By Jim Clark

A Somerville Police officer was dispatched to Assembly Row last week on reports of a shoplifter who fled the Adidas store. 

The officer entered the nearby Puma store and observed a male fitting the description provided standing at the register.

Upon seeing the officer, the man reportedly dropped the item he had in his hand and attempted to leave the store.

The officer instructed him to stop and informed him of the circumstances why he was making contact with him. The suspect reportedly admitted to the theft and attempted to hand the officer a bag full of stolen clothing and leave. The informed him again that he was not free to go. 

The officer informed the suspect that his intention was to positively identify him and allow him to leave afterwards.

The suspect acknowledged the officer’s statement, and when asked for identification, he stated that he had none. When asked to verbally identify himself, he provided the officer a name and a date of birth, but he could not remember his Social Security number.

This information did not return a matching record. The suspect then gave another name and date of birth, and a query of this information returned a matching record, however the RMV image was clearly not the same individual the officer had in front of him.

In addition to the image not matching, the listed height and weight on the name given also did not match the suspect’s build.

The officer continued questioning the suspect, trying to ascertain his true identity, but he was reportedly provided with apparently more incorrect information.

Backup officers responded to the Adidas store to speak with the reporting party, who stated she observed the suspect placing numerous clothing items inside a backpack that Adidas sells, and walk out the door past all points of purchase.

The backpack located on the suspect was Adidas brand, and still had the tags on it. The store employee positively identified the stolen merchandise inside of it.  The total value of the stolen goods added up to $454.17.

The officers then spoke with the manager of the Ralph Lauren Polo Store. Located in the suspects’ tote bag were numerous items of merchandise belonging to that store, which totaled $323.33.

The Polo store employee stated he observed the suspect using wire clippers to remove the security sensors. When the suspect noticed the employees were monitoring his actions, he stated something to the effect that the security alarms would not go off. 

Based on the inability to establish a true identity, the officers informed the suspect that he was being placed under arrest. 

While performing a search incident to arrest, officers located a pair of wire clippers in the suspects left rear pocket. Clippers such as these are commonly used to defeat security sensors. 

Also located on the suspect’s person was $125 cash. The officers immediately recognized these bills as counterfeit. They located 12 counterfeit $10 bills and one counterfeit $5 bill.

At this point, the suspect stated he did not wish to speak further with the officers, and no additional conversations were had. 

Police transported the suspect to the station for booking. Upon a return from his fingerprints, his true identity was learned to be Steven Collymore.

Collymore was booked on charges of larceny under $1200, removal of theft prevention device, furnishing a false ID, and possession of a counterfeit note, and on warrant charges of larceny under $1200, larceny over $1200, shoplifting by asportation, assault and battery with a dangerous weapon, and threat to commit a crime.