Madison criminal trial court acquits customer in pressure washer dispute over $50 deposit

The criminal trial court in Madison found Evan Rusk not guilty of stealing a pressure washer from Beck Tool Repair, concluding that the State of Wisconsin had not proved theft beyond a reasonable doubt. It denied the requested $250 fine, six months of probation and an order requiring return of the washer. No money was awarded.

The dispute turned on the difference between taking equipment without paying a discussed deposit and taking it without permission. Rusk said he understood that the shop had approved a weekend loan; the State maintained that a $50 deposit had to be paid before he could leave with the machine.

The court found that Rusk removed the washer without paying the deposit. But the silent counter-camera footage established only the removal. A raised hand from the shop owner could have signalled approval or an attempt to stop him; the camera angle and lack of sound prevented a reliable conclusion.

The owner's signed account supported the State's position that payment was a condition of pickup. It also acknowledged that he was speaking with another customer and could not recall the final exchange word for word. Accounts relayed through counsel were not independent documents or admitted witness testimony and did not resolve that gap.

The full message thread pointed both ways. Approval of a weekend loan supported Rusk's understanding, while instructions to sort out the deposit and see the owner before leaving supported the State's interpretation. The court did not find Rusk's account proven; it found reasonable uncertainty that the State had not overcome.

A later demand for return showed a dispute, not conclusively what Rusk understood when he took the washer. Nor did the absence of proof of return establish that it was never returned. The court also said no supplied law established authority for the requested fine, probation or return order.

The State argued that the unpaid deposit, instruction to speak with the owner and later return demand established theft. It initially sought $250 as an inconvenience and restocking fee, then clarified that it wanted a fine following conviction, not restitution for a documented loss.

Rusk's side argued that the messages reflected a genuine disagreement about permission and that neither the silent video nor the owner's limited recollection settled it. The defence acknowledged there was no independent proof of return and did not ask the court to treat the washer as returned.

Rusk was a returning customer, not an employee, who had asked to borrow the washer for the weekend. The written exchange contemplated that loan but left the deposit arrangements unresolved; a Saturday message then demanded the machine back.

The acquittal resolves the criminal allegation on the supplied record, not every factual disagreement. It neither establishes that Rusk had unconditional permission nor confirms that the washer was returned. Its ultimate status remains unproved.