| Probable cause affidavit: |
SUBMITTED BY: FERGUSON, ADAM 0505 (AR11123469) DID UNLAWFULLY AND KNOWINGLY OBTAIN, USE OR ENDEAVOR TO OBTAIN OR USE THE PROPERTY OF THE VICTIM, TO-WIT: $310.00 CASH, OF THE VALUE OF THREE HUNDRED DOLLARS ($300.00) OR MORE, BUT LESS THAN FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS ($5,000.00), WITH THE INTENT TO EITHER TEMPORARILY OR PERMANENTLY DEPRIVE THE VICTIM OF A RIGHT TO THE PROPERTY OR A BENEFIT THEREOF, OR DID APPROPRIATE THE SAID PROPERTY TO HIS OWN USE OR THE USE OF ANY PERSON NOT ENTITLED THERETO, IN VIOLATION OF FLORIDA STATUTES 812.014(2)(C)(1). ON 110611 I RESPONDED TO THE METRO PCS CELLULAR TELEPHONE STORE INSIDE THE CRYSTAL RIVER MALL IN REFERENCE TO A THEFT THAT HAD ALREADY OCCURRED. UPON ARRIVAL, I MADE CONTACT WITH THE MANAGER, MR MICHAEL VINSON, WHO ADVISED THAT HE BELIEVED AN EMPLOYEE/DEFENDANT, MR LARRY CASTRANZE, HAS BEEN SELLING TELEPHONES THAT BELONG TO THE STORE AND KEEPING THE MONEY FOR HIMSELF. HE FURTHER ADVISED THAT MR LARRY HAD REMOVED $100.00 FROM THE BANK DEPOSIT AFTER BEING TOLD NOT TO. HE STATED THAT ON 110511 HE WAS CONTACTED BY THE HUSBAND OF ONE OF HIS CUSTOMERS, MR GEORGE TUCCI, WHO ADVISED HIM THAT ON 110311 HIS WIFE, HAD PURCHASED A CELLULAR TELEPHONE FROM THE DEFENDANT AND WAS NOT GIVEN A RECEIPT FOR THE PURCHASE. HE ADVISED ON 110411 SHE RETURNED TO THE STORE TO GET A COPY OF THE RECEIPT SO THAT SHE COULD GET A MAIL-IN REBATE. SHE WAS INITIALLY TOLD THAT HE COULD NOT PROVIDE HER WITH THAT RECEIPT, HOWEVER, AFTER SEVERAL MINUTES HE PROVIDED HER A RECEIPT FOR A SIMILAR TELEPHONE, HOWEVER, NOT FOR THE TELEPHONE THAT SHE PURCHASED. MR TUCCI THEN PROVIDED MR VINSON THE SERIAL NUMBER OFF OF THE TELEPHONE THAT HIS WIFE HAD PURCHASED. MR VINSON CHECKED IT AGAINST THE STORE RECORDS AND IT WAS STILL SHOWING IN THE STORE'S INVENTORY AS IF IT HAD NEVER BEEN SOLD. ALONG WITH THIS TELEPHONE MR VINSON FOUND THREE OTHER TELEPHONES THAT WERE STILL SHOWING IN THE STORE'S INVENTORY, HOWEVER, THESE TELEPHONES HAD BEEN ACTIVATED AND WERE BEING USED BY CUSTOMERS. I THEN MADE CONTACT WITH THE DEFENDANT, MR LARRY CASTRANZE. I THEN READ THE DEFENDANT MIRANDA RIGHTS VIA PREPRINTED AGENCY CARD AND ASKED IF HE UNDERSTOOD HIS RIGHTS, TO WHICH HE REPLIED THAT HE DID. I THEN ASKED HIM IF HE WISHED TO SPEAK WITH ME AT THIS TIME, TO WHICH HE ADVISED THAT HE WOULD. MR LARRY ADVISED THAT AT NO TIME HAD HE SOLD ANY TELEPHONES WITHOUT RINGING THEM UP AND THAT IT MUST BE A MISTAKE. HE FURTHER ADVISED THAT HE DID TAKE $100.00 OUT OF THE BANK DEPOSIT BUT ONLY DID SO BECAUSE HIS GIRLFRIEND HAD BEEN ARRESTED AND HE NEEDED MONEY TO BOND HER OUT. I ASKED MR LARRY WHY HE HAD TAKEN THE MONEY AFTER BEING TOLD NOT TO, TO WHICH HE STATED, HE THOUGHT IT WAS AN EMERGENCY. IN ORDER TO CHECK THE DEFENDANT'S STATEMENT, A PSNET RECORDS CHECK WAS COMPLETED WHICH SHOWED THAT HIS GIRLFRIEND HAD IN FACT NOT BEEN ARRESTED. I AGAIN QUESTIONED MR LARRY REFERENCE THE CELLULAR TELEPHONES AND THE $100.00, WHICH HE CONTINUED TO DENY ANY INVOLVEMENT WITH THE CELLULAR TELEPHONES. I THEN MADE CONTACT WITH MR RICHARD ZAYAS, WHO ADVISED THAT ON 110511 HE HAD PURCHASED A TELEPHONE FROM THE CRYSTAL RIVER METRO PCS. HE ADVISED THAT HE HAD BEEN DEALING WITH AN EMPLOYEE LATER IDENTIFIED AS MR ANTHONY ARENZ. HE ADVISED THAT HE PURCHASED THE TELEPHONE FOR $79.99, IN CASH, AND WAS NOT GIVEN A RECEIPT. I THEN MADE CONTACT WITH MR ANTHONY ARENZ, WHO ADVISED THAT YESTERDAY WAS HIS FIRST DAY ON THE JOB AND THAT HE REMEMBERED SELLING MR ZAYAS A CELLULAR TELEPHONE AND THE ONLY OTHER EMPLOYEE THERE WAS MR LARRY CASTRANZE. HE FURTHER ADVISED THAT IT BEING HIS FIRST DAY, HE DID NOT WANT THE RESPONSIBILITY OF HANDLING THE MONEY AND THAT MR LARRY HANDLED ALL THE MONEY TRANSACTIONS. HE FURTHER ADVISED THAT HE OBSERVED MR LARRY REMOVE A $50.00 BILL, 2-$20.00 BILLS AND A $10.00 BILL FROM THE CASH REGISTER STATING THAT IT WAS FOR OFFICE SUPPLIES. WHILE PREVIOUSLY SPEAKING WITH MR ZAYAS, HE ADVISED THAT HE HAD HANDED THE MONEY TO MR ANTHONY, HOWEVER DURING THAT PROCESS, HE WAS DISTRACTED AND WAS NOT SURE IF MR ANTHONY HAD HANDED THE MONEY TO MR LARRY OF NOT. I THEN MADE CONTACT WITH MS IRA PARKS, WHO ADVISED ON 100811, SHE HAD PURCHASED A CELLULAR TELEPHONE FROM AN EMPLOYEE IDENTIFIED AS MR LARRY. SHE ADVISED THAT SHE PURCHASED IT WITH CASH AND SHE DID NOT RECEIVE A RECEIPT. SHE FURTHER ADVISED THAT MR LARRY WAS THE ONLY EMPLOYEE AT THE STORE AT THIS TIME. AFTER PURCHASING THE TELEPHONE AND RETURNING HOME, THE TELEPHONE WAS SHUT OFF AND WHEN SHE MADE CONTACT WITH METRO PCS, THEY ADVISED HER IT WAS BECAUSE HER BILL HAD NOT BEEN PAID. SHE ADVISED THAT SHE HAD PAID HER BILL AT THE SAME TIME THAT SHE BOUGHT THE TELEPHONE. SHE WAS THEN ADVISED TO RETURN TO THE STORE. UPON RETURNING TO THE STORE, MR LARRY ADVISED HER THAT A MISTAKE HAD BEEN MADE, THAT SHE OWED $10.00 MORE AND THE STORE HAD TO PAY THE REMAINING $25.00 BALANCE. MS PARKS ADVISED THAT THIS SEEMED TO BE EXTREMELY UNORTHODOX AND MR LARRY WAS UNABLE TO ADVISE HER WHY SHE DID NOT RECEIVE A RECEIPT. I THEN MADE CONTACT WITH MS TRACY TUCCI, WHO ADVISED ON 110311, SHE PURCHASED A CELLULAR TELEPHONE FROM MR LARRY. SHE ADVISED THAT THE DEFENDANT INITIALLY QUOTED HER A PRICE OF $80.00, WHICH SHE DID NOT WANT TO PAY. HE THEN CHANGED THE PRICE TWO OTHER TIMES, FINALLY ADVISING HER THAT THE PRICE WOULD BE $53.00. WHEN SHE ATTEMPTED TO PAY WITH A CREDIT CARD, THE DEFENDANT ADVISED HER THAT THE CREDIT CARD MACHINE WAS NOT WORKING AND SHE HAD TO PAY WITH CASH. SHE ADVISED AFTER PURCHASING THE TELEPHONE, SHE ATTEMPTED TO REDEEM A MAIL-IN REBATE WHEN SHE NOTICED THAT SHE DID NOT HAVE A RECEIPT. ON 110511, MS TUCCI RETURNED TO THE STORE AND ASKED THE DEFENDANT FOR A RECEIPT. SHE ADVISED THAT THE DEFENDANT GOT EXTREMELY NERVOUS AND UPSET AND SAID THAT HE GAVE HER A RECEIPT AND THAT THERE WAS NOTHING THAT HE COULD DO. SHE ADVISED THERE WAS ANOTHER EMPLOYEE WHO SHOWED HIM HOW TO RETRIEVE RECEIPTS FROM THE