Copyright 2022 All Rights Reserved.

August 13, 2022

Casey Police Officer Resigned; Admitted To Theft Of Shop-With-A-Cop Funds –

By John Kraft & Kirk Allen

On July 2, 2021

Casey, IL. (ECWd) –

On April 16, 2021, Casey, Illinois Police Officer Justin Goble resigned after his admission to the theft of Shop-With-A-Cop funds were reported to the Casey Police Department.

Goble was seeking employment with the Effingham Police Department (“EPD”), and underwent a background investigation and interview with the EPD.

In an undated letter (see page 8) from EPD Chief McFarland addressed to Casey Police Chief Henderson, it states, in part:

“. . . as part of the background investigation, Mr. Goble participated in an interview with a detective with the City of Effingham Police Department. During that interview, Mr. Goble admitted to inappropriate use of funds that he raised for the Casey Shop with a Cop program. Mr. Goble stated that he used approximately $1000 in funds raised for the program for personal use. Mr. Goble further stated that he repaid all funds used for personal use to the Shop with a Cop account.

Goble, after notification of a meeting to discuss this issue, immediately tendered his resignation (page 13).

Casey Police, on April 20, 2021, requested Zone 5 of the Illinois State Police to conduct an investigation into the possible theft and Official Misconduct of Goble (page 18).

Martinsville Police Chief Ryan Slater terminated Goble’s employment with Martinsville on April 16, 2021 (see termination letter).

We have been unofficially informed that Goble was also terminated from his employment with the Westfield Police Department, but they have yet to answer our Freedom of Information Act request – and it is past the statutory time for a response.

We have found no indication on the status of any Zone 5 investigation and no indication of any charges filed against Goble related to his admission of stealing funds from the shop with a cop program.

FOIA RESPONSE CITY OF CASEY 7.1.21_Redacted

SHARE THIS

Share on facebook
Share on twitter
Share on print

RELATED

6 Comments
  • RORY STEIDL
    Posted at 21:44h, 02 July

    If the officer “borrowed” the funds and repaid them before he/his act was discovered, it’s possible that there will be no Theft charge filed. It’s been a long time, and I’m not interested enough to look up the current Theft statute, but it used to require the “…intent to permanently deprive the owner” use of the property. Repaying the money of his own volition, prior to the knowledge of any person who could report the theft, would shoot holes in the legal argument that he intended to “permanently deprive.” An Official Misconduct charge, however, could probably still be on the table because he performed an act (misappropriating or ‘borrowing’ charitable funds) which he was forbidden by law to perform.

    I don’t know this former officer Goble and know nothing about him, his character, or the case. His case, however, reminds me of an incident many years ago in which an otherwise honorable ISP Trooper with no documented discipline indicative of any act of moral turpitude was contacted by a circuit clerk’s office – inquiring as to the whereabouts of a citation and bail/bond money that had been posted to the officer after he issued said citation. The trooper told his supervisor and the clerk’s personnel that he “borrowed” the bond money to aid himself in making purchases for his home repair project. He had not, as of the time of his act of misappropriation becoming known, accumulated enough cash to attach the NEW replacement bond $ to the citation and submit it to the clerk’s office. An investigation ensued. The trooper was ultimately suspended without pay for a lengthy period of time for the act but he was not criminally charged with Theft, Official Misconduct, or any criminal offense. He ultimately finished his career and retired in good standing. I believe, though I was not involved in the investigation, that his reputation for being truthful and otherwise being of good character – coupled with his response to questions during the inquiry – convinced everyone that he truly had no intention of permanently depriving (keeping the money) the clerk’s office of the money. He simply (and stupidly) “borrowed” the bond money. Don’t get excited…this incident occurred a v-e-r-y long time ago. Case closed.

    • Kirk Allen
      Posted at 07:19h, 03 July

      The charge should be official misconduct. This case matches the Pekin Mayor case that used the credit card for cash advance and paid it back the next morning. He was charged with Official Misconduct, violating Article VIII Section 1 of the State Constitution. This case is no different! He used public funds for personal use.

  • Elizabeth Gruber
    Posted at 07:23h, 03 July

    Reminds me of Mayor Tari Renner Bloomington charging his girlfriends fare to Japan on the taxpayers credit card not to mention the large amount of meals on the city credit card.. Taxpayers funds are not ATMs for government employees. To lose the respect of your constituents for such a small amount of money is pathetic at best. What does that lead to? Lets see politicians getting government jobs for their relatives perhaps.

  • Greg G
    Posted at 09:25h, 03 July

    Wal Mart might hire him. “Loss prevention specialist 1st. class”

    Official misconduct should be the charge!

    • John
      Posted at 21:16h, 03 July

      some top people at Wal Mart, are going to have a lot more serious things to worry about, very soon, then lost prevention

  • RORY STEIDL
    Posted at 21:14h, 03 July

    I concur re the Official Misconduct charge being the most relevant.

$