| Probable cause affidavit: |
SUBMITTED BY: MCINTYRE, JERICHO 1435 (17-44706) (AR17-23205) DID KNOWINGLY THAT THE OFFENDER HAD COMMITTED A CRIME AND SUCH CRIME WAS A SECOND DEGREE OR THIRD DEGREE FELONY, TO WIT: THE DEFENDANT, MS MARIA MILLER, DID KNOW THAT THE CO-DEFENDANT, MR JEREMY BODTMAN, WAS ACTIVELY STEALING FROM WAL-MART WHILE SHE REMAINED IN THE VEHICLE WAITING FOR HIM AND MADE NO ATTEMPT TO STOP HIM, IN VIOLATION FLORIDA STATE STATUE 777.03(C)(2). ON 032917 I RESPONDED TO THE WAL-MART LOCATED AT 2461 EAST GULF TO LAKE HIGHWAY, IN INVERNESS, IN REFERENCE TO THE CO-DEFENDANT LATER IDENTIFIED AS MR JEREMY BODTMAN, ACTIVELY STEALING FROM WAL-MART. BEFORE MY ARRIVAL, COMPLAINANT/WITNESS, MR JOSEPH COMPOSTELLA, WHO WAS THE LOSS PREVENTION OFFICER AT WAL-MART, ADVISED ME VIA CELLULAR TELEPHONE THAT THE CO-DEFENDANT WAS LEAVING WAL-MART PUSHING A SHOPPING CART. HE ADVISED THE CO-DEFENDANT WAS WEARING A BLACK AND GRAY HAT, DARK GRAY SHIRT AND PLAID SHORTS. THE COMPLAINANT STATED THAT THE CO-DEFENDANT GOT RID OF THE SHOPPING CART AS I WAS PULLING INTO THE PARKING LOT AND PROCEEDED TO HIS VEHICLE IN A QUICK MANNER. UPON MY ARRIVAL, I OBSERVED THE CO-DEFENDANT GETTING INTO THE DRIVER'S SEAT OF A GRAY CHRYSLER FOUR DOOR VEHICLE AND ATTEMPTED TO DRIVE AWAY. I THEN ATTEMPTED TO CONDUCT A TRAFFIC STOP ON THE SAID VEHICLE, TO WHICH I WAS ABLE TO STOP THE SAID VEHICLE ON THE FAR WEST SIDE OF THE PARKING LOT. I THEN MADE CONTACT WITH THE DRIVER/ CO-DEFENDANT, MR BODTMAN, WHO ADVISED THAT HE DID NOT HAVE A DRIVER'S LICENSE AND IT WAS SUSPENDED. I THEN CONFIRMED THROUGH TELETYPE THAT THE CO-DEFENDANT DID NOT HAVE A VALID DRIVER'S LICENSE. DURING A POST MIRANDA RECORDED INTERVIEW WITH THE CO-DEFENDANT I BEGAN TO QUESTION HIM ABOUT WAL-MART AND WHY HE WAS INSIDE THE STORE. HE ADVISED THAT HE WAS IN WAL-MART BECAUSE HE NEEDED TO GET A FEW THINGS BUT DECIDED THAT HE DID NOT NEED THEM AND EXITED THE STORE. I ASKED THE CO-EFENDANT IF AT ANY POINT IN TIME HE PUT ITEMS IN A SHOPPING CART AND EXITED THE STORE WITH THEM, TO WHICH HE ADVISED NO. HE THEN STATED THAT HE OBSERVED ME SEE HIM IN THE PARKING LOT AND AT THAT TIME, HE DID NOT HAVE ANYTHING IN HIS POSSESSION. I NEXT MADE CONTACT WITH THE DEFENDANT, MS MARIA MILLER. DURING A POST MIRANDA RECORDED INTERVIEW, MS MILLER ADVISED THAT HER BOYFRIEND/CO-DEFENDANT, MR BODTMAN, ASKED HER IF SHE WANTED TO GO FOR A RIDE. THEY THEN LEFT THEIR RESIDENCE IN HERNANDO COUNTY AND CAME TO CITRUS COUNTY. SHE ADVISED THAT HER BOYFRIEND/CO-DEFENDANT THEN WENT TO LOWES WHERE HE ADVISED HE WAS GOING INSIDE AND CAME BACK WITH A GENERATOR, DURING WHICH TIME, MS MILLER REMAINED INSIDE THE VEHICLE AND SHE BELIEVED THE GENERATOR TO BE STOLEN. MS MILLER THEN ADVISED THAT HE EMPTIED THE GENERATOR INTO THE TRUNK COMPARTMENT OF THE VEHICLE AND THEY THEN PROCEEDED TO GO TO WAL-MART WHERE HE TOOK THE EMPTY BOX OF THE GENERATOR INTO WAL-MART. MS MILLER ADVISED THAT SHE REMAINED IN THE VEHICLE AGAIN AS THE CO-DEFENDANT ENTERED WAL-MART. I THEN ASKED MS MILLER IF SHE KNEW WHAT THE CO-DEFENDANT WAS DOING IN WAL-MART AND AT LOWES, TO WHICH AT FIRST SHE STATED NO, SHE DID NOT KNOW WHAT HE WAS DOING AND THEN SHE CHANGED HER STATEMENT LATER, DURING THE INTERVIEW, AND ADVISED THAT YES, SHE WAS AWARE THAT HE WAS STEALING ITEMS FROM INSIDE WAL-MART AND SHE BELIEVED THE GENERATOR TO BE STOLEN FROM LOWES AND SHE MADE NO ATTEMPT TO STOP HIM. MS MILLER ADVISED THAT WHEN THE CO-DEFENDANT GOT INTO THE VEHICLE, HE STATED THAT HE HAD GOTTEN CAUGHT, THEN PULLED OUT OF THE PARKING SPOT. SHE ADVISED THAT WAS WHEN THIS DEPUTY GOT BEHIND THEM AND ATTEMPTED TO CONDUCT A TRAFFIC STOP ON THEM IN THE PARKING LOT. SHE ADVISED THE CO-DEFENDANT THAT HE COULD NOT RUN AND THAT HE NEEDED TO PULL OVER. I THEN ATTEMPTED TO MAKE CONTACT WITH THE CO-DEFENDANT AGAIN, WHO DID NOT CHANGE HIS STATEMENT FROM THE FIRST TIME, BUT WHEN ASKED ABOUT A GENERATOR FROM LOWES, HE ADVISED THAT HE ALREADY HAD THAT GENERATOR AND HE HAD TAKEN IT INTO LOWES TO SEE IF THEY HAD ONE SIMILAