| Probable cause affidavit: |
SUBMITTED BY: CALLAHAN, CRAIG 0643 (AR12-3267) DID LOITER AND/OR PROWL IN A PLACE, AT A TIME OR IN A MANNER NOT USUAL FOR LAW ABIDING INDIVIDUALS, UNDER CIRCUMSTANCES THAT WARRANT A JUSTIFIABLE AND REASONABLE ALARM OR IMMEDIATE CONCERN FOR THE SAFETY OF PERSON(S) OR PROPERTY IN THE VICINITY, IN VIOLATION OF FLORIDA STATE STATUTE OF 856.021 (AND) DID UNLAWFULLY RESIST, OBSTRUCT OR OPPOSE CANINE DEPUTY COX, WHO WAS THEN AND THERE IN THE LAWFUL EXECUTION OF A LEGAL DUTY, OR EXECUTION OF LEGAL PROCESS, TO WIT: SUBJECT REFUSED TO OBEY DEPUTY COX’S LAWFUL COMMANDS, WITHOUT OFFERING OR DOING VIOLENCE TO THE PERSON OF SUCH OFFICER, IN VIOLATION OF FLORIDA STATE STATUTE 843.02. (AND) DID UNLAWFULLY AND WILLFULLY ENTER OR REMAIN IN A STRUCTURE OR CONVEYANCE, TO WIT: A SHED IN THE BACK YARD OF A RESIDENCE, THE PROPERTY OF THE VICTIM, WITHOUT BEING AUTHORIZED, LICENSED, OR INVITED TO DO SO BY THE OWNER, LESSEE, OR THEIR AGENT, IN VIOLATION OF FLORIDA STATE STATUTES 810.08(1) AND 810.08(2)(A). ON 102512, AT APPROXIMATELY 0521 HOURS, THE CITRUS COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE RESPONDED TO 9707 EAST GOLDFINCH LANE IN INVERNESS, IN REFERENCE TO AN ATTEMPTED BURGLARY WHICH WAS IN PROGRESS. UPON ARRIVAL DEPUTIES MADE CONTACT WITH THE COMPLAINANT, MR GREGORY FALABELLA AND UPON SPEAKING TO HIM, MR FALABELLA ADVISED HE WAS AWAKENED BY HIS ELDERLY MOTHER WHO LIVES ON THE SECOND STORY OF HIS APARTMENT. THE COMPLAINANT ADVISED THAT HIS MOTHER HAD TOLD HIM THAT SHE HAD SEEN A SUBJECT ON THE ROOF OF THE APARTMENT AND SHE BELIEVED THAT HE WAS ATTEMPTING TO GAIN ENTRY INTO HER ROOM THROUGH THE REAR WINDOW, WHICH SITS JUST ABOVE THE FIRST STORY ROOF. AT THAT TIME THE COMPLAINANT RAN OUTSIDE TO THE REAR OF THE APARTMENT BUILDING AND UPON SHINING A FLASHLIGHT ON THE FIRST STORY ROOF, HE OBSERVED A WHITE MALE, LATER IDENTIFIED AS THE DEFENDANT, MR DYLAN BYRD, WHO WAS NOW CROUCHING DOWN UNDERNEATH THE WINDOW ON THE ROOF OF HIS NEIGHBOR’S APARTMENT. THE COMPLAINANT ADVISED THAT UPON ASKING THE DEFENDANT WHAT HE WAS DOING, HE DID NOT ANSWER. FURTHERMORE THE COMPLAINANT ADVISED HE ASKED THE DEFENDANT WHO HE WAS, TO WHICH HE REFUSED TO IDENTIFY HIMSELF, AND STATED, “I’M NOBODY”. THE COMPLAINANT ALSO STATED THAT THE DEFENDANT MANIFESTLY ENDEAVORED TO CONCEAL HIMSELF BY ATTEMPTING TO HIDE UP AGAINST A SUPPORT WALL BETWEEN THE FIRST STORY ROOF AND THE SECOND STORY ROOF. THE COMPLAINANT ADVISED THAT UPON TAKING HIS EYES OFF THE DEFENDANT AND YELLING TO HIS MOTHER TO CALL THE POLICE, HE HAD LOST SIGHT OF THE DEFENDANT FOR A SHORT PERIOD OF TIME, AND NOTICED HE WAS NOW NO LONGER ON THE ROOF. UPON DEPUTIES CHECKING THE OTHER APARTMENTS, THEY DETERMINED THAT THE WINDOW WHERE THE DEFENDANT HAD BEEN OBSERVED STANDING NEXT TO WAS OPEN. CONTACT WAS MADE WITH THE VICTIM, MS NATASHA PARKER, WHO RESIDES ADJACENT TO THE COMPLAINANT, AT 9705 EAST GOLDFINCH LANE, ON THE SECOND STORY OF THE APARTMENTS. MS PARKER ADVISED SHE HAD JUST RETURNED HOME FROM WORK JUST AFTER THE INCIDENT OCCURRED. FURTHERMORE, SHE ADVISED THAT SHE WAS CERTAIN THAT HER WINDOW HAD BEEN CLOSED PRIOR TO GOING TO WORK; HOWEVER, WAS UNCERTAIN IF SHE HAD LOCKED THE WINDOW. MS PARKER ADVISED IT DID NOT APPEAR ENTRY HAD BEEN MADE TO HER RESIDENCE, NOR HAD ANYTHING BEEN TAKEN. CANINE DEPUTY COX ARRIVED ON SCENE, AT WHICH TIME DEPUTY COX AND CANINE PRIEST BEGAN A TRACK FOR THE DEFENDANT. A SHORT TIME LATER CANINE DEPUTY COX LOCATED THE DEFENDANT APPROXIMATELY ONE EIGHTH OF A MILE AWAY FROM THE ORIGINAL LOCATION IN A DETACHED SHED BEHIND VICTIM TWO; MR JOHN BOLLMAN’S RESIDENCE, AT 9616 EAST GOSPEL ISLAND ROAD. UPON DEPUTY COX LOCATING THE DEFENDANT, HE CONTINUOUSLY ORDERED THE DEFENDANT TO SHOW HIM HIS HANDS AND TO EXIT THE SHED AND LAY ON THE GROUND, TO WHICH THE DEFENDANT REFUSED TO OBEY HIS COMMANDS AND CONTINUED TO SIT IN THE SHED. DEPUTY COX ADVISED THAT HE CLEARLY IDENTIFIED HIMSELF AS A DEPUTY SHERIFF; HOWEVER, THE DEFENDANT REFUSED TO COMPLY FOR A PERIOD OF TIME. DEPUTY COX ADVISED THAT THE DEFENDANT ULTIMATELY STEPPED OUT OF THE SHED WHERE HE WAS TAKEN INTO CUSTODY. UPON FURTHER INVESTIGATION MULTIPLE SHOE PRINTS WERE LOCATED ON THE COMPLAINANT’S SUV, WHICH WAS PARKED IN FRONT OF HIS APARTMENT BUILDING WHICH MATCHED THE SHOES THE DEFENDANT WAS WEARING AT THE TIME OF HIS APPREHENSION. IT WAS DETERMINED THAT THE DEFENDANT HAD STOOD ON THE VEHICLE TO CLIMB ON THE ROOF AND SUBSEQUENTLY CLIMBED OVER THE ROOF TO THE REAR OF THE VICTIM’S RESIDENCE. FURTHERMORE, THE COMPLAINANT WAS TRANSPORTED TO THE DEFENDANT’S LOCATION WHERE HE POSITIVELY IDENTIFIED THE DEFENDANT AS THE SUBJECT WHO WAS ON HIS ROOF. AT THAT TIME THE DEFENDANT WAS ADVISED HE WAS BEING PLACED UNDER ARREST FOR THE ABOVE LISTED CHARGES. THE DEFENDANT WAS THEN TRANSPORTED TO THE CITRUS COUNTY DETENTION FACILITY FOR BOOKING AND PROCESSING. PRIOR TO LEAVING THE SCENE I MADE CONTACT WITH MR JOSEPH SINGH WHO ALSO RESIDES IN THE APARTMENT BUILDING. UPON DOING SO HE ADVISED ME THAT HE KNEW THE DEFENDANT AND FURTHER STATED THAT THE DEFENDANT WAS AT HIS RESIDENCE LAST NIGHT AND THE LAST TIME HE SAW THE DEFENDANT WAS AT 0200 WHEN THE DEFENDANT WENT TO SLEEP ON HIS (MR SINGH’S) COUCH. MR SINGH ADVISED THAT THE DEFENDANT IS FROM THE TAMPA BAY AREA AND WAS ONLY AT HIS RESIDENCE TO CELEBRATE HIS GIRLFRIEND’S BIRTHDAY. FURTHERMORE SINGH ADVISED HE NOTICED THAT AN UNOPENED LIQUOR BOTTLE WAS NOW EMPTY AND HE BELIEVED THAT THE DEFENDANT MUST HAVE DRANK IT LAST NIGHT AFTER MR SINGH WENT TO BED. IT SHOULD BE KNOWN THAT UPON INITIALLY MAKING CONTACT WITH THE DEFENDANT AFTER HE WAS TAKEN INTO CUSTODY, I DID SMELL A STRONG ODOR OF AN ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE EMITTING FROM HIS PERSON. THE DEFENDANT ALSO APPEARED TO BE DISORIENTED AND COULD NOT EXPLAIN WHERE HE WAS AT THE TIME. UPON ARRIVAL TO THE CITRUS COUNTY DETENTION FACILITY, A DIGITALLY RECORDED INTERVIEW WAS CONDUCTED WITH THE DEFENDANT AND PRIOR TO SPEAKING TO THE DEFENDANT REGARDING THIS CASE, HE WAS READ MIRANDA VIA PREPRINTED AGENCY CARD, TO WHICH HE WAIVED HIS RIGHTS AND ADVISED HE WOULD SPEAK WITH ME. UPON QUESTIONING HIM IN REFERENCE TO THIS CASE THE DEFENDANT DENIED HAVING THE INTENT TO BURGLARIZE THE VICTIM’S RESIDENCE AND DID NOT REMEMBER ANYTHING AFTER LAYING DOWN ON MR SINGH’S COUCH, UP UNTIL THE POINT HE WAS APPREHENDED BY THE CANINE DEPUTY. THE DEFENDANT COULD NOT EXPLAIN WHY HE WOULD BE ON THE VICTIM’S ROOF OR ANY OF THE OTHER ACTIONS WHICH MAY HAVE HAPPENED THROUGHOUT THE NIGHT. THE DEFENDANT CONTINUED TO STATE THAT IT WAS NOT HIS INTENT TO “ROB ANYONE”, AND COULD ONLY ADVISE HE DID NOT KNOW WHAT HE HAD DONE DURING THE NIGHT. UPON CONCLUSION OF THE INTERVIEW THE DEFENDANT WAS TURNED BACK OVER TO CORRECTION’S STAFF. THE DEFENDANT’S BOND WAS SET AT $1,500.00 PER THE BOND SCHEDULE. PRIOR TO LEAVING THE DETENTION FACILITY THE DEFENDANT’S SHOES WERE COLLECTED AND LATER TURNED OVER TO EVIDENCE. |
