4th arrest for Lockhart since wife’s disappearance

A mug shot of Christopher Lockhart on July 31, 2017. (Courtesy: Kalamazoo County jail)


KALAMAZOO, Mich. (WOOD) — Christopher Lockhart, the husband of missing Portage woman Theresa Lockhart, was back behind bars Monday for the fourth time since his wife’s disappearance.

Christopher Lockhart was arrested Monday morning and arraigned in Kalamazoo District Court on one felony count of tampering with an electronic monitoring device. On this charge, his bond was set at $10,000 with an added condition of surrendering his passport.

He posted bond and was released later in the day.

Theresa Lockhart went missing May 18. While Christopher Lockhart has not been named a suspect, police say he is the sole person of interest in the case.

Theresa LockHart
An undated courtesy photo of Theresa Lockhart.

Since being named a person of interest, Christopher Lockhart has been arrested three other times, but not for his wife’s disappearance.

The first arrest was on July 6 for allegedly cutting his neighbor’s cable and air conditioning line, court documents show. On July 17 he was pulled over for drunk driving. The complaint filed by prosecutors says he violated his bond by allegedly consuming alcohol. He was arrested again that same week for violating his bond for a second time, but it’s unclear what condition he violated.

Christopher Lockhart’s preliminary hearing on the new felony charge is scheduled for Aug. 10.

On Friday, Portage police posted new missing person posters in an effort to keep Theresa Lockhart’s disappearance top of mind. Portage Department of Public Safety Deputy Chief John Blue told 24 Hour News 8 “the goal is to keep Theresa in everyone’s thoughts [and] conversation, and continue the effort to find her.”

Anyone with information in the case should call police at 269.329.4567 or Silent Observer at 269.343.2100.

***CORRECTION: An earlier version of this story incorrectly stated that Christopher Lockhart was arrested on a bond violation, instead of a felony charge. We regret this error, which has since been corrected.***