Scott Van Order Pleads Guilty to Violating No Contact Order and Resisting Officer
The 56-year-old admitted to the charges after being re-arrested, according to WSAU.
3 reports on this incident · first at Sep 8, 2026, 7:48 a.m. ET
Earlier reports
Sep 8, 2026, 7:52 a.m. ET
Scott Van Order Charged with Violating No Contact Order and Resisting Officer
Scott Van Order, 56, has been charged with violating a no contact order and resisting or obstructing an officer, according to wsau.com. The charges are allegations, and the case has not yet been decided in court. Van Order is presumed innocent until proven guilty.
No further details about the case were provided in the report.
Sep 8, 2026, 7:48 a.m. ETFirst report
Man Charged With Violating No Contact Order, Resisting Officer
Scott Van Order, 56, has been charged with violating a no contact order and resisting or obstructing an officer, according to WSAU.com. The government alleges that Van Order violated a no contact order and resisted or obstructed an officer, as reported by WSAU.com. As the case is at the charging stage, the allegations have not been tested in court, and Van Order is presumed innocent. Further details, including the circumstances of the alleged incident, have not been released.
Was this report accurate and useful?
Sources
Revision history
- Version 18 Sept 2026, 11:52current
First published.
- Version 18 Sept 2026, 11:48current
First published.
- Version 18 Sept 2026, 11:52current
First published.
How we work
This site models an investigative reporter rather than a wire desk. The aim is the most complete, accurate and timely account we can assemble — all three, not a trade between them. Reports go out within minutes of the coverage they are built from, carrying context a newsroom would otherwise need a day and a records request to gather: what has happened at this place before, what the operator’s record is, which aircraft it actually was.
Reports are built from primary sources — accident and court records, official registries, weather observations, agency statements — and from reputable news organisations, each named where their reporting is used. Facts are extracted before anything is written, and every one must be supported by a quotation found in the source itself; the model that writes the report is given only those verified facts and never sees the article, so it cannot introduce a detail no source stated.
Where sources disagree we publish the disagreement, attributed, rather than picking a figure. Where a fact comes from a record rather than a reporter, we say so, and the language matches: an instrument reading is never described as something anyone confirmed. Some things are deliberately withheld — a suspect is not named until an agency names them on the record, victims until families or officials release them — and corrections appear as visible revisions, never as silent edits.
None of that makes a report true. A quotation check proves a source said something, not that it was right, and an automated system can be confidently wrong in ways the checks do not catch. If something here is wrong, the feedback above is how it gets found. The full methodology, including what we refuse to publish.