, the district attorney’s office never filed charges in relation to that alleged incident.
The Sheriff’s and District Attorney’s offices, however, have cited an ongoing investigation since Wolfenbarger was first arrested on Feb. 29. The department continued their investigation in conjunction with the FBI Electronic Crimes Unit, the Sheriff’s Office said, and additional interviews led to search warrants being served, which uncovered additional evidence.
“Charges were not filed at that time,” ,” Colusa County deputy district attorney Brendan Farrell confirmed on Tuesday. “It has been an ongoing investigation since then. We’re near the end of the investigation, we have a lot of our information back, and feel we’re in a better position to move to the next step.”
Farrell would not comment further on the findings of the investigation.
“We charged based on what we found in the investigation. I believe the complaint, when it’s published, will have a short description. And that’s about as much description as I want to give at this time,” Farrell said.
While Wolfenbarger’s name was neither in the Colusa County Superior Court on-line case index on Tuesday, nor was a docket available at the courthouse.
“Because he is not currenlty in custody, there will not be a number assigned to the case for a few days,” Farrell said, when asked why there was not case listed for Wolfenbarger. Farrell added that charges were indeed filed late on Monday afternoon.