arc Thrift Store — 1515 S. Broadway, Denver · June 27, 2026
This report documents William Lodge’s account of the theft of his backpack — containing his laptop, wallet, ID, cash, and the only keys to his storage unit — from customer lockers he was required to use as a condition of entry, and of the store and police response that followed. It is presented as a personal record, supporting evidence, and open questions — not as proven allegations. Store employees are referred to by role; the responding officer is identified by the name and badge number on the business card he provided.
According to Mr. Lodge, on arrival at the arc Thrift Store on South Broadway — a store he had visited more than 18 times in the previous year — a security guard directed him to place his backpack in the customer lockers as a condition of entry. The lockers carried no posted instructions and no signage about locking. When he had asked staff about the locking system on earlier visits, no one could explain it, and in all of his visits he had never seen a locker locked.
He shopped, paid for his purchase, and returned to the lockers at approximately 4:00 PM to find his bag gone. It contained his laptop, wallet, government ID, debit card, approximately $220 in cash, the only keys to his storage unit, a power station, tools, and other essential property. He states that staff at the registers — feet from the lockers — offered no help, that a manager blamed him for the theft and refused to review camera footage, and that he was told to call the police. It was approximately 92 degrees; he waited outside in the sun.
When a business requires a customer to surrender his property as a condition of entry, it takes on responsibility for that property. The lockers here were secured — per the store’s own disclosure to police — by a single universal code shared by every locker, with no instructions posted and staff unable to explain the system. The records appear to raise one core question: how is a customer responsible for the failure of a security system the store required him to use, never explained, and effectively left open?
The bag contained, among other items, the essentials of daily life and work:
| Item | Significance |
|---|---|
| Laptop | Primary work tool — web development and nonprofit work |
| Wallet with government ID | Identity documents required for services, banking, and work |
| Debit card | Access to funds |
| ≈ $220 in cash | Immediate living funds |
| Only keys to storage unit | Sole access to the remainder of his belongings |
| Portable power station & batteries | Essential off-grid power |
| RTD transit card | Transportation |
| Headlamp, multi-tool, cables, clothing, water bottle | Daily essentials |
A store may have good reasons to check bags. But requiring customers to surrender their property is different from offering them a place to put it. Once surrender is mandatory, the adequacy of the storage the store provides — its locks, its signage, its supervision — becomes the store’s question to answer, not the customer’s.
The conduct of the responding officers is now the subject of Denver Police Internal Affairs case OIM2026-0176, referred by the Office of the Independent Monitor. The lead officer is identified here by the name and badge number on the business card he provided at the scene: Officer Byrne-Ray, Badge #25013, District 3.
The complaint alleges failure to properly investigate a reported theft, discourtesy toward a crime victim consistent with prejudgment of a man who appeared to be homeless, an improper threat of arrest on an unverified name-only warrant match belonging to another person, and reluctance to respond to the call. These are allegations under investigation, not findings. A request for the officers’ body-worn camera footage — which recorded both the interactions with Mr. Lodge and the officers’ conversations with store management inside — has been made under C.R.S. § 24-31-902, which requires release of unedited footage within 21 days when an incident is the subject of a misconduct complaint.
Nearly every disputed fact in this report — what the manager told police, what the officers said about the lockers, and the warrant threat — was captured on body-worn camera. The footage will speak for itself, which is why its preservation and release have been formally demanded.
Each step below is updated as it happens. Completed steps link to the documents that prove them.
Theft reported to the Denver Police Department on the day of the incident. Report copy requested.
Complaint filed with the Office of the Independent Monitor and referred to DPD Internal Affairs for formal investigation, with OIM monitoring.
Formal request for all unedited body-worn and dash camera footage from both responding officers, directed to the DPD records custodian, with a statutory 21-day release requirement.
Notice of claim and demand for preservation of all store camera footage, locker records, incident reports, and staff communications, prepared July 8, 2026 and being served on arc Thrift Stores’ corporate office in Lakewood by email, certified mail, and hand delivery.
This section will be updated as filings progress and responses are received.
Every letter sent and every reply received is published here, exactly as served — because a record you can’t read isn’t a record. Personal contact details are redacted where appropriate. New documents are added as they are sent or received.
Replies from arc Thrift Stores and the Denver Police Department will be published here when received. Silence will be noted too.
The goal of this record was never only recovery of one person’s property. The people most likely to be required to surrender everything they own at a store entrance are the people least able to answer when it goes missing — and institutions know it. These are the outcomes this documentation exists to push toward:
These are open, good-faith questions — the kind camera footage, store records, and the Internal Affairs investigation can answer. They are not accusations.
Mr. Lodge states that from the store floor to the sidewalk, he was treated not as a paying customer of eighteen-plus visits reporting a crime, but as a problem to be managed — an experience he attributes to appearing to be homeless. This is stated as his experience and a concern for review, not as a proven motive of any individual. Whether any public-accommodation or civil-rights issue exists is a matter for the appropriate agency or an attorney to assess if the evidence supports it.
This report records William Lodge’s personal account and supporting materials. It is not legal advice and contains no proven findings of wrongdoing by arc Thrift Stores, its employees, or any officer. Descriptions of staff and police conduct are presented as Mr. Lodge’s account and as open questions for clarification, not as established fact; the misconduct complaint described here is an allegation under investigation. Store employees are not named. If arc Thrift Stores, the Denver Police Department, or any person believes anything here is inaccurate or incomplete, Williams Compass welcomes correction, clarification, or additional documentation.
If you represent arc Thrift Stores, the Denver Police Department, a public office, or a community organization and believe any information here is incomplete or inaccurate, please provide documentation or clarification. The goal is transparency and accuracy, and responses will be reflected in good faith. This also applies to any redaction request.
william@williamscompass.com