| Probable cause affidavit: |
SUBMITTED BY: CLARK, CORRY 0711 (AR15-16066) DID KNOWINGLY UTTER, OR PASS OR TENDER IN PAYMENT AS TRUE, ANY SUCH FALSE, ALTERED, FORGED, OR COUNTERFEIT NOTE, OR ANY BANK BILL, CHECK, DRAFT, OR PROMISSORY NOTE, PAYABLE TO THE BEARER THEREOF OR TO THE ORDER OF ANY PERSON, ISSUED AS AFORESAID, KNOWING THE SAME TO BE FALSE, ALTERED, FORGED, OR COUNTERFEIT, WITH INTENT TO INJURE OR DEFRAUD ANY PERSON, TO WIT: DID FILL OUT AND ATTEMPT TO CASH A CHECK WRITTEN TO HIMSELF IN THE AMOUNT OF $300.00, IN VIOLATION OF FLORIDA STATE STATUTE 831.09. ON 081615 AT APPROXIMATELY 0947 HOURS, I RESPONDED TO 201 WEST HIGHLAND BOULEVARD, INVERNESS, IN REFERENCE TO A FRAUD. UPON MY ARRIVAL, I MADE CONTACT WITH THE COMPLAINANT, MR DENNIS EDWARD HIMMEL. HE ADVISED THAT HE WAS THE OWNER OF TRI-COUNTY WELL AND PUMP. HE STATED THAT ON SATURDAY (081515) AT APPROXIMATELY 1441 HOURS, HE RECEIVED A CALL FROM AN EMPLOYEE NAMED "KIM" AT CASH KWIK. "KIM," LATER IDENTIFIED AS MS KIMBERLY HOON (WITNESS), ADVISED THE COMPLAINANT THAT MR DENNIS GENE HIMMEL (DEFENDANT), WAS JUST AT THE BUSINESS ATTEMPTING TO CASH A CHECK FROM TRI-COUNTY WELL AND PUMP, FOR AN AMOUNT OF $300.00. MS HOON WAS CALLING TO CONFIRM THE VALIDITY OF THE CHECK, DUE TO THE DATE, WHICH WAS 81-14-2015. THE COMPLAINANT ADVISED MS HOON THAT THE DEFENDANT DID NOT HAVE PERMISSION AND THAT HE HAD NOT WRITTEN A CHECK IN THAT AMOUNT OR MADE OUT A CHECK TO THE DEFENDANT. THE COMPLAINANT ADVISED THAT HE THEN PROCEEDED INTO HIS OFFICE AND CHECKED HIS CHECKBOOK, AT WHICH TIME, HE DISCOVERED THAT HE WAS MISSING 12 CHECKS. HE ADVISED THAT THE CHECK NUMBERS THAT WERE MISSING WERE 1607 THROUGH 1618. HE SAID THE CHECKS WERE FROM A SUNTRUST ACCOUNT. THE COMPLAINANT ADVISED THAT HE CONTACTED SUNTRUST AND ADVISED THEM OF THE MISSING CHECKS AND PUT A STOP PAYMENT ON THEM. I THEN ASKED THE COMPLAINANT IF THE DEFENDANT KNEW WHERE THE COMPANY CHECKS WERE LOCATED, WHERE HE ADVISED YES. THE COMPLAINANT ADVISED THAT THE DEFENDANT HAD BEEN INSIDE THE OFFICE ON WEDNESDAY (081215) AND THURSDAY (081315) AND STATED THAT WHILE THE DEFENDANT WAS IN THE OFFICE, WHICH WAS LOCATED INSIDE THE COMPLAINANT'S RESIDENCE, HE HAD BEEN LEFT UNATTENDED FOR A SHORT AMOUNT OF TIME; HOWEVER, STATED THAT IT WAS ENOUGH TIME TO ALLOW THE DEFENDANT ACCESS TO THE CHECKS. THE COMPLAINANT STATED THAT THE DEFENDANT USED TO THE LIVE AT THAT ADDRESS AND HAD STOPPED BY TO CHECK ON HIS MAIL. WHILE THERE THE DEFENDANT ENTERED THE OFFICE. HE STATED THAT THE DEFENDANT HAD A LOT OF TROUBLE WITH DRUGS AND STATED THAT HE BELIEVED THAT THE DEFENDANT WAS ADDICTED TO OPIATES, METHAMPHETAMINE, AND HEROINE. HE ADVISED THAT HIS SON/DEFENDANT DID NOT CURRENTLY WORK FOR HIM AND HE DID NOT ALLOW THE DEFENDANT TO TAKE OR WRITE ANY CHECKS FROM THE BUSINESS AND THAT HE DID NOT WRITE A CHECK TO THE DEFENDANT FOR $300.00. AT THAT TIME, HE PROVIDED ME WITH A SWORN WRITTEN STATEMENT. HE ADVISED THAT IT WAS THE CASH KWIK, LOCATED NEXT TO THE CIRCLE K AT EDEN AND SOUTH FLORIDA AVENUE. AT THAT TIME, I RESPONDED TO CASH KWIK, LOCATED AT 743 U S HIGHWAY 41 SOUTH. UPON MY ARRIVAL, I MADE CONTACT WITH MS KIMBERLY HOON, WHO ADVISED THAT SHE WAS THE CLERK WORKING YESTERDAY AND CONTACTED THE COMPLAINANT. SHE ADVISED THAT THE DEFENDANT HAD CALLED IN AROUND MID-AFTERNOON AND ASKED IF SHE COULD CASH A HAND WRITTEN BUSINESS CHECK, AT WHICH TIME, SHE ADVISED FOR THE DEFENDANT TO BRING IT IN. SHE STATED THAT UPON THE DEFENDANT ARRIVING AND GIVEN MS HOON THE CHECK, SHE MADE A COPY OF THE CHECK ALONG WITH HIS IDENTIFICATION AND ADVISED HIM TO FILL OUT AND COMPLETE A CASH KWIK CHECK CASHING CARD FORM, AT WHICH TIME, THE DEFENDANT COMPLIED. UPON REVIEWING THE CHECK, SHE ADVISED THAT SHE WAS UNABLE TO CASH THE CHECK, DUE TO THE INCORRECT DATE AND HANDED THE CHECK BACK TO THE DEFENDANT. THE DEFENDANT STATED THAT HE WOULD RETURN AT A LATER TIME WITH ANOTHER CHECK. MS HOON ADVISED THAT THE DEFENDANT NEVER RETURNED. SHE STATED THAT THE BUSINESS HAD SURVEILLANCE VIDEO; HOWEVER, SHE WAS UNABLE TO VIEW OR PROVIDE A COPY OF THE VIDEO AT THAT TIME AND WAS ADVISED TO CONTACT THIS AGENCY ONCE IT WAS AVAILABLE. MS HOON THEN PROVIDED ME WITH THE COPY OF THE CHECK AND THE DEFENDANT'S DRIVER'S LICENSE. UPON REVIEWING THE CHECK, I OBSERVED CHECK NUMBER 1617, WHICH WAS ONE OF THE CHECKS THAT THE COMPLAINANT ADVISED WAS STOLEN. I OBSERVED THE CHECK TO STATE: PAY TO THE ORDER OF DENNIS GENE HIMMEL IN THE AMOUNT OF $300.00, WITH A DATE OF 81-14-2015. AT THAT TIME, I COMPARED THE COMPLAINANT'S SIGNATURE ON THE WRITTEN STATEMENT ALONG WITH THE SIGNATURE AND THE HANDWRITING ON THE CHECK, WHICH DID NOT APPEAR TO BE THE SAME. SHE ALSO GAVE ME A COPY OF THE CASH KWIK CHECK CASHING CARD FORM, WHICH CONTAINED THE DEFENDANT'S NAME, SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER, ADDRESS, EMPLOYER, AND WORK NUMBER. MS HOON ALSO PROVIDED ME WITH A DESCRIPTION OF THE SUBJECT AS A WHITE MALE, APPROXIMATELY 6'1", 220 POUNDS, CLEAN CUT, WITH BROWN HAIR, A CLEAN CUT BEARD, WHICH THE SIDEBURNS TURNED INTO A GOATEE. HER DESCRIPTION MATCHED THAT OF THE DEFENDANT. SHE ALSO PROVIDED ME WITH A SWORN WRITTEN STATEMENT. AT THAT TIME, DUE TO THE ADDRESS I OBTAINED FROM THE WITNESS, I RESPONDED TO 4915 EAST HUNTS COURT, INVERNESS. UPON MY ARRIVAL, I INITIALLY MADE CONTACT WITH THE HOMEOWNER, WHO ADVISED THAT THEY DID NOT KNOW THE DEFENDANT AND THAT HE DID NOT RESIDE THERE. I ASKED IF THEY HAD A CURRENT ADDRESS FOR THE DEFENDANT, AT WHICH TIME, THEY PROCEEDED AND GOT ANOTHER HOMEOWNER, WHO ADVISED THAT THE DEFENDANT WAS CURRENTLY INSIDE THE RESIDENCE AND WOULD BE OUT SHORTLY TO SPEAK WITH ME. UPON MAKING CONTACT WITH THE DEFENDANT, I ADVISED HIM WHO I WAS AND ASKED IF HE KNEW WHY I WAS THERE, TO WHICH HE STATED NO. I ADVISED THE DEFENDANT I WAS THERE DUE TO THE CHECK CASHING PLACE. I ASKED THE DEFENDANT IF HE WAS AT THE CASH KWIK CHECK CASH PLACES YESTERDAY (081515), AND HE STATED YES. HE ADVISED, HOWEVER, THEY WOULD NOT CASH HIS CHECK. I ASKED THE DEFENDANT WHY AND HE ADVISED THAT DUE TO THE INCORRECT DATE. I ASKED THE DEFENDANT IF HE CASHED IT AT ANOTHER LOCATION, WHERE HE ADVISED NO, HE THREW THE CHECK AWAY. HE ADVISED THAT HE WAS GOING TO GET ANOTHER CHECK FROM HIS FATHER, DUE TO THAT ONE HAVING THE INCORRECT DATE. I ASKED THE DEFENDANT WHERE HE THREW THE CHECK AWAY. INITIALLY HE STATED HE DID NOT RECALL; HOWEVER, LATER STATED HE THREW THE CHECK AWAY IN THE TRASH CAN AT THE CIRCLE K, NEXT TO THE CASH KWIK. HE STATED THAT HIS FATHER HAD WRITTEN HIM THE CHECK FOR HELPING WITH WORK DURING THE PAST WEEK. I ASKED THE DEFENDANT IF THERE WERE ANY OTHER WITNESSES OR COWORKERS AT THE JOBSITE WITH HIM TO VERIFY HIS STATEMENT, WHERE HE STATED NO, IT WAS JUST HIM AND HIS FATHER. I MADE CONTACT WITH THE COMPLAINANT ONCE AGAIN, WHO ADVISED THAT AT NO TIME HAD HIS SON ASSISTED HIM WITH WORK AND ADVISED THAT HE DID NOT WRITE A CHECK TO THE DEFENDANT FOR ANY AMOUNT AND ADVISED THAT HE DID WISH TO PURSUE CHARGES. DUE TO THE INFORMATION, THE DEFENDANT WAS READ MIRANDA VIA A PREPRINTED MIRANDA CARD. HE ADVISED THAT HE DID UNDERSTAND HIS RIGHTS AND DID NOT WISH TO SPEAK WITH ME ANY FURTHER. HE WAS ADVISED THAT HE WAS BEING PLACED UNDER ARREST FOR UTTERING A FORGED CHECK. THE DEFENDANT WAS HANDCUFFED (DOUBLE LOCKED) BEHIND HIS BACK, PLACED IN THE REAR SEAT OF MY PATROL VEHICLE, AND TRANSPORTED TO THE CITRUS COUNTY DETENTION FACILITY FOR BOOKING AND PROCESSING. WHILE EN ROUTE, THE DEFENDANT WAS EXTREMELY UNCOOPERATIVE AND STARTED SHOUTING AND YELLING IN THE REAR SEAT OF MY PATROL VEHICLE AND ADVISING THAT HE COULD NOT BE ARRESTED. UPON ARRIVAL AT THE DETENTION FACILITY HE WAS TURNED OVER TO STAFF FOR BOOKING AND PROCESSING. DEPUTY BRIGGS RESPONDED TO THE CIRCLE K AND CHECKED THE AREA ALONG WITH THE GARBAGE IN AN ATTEMPT TO LOCATE THE CHECK; HOWEVER, ADVISED THAT HE WAS UNABLE TO LOCATE IT. THE DEFENDANT'S BOND WAS SET AT $2,000.00 PER THE BOND SCHEDULE. THE WRITTEN STATEMENTS THAT I OBTAINED FROM THE COMPLAINANT AND WITNESS ALONG WITH THE COPY OF THE CASH KWIK CHECK CASHING CARD FORM, A COPY OF THE CHECK, AND A COPY OF THE DEFENDANT'S DRIVER'S LICENSE WERE COLLECTED AND LATER TURNED IN TO RECORDS. |
