| Probable cause affidavit: |
SUBMITTED BY: HOLLOWAY, TODD 0463 (AR08103882) DID UNLAWFULLY ENTER OR REMAIN IN A CERTAIN DWELLING OR CURTILAGE THEREOF, LOCATED IN THE COUNTY AND STATE AFORESAID, THE PROPERTY OF THE VICTIM, AS OWNER OR CUSTODIAN THEREOF, WITHOUT SAID PERSON'S CONSENT, WITH THE INTENT TO COMMIT AN OFFENSE THEREIN, TO WIT: THEFT AND TRESPASS AT THE BUSINESS OF RICHARDSON'S DRYWALL, IN VIOLATION OF FLORIDA STATE STATUTES 810.02(4)(A) AND 810.02(3). On 062508, while conducting a follow up investigation in reference to case numbers 08060746 and 08060863, I made contact with THE CO-defendant, mr timothy pizUtto, ON 224 OTIS AVENUE and coNFIRMED that he was the person in the surveillance picture that I had. AT THAT TIME, I DID NOT TELL THE CO-DEFENDANT WHAT REASON I WAS THERE FOR BECAUSE I DID NOT SEE THE DEFENDANT, MS ANGELA RODDENBERRY. I LEFT THE AREA AND WAITED TO SEE IF THEY WOULD ATTEMPT TO BURGLARIZE THE SAME BUSINESS AGAIN. AFTER IT APPEARED THAT THEY WERE NOT GOING TO, I ATTEMPTED TO CONTACT THE CO-DEFENDANT AGAIN, THIS TIME HE WAS NOT AT THAT ADDRESS. I ADVISED DEPUTY GREATREX OF THE CO-DEFENDANT'S VEHICLE INFORMATION AND THAT THE VEHICLE'S LEFT TAIL LENS WAS MISSING. A FEW MINUTES LATER, DEPUTY GREATREX ADVISED HE WAS STOPPING THE VEHICLE AND HIGHWAY 44 AND HIGHWAY 491. DEPUTY HAYNES AND I RESPONDED AND I MADE CONTACT WITH THE CO-DEFENDANT. I ASKED HIM TO STEP TO THE BACK OF THE VEHICLE AND I SHOWED HIM A PICTURE OF THE SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM AND ASKED HIM WHO THE SUBJECT IN THE PICTURE WAS. HE REPLIED IT WAS HIM, BUT HE DID NOT KNOW WHERE THE PICTURE WAS TAKEN. I THEN SHOWED HIM A SECOND PICTURE OF THE DEFENDANT AND ASKED WHO WAS IN THE OTHER PICTURE TO WHICH HE REPLIED IT WAS THE DEFENDANT, MS ANGELA RODDENBERRY. AT THAT TIME, I READ THE CO-DEFENDANT HIS MIRANDA RIGHTS, WHICH HE WAIVED. I ASKED WHY THEY BROKEN IN TO RICHARDSON'S DRYWALL, TO WHICH HE STATED HE WAS JUST SKATEBOARDING. I ASKED WHY THEY TOOK THE LARGE PLASTIC CUTTING BOARD, TO WHICH HE STATED HE DID NOT KNOW. I ASKED WHERE THE BOARD WAS AND AGAIN HE STATED HE DID NOT KNOW. IT SHOULD BE NOTED, THE BOARD WAS LAYING ON THE FLOOR OF THE VAN THAT HE WAS DRIVING. I THEN ADVISED THE CO-DEFENDANT HE WAS BEING PLACED UNDER ARREST FOR TWO COUNTS OF BURGLARY ALONG WITH THE DEFENDANT. THE CO-DEFENDANT THEN STATED IT WAS ALL HIS IDEA AND THE DEFENDANT SHOULD NOT BE ARRESTED. DEPUTY HAYNES THEN MADE CONTACT WITH THE DEFENDANT, WHO WAS IN THE REAR OF THE VAN AND READ HER MIRANDA RIGHTS, WHICH SHE WAIVED. SHE WAS ASKED ABOUT HER WHEREABOUTS AT THE TIME OF THE BURGLARY, TO WHICH SHE REPLIED SHE DID NOT KNOW. WHEN SHE WAS SHOWN THE SURVEILLANCE PHOTOGRAPHS SHE STATED THAT THE TWO SUBJECTS IN THE PHOTOGRAPH WERE HER AND THE CO-DEFENDANT. SHE WAS THEN TOLD THE PHOTOGRAPHS WERE FROM THE SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM AT RICHARDSON'S DRYWALL. SHE WAS ASKED WHAT SHE WAS DOING THERE, TO WHICH SHE STATED THEY WENT THERE TO SKATEBOARD, BUT ENDED UP TAKING A CUTTING BOARD, ALONG WITH A LIGHT FIXTURE. WHEN ASKED WHY THEY RETURNED THE SECOND TIME, SHE STATED THEY WENT TO LOOK FOR A SKATEBOARD THAT THEY HAD LOST THE FIRST TIME. AT THAT TIME, THE DEFENDANT WAS ADVISED SHE WAS BEING PLACED UNDER ARREST FOR TWO COUNTS OF BURGLARY. BOTH SUBJECTS WERE THEN HANDCUFFED (DOUBLE LOCKED) AND TRANSPORTED TO THE CITRUS COUNTY DETENTION FACILITY. ONCE AT THE CITRUS COUNTY DETENTION FACILITY, BOTH SUBJECTS WROTE A STATEMENT THAT WILL LATER BE TURNED IN TO RECORDS. BOTH SUBJECTS WERE HELD ON A $6,000.00 PER THE BOND SCHEDULE. *NOT-EXEMPT* |
