| Probable cause affidavit: |
SUBMITTED BY: ANSTEAD, LAURA 0459 (AR13-4665) DID UNLAWFULLY AND KNOWINGLY OBTAIN, USE OR ENDEAVOR TO OBTAIN OR USE THE PROPERTY OF THE VICTIM, TO-WIT: WAL-MART, OF THE VALUE OF THREE HUNDRED DOLLARS ($300.00) OR MORE, BUT LESS THAN TWENTY THOUSAND DOLLARS ($20,000.00), TO WIT: MISCELLANEOUS CLOTHING, HOUSEHOLD GOODS, TOILETRIES AND GROCERIES, TOTALING $601.14; 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. ON 022613, I RESPONDED TO THE WAL-MART SUPERCENTER, WHICH IS LOCATED AT 2461 EAST GULF TO LAKE HIGHWAY, INVERNESS, AS RELIEF FOR DEPUTY DOWLING. UPON MY ARRIVAL, I MADE CONTACT WITH DEPUTY DOWLING, WHO ADVISED THAT THE LOSS PREVENTION OFFICER, MR COURTNEY HENRY, WHO WAS THE COMPLAINANT, HAD A DEFENDANT IN CUSTODY. DEPUTY DOWLING ADVISED THAT THE DEFENDANT HAD REMOVED TWO CARTLOADS OF MERCHANDISE FROM THE STORE, WITHOUT MAKING ANY ATTEMPT TO PAY FOR THESE ITEMS. DEPUTY DOWLING ADVISED THAT HE HAD READ DEFENDANT, MS KOLEEN J POSAVEC HER MIRANDA WARNINGS ALREADY, AND THAT SHE HAD ADVISED THAT SHE UNDERSTOOD HER RIGHTS AND WOULD SPEAK WITH US. THE DEFENDANT ADMITTED TO TAKING THE MERCHANDISE WITHOUT PAYING, AND KNEW UPON ENTERING THE STORE THAT SHE HAD NOT MEANS TO PAY FOR ANY MERCHANDISE. DEFENDANT MS POSAVEC ADVISED THAT SHE WAS VERY SORRY, AND FELT TERRIBLE ABOUT WHAT SHE HAD DONE. DEPUTY DOWLING THEN LEFT THE SCENE, AND I REQUESTED THAT HE SUPPLEMENT THIS REPORT WITH HIS ACTIONS. SEE DEPUTY DOWLINGâS SUPPLEMENT FOR FURTHER DETAILS. I THEN MADE CONTACT WITH THE COMPLAINANT, WHO THEN SHOWED THIS DEPUTY THE VIDEO SURVEILLANCE FOOTAGE OF DEFENDANT MS POSAVEC AS SHE WALKED THROUGH THE STORE, SELECTING AND PLACING MERCHANDISE IN TO HER SHOPPING CART, AND FINALLY EXITING THE STORE. WHILE VIEWING THIS VIDEO, I OBSERVED A WHITE FEMALE, WHO WAS WEARING BLACK PANTS AND A LIME GREEN SHIRT, TO BE FOLLOWING DEFENDANT MS POSAVEC, BEHAVING AS THOUGH SHE WAS LOOKING OUT FOR HER. UPON LOOKING AT WHERE DEFENDANT MS POSAVEC CURRENTLY WAS SEATED, I OBSERVED THIS SAME FEMALE TO BE SITTING NEXT TO HER, WITH HER ARM OVER HER. I THEN MADE CONTACT WITH THIS FEMALE, LATER IDENTIFIED AS DEFENDANT MS KATLYN JOAN CLOUSE, WHO ADVISED THAT SHE WAS THE DAUGHTER OF DEFENDANT MS POSAVEC. DEFENDANT MS CLOUSE STATED THAT SHE HAD TOLD HER MOTHER SEVERAL TIMES THAT SHE SHOULD NOT STEAL ANYTHING, BUT THAT SHE HAD NOT DONE ANYTHING TO STOP HER FROM DOING SO. DEFENDANT MS CLOUSE ADVISED THAT AFTER FOLLOWING HER MOTHER OUT OF THE STORE, WITHOUT PAYING FOR THE MERCHANDISE IN THE FIRST CART, SHE HAD ACCOMPANIES HER MOTHER TO THEIR VEHICLE, AND HAD HELPED HER MOTHER TO UNLOAD THE MERCHANDISE FROM THE SHOPPING CART IN TO THE FRONT OF THEIR VEHICLE. DEFENDANT MS CLOUSE ADVISED THAT AFTER THEY HAD FINISHED UNLOADING THE FIRST SHOPPING CART FILLED WITH MERCHANDISE, THEY HAD RETURNED BACK TO WAL-MART, AND DEFENDANT MS POSAVEC HAD BEGUN TO LOAD ANOTHER SHOPPING CART WITH MERCHANDISE. SHE ADVISED THAT SHE HAD FOLLOWED HER MOTHER A SHORT DISTANCE BEHIND, OBSERVING FOR ANYONE WATCHING. SHE STATED THAT SHE HAD NOT TAKEN ANY PHYSICAL MEASURE TO KEEP HER MOTHER FROM REMOVING THE MERCHANDISE FROM THE STORE, NEITHER THE FIRST SHOPPING CART FULL NOR THE SECOND. THROUGHOUT THE VIDEO SURVEILLANCE FOOTAGE, IT IS OBVIOUS THAT DEFENDANT MS CLOUSE IS CAREFULLY WATCHING ALL DIRECTIONS, AND MAKING EFFORTS TO ENSURE DEFENDANT MS POSAVEC WAS NOT OBSERVED. FURTHERMORE, AN OVERVIEW OF THE MERCHANDISE TAKEN, WHICH INCLUDED WOMENâS AND MENâS CLOTHING, CANDY, TOILETRIES, GROCERIES, AND A VACUUM CLEANER, COULD HAVE ALL BEEN BENEFICIAL TO DEFENDANT MS CLOUSE AS WELL AS HER MOTHER. UPON THE TWO DEFENDANTâS EXIT FROM THE STORE, DEFENDANT MS POSAVEC WAS APPROACHED AND STOPPED BY THE COMPLAINANT, WHO RAN PAST DEFENDANT MS CLOUSE. BOTH DEFENDANTS THEN RESPONDED WITH THE COMPLAINANT TO THE LOSS PREVENTION OFFICE; AND ALSO ASSISTED THE COMPLAINANT WITH REMOVING THE MERCHANDISE FROM THEIR VEHICLE, AND RECOVERING THE STOLEN GOODS. THE FIRST SHOPPING CART FILLED WITH MERCHANDISE INCLUDED ITEMS SUCH AS A VACUUM, GIFT BAGS, PURSES, TOYS, MENâS CLOTHING, WOMENâS CLOTHING, CANDY AND TOILETRIES; ALL TOTALING TO $492.18. THE SECOND CART CONSISTED OF GROCERY ITEMS ONLY, AND ALL ITEMS TOTALED AT $108.96. THESE TWO SHOPPING CARTSâ ITEMS TOTAL VALUE IS $601.14. IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT BOTH DEFENDANTS WERE COOPERATIVE AND REMORSEFUL FOR THEIR ACTIONS. THEY BOTH ADVISED THAT THEY WOULD TAKE THE BLAME FOR THE OTHER, AND APOLOGIZED PROFUSELY. THE COMPLAINANT PROVIDED ME WITH A SWORN WRITTEN STATEMENT, AS WELL AS ITEMIZED RECEIPTS FOR THE MERCHANDISE IN BOTH CART, WHICH WERE ALL LATER TURNED IN TO CITRUS COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE RECORDS DIVISION. I THEN ADVISED BOTH DEFENDANTS THAT THEY WERE BEING PLACED UNDER ARREST FOR GRAND THEFT. THEY WERE BOTH HANDCUFFED, DOUBLE LOCKED BEHIND THEIR BACKS, AND SECURED IN THE REAR OF MY PATROL VEHICLE. I THEN TRANSPORTED BOTH DEFENDANTS TO THE CITRUS COUNTY DETENTION FACILITY. UPON ARRIVAL, THEY WERE RELEASED TO DETENTION FACILITY STAFF, FOR BOOKING AND PROCESSING. THE DEFENDANT WAS CHARGED WITH ONE COUNT OF GRAND THEFT, WITH HER BOND SET AT $2,000.00, PER THE BOND SCHEDULE. |
