ShareThis Page
World

Charges: Rejected man urinated in co-worker's water bottle

| Friday, March 9, 2018, 6:57 a.m.
The Ramsey County (Minn.) Sheriff's Office shows Conrrado Cruz Perez. Perez, a Minnesota restaurant worker, who is accused of urinating in a co-worker's water bottle after the woman rejected his advances.
Ramsey County Sheriff's Office/AP
The Ramsey County (Minn.) Sheriff's Office shows Conrrado Cruz Perez. Perez, a Minnesota restaurant worker, who is accused of urinating in a co-worker's water bottle after the woman rejected his advances.

VADNAIS HEIGHTS, Minn. — A Minnesota restaurant worker is accused of urinating in a co-worker's water bottle after the woman rejected his advances.

Prosecutors charged 47-year-old Conrrado Cruz Perez of Minneapolis with adulterating a substance with bodily fluids.

The St. Paul Pioneer Press reports deputies were called to the restaurant in Vadnais Heights in October after an employee reported a baker was harassing her.

According to the complaint, the woman noticed several times that the water bottle she keeps at work tasted like urine.

The complaint said Cruz Perez denied tampering with the woman's water bottle, but later admitted to once urinating in the bottle because the restaurant was too busy for him to use the bathroom after investigators suggested they might conduct DNA testing on the container.

His attorney declined comment.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.

click me