PREVIOUS DAY. AFTER BEING SHOWN THE PROCESS, HE PRINTED OUT A RECEIPT AND TOLD HER THAT IT WAS HERS. SHE ASKED WHY THE DATE ON THE RECEIPT WAS DIFFERENT THAN THE DATE SHE HAD PURCHASED IT, TO WHICH HE ADVISED HER THAT IT WAS HER RECEIPT AND IT WOULD WORK. WHEN I CONFRONTED MR LARRY WITH ALL THE INFORMATION I HAD RECEIVED FROM THE WITNESSES, HE STATED THAT HE WAS TOLD TO SHUT THE CREDIT CARD MACHINE OFF AND NOT DO A FINAL COUNT DOWN THE NIGHT PRIOR TO MS TUCCI PURCHASING HER TELEPHONE. HE WAS ADVISED THAT HE DID NOT KNOW IF IT WAS OKAY OR NOT TO TURN THE MACHINE ON THE NEXT MORNING AND DID NOT USE THE CREDIT CARD MACHINE UNTIL HE WAS TOLD TO BY MR VINSON. HE FURTHER ADVISED THAT HE HAD NEVER PRINTED OFF A RECEIPT FROM PRIOR DAYS AND DID NOT KNOW IT WAS POSSIBLE. WHEN ASKED WHY HE PROVIDED HER WITH A RECEIPT THAT WAS NOT HERS, HE STATED HE COULD NOT FIND HER PURCHASE. CONTACT WAS AGAIN MADE WITH MR VINSON, WHO ADVISED THAT AT NO TIME WAS THERE A DISRUPTION TO THEIR CREDIT CARD MACHINE AND THAT HE HAD TEXT MESSAGED ALL HIS EMPLOYEES PRIOR TO THE STORES OPENING, THE PROPER PROCEDURES ON USING THE CREDIT CARD MACHINE. MR VINSON FURTHER ADVISED ME THAT THERE WOULD BE NO REASON WHY MS TUCCI WOULD HAVE TO HAGGLE FOR A PRICE AS THE PRICES ARE SET AND NON-NEGOTIABLE. MR LARRY WOULD HAVE HAD TO HAVE BEEN OVER CHARGING FOR THE TELEPHONE IF HE QUOTED HER ANY OTHER PRICE. THE CORRECT PRICE FOR THE TELEPHONE WAS IN FACT $53.00 AFTER A $10.00 PLAN FEE. MR VINSON ALSO STATED THAT IF THIS WAS DONE AS AN ACCIDENT, THAT THE REGISTER WOULD BE IN EXCESS OF THE PRICES OF THE TELEPHONES, HOWEVER, EACH DAY THAT THESE OCCURRED, THE REGISTER WAS CORRECT DOWN TO THE DOLLAR. MR VINSON ADVISED THE TOTAL PRICE FOR THE FOUR TELEPHONES THAT HAD BEEN SOLD WAS $210.00. DUE TO THE DEFENDANT ADMITTING TO STEALING $100.00 CASH, BEING THE ONLY EMPLOYEE DURING THE PURCHASE OF MS PARKS CELLULAR TELEPHONE AND THE ONLY EMPLOYEE THAT DEALT WITH THE MONEY DURING THE OTHER PURCHASES AND MAKING FALSE STATEMENTS TO EXPLAIN THE OCCURRENCES, THE DEFENDANT WAS PLACED UNDER ARREST, HANDCUFFED, BEHIND HIS BACK, (DOUBLE LOCKED), SECURED IN THE REAR OF MY PATROL VEHICLE AND TRANSPORTED TO THE CITRUS COUNTY DETENTION FACILITY FOR BOOKING AND PROCESSING. UPON ARRIVAL, HE WAS CHARGED WITH ONE COUNT OF GRAND THEFT, THE DEFENDANT'S BOND WAS SET AT $2,000.00, PER THE BOND SCHEDULE. "If you are a person with a disability who needs any accommodation in order to participate in this proceeding, you are entitled, at no cost to you, to the provision of certain assistance. Please contact the ADA Coordinator at the Office of the Trial Court Administrator, Citrus County Courthouse, 110 North Apopka Avenue, Inverness, Florida 34450, Telephone (352) 341-6700, at least 7 days before your scheduled court appearance, or immediately upon receiving this notification if the time before the scheduled appearance is less than 7 days; if your are hearing or voice impaired, call 711.” *NOT-EXEMPT* |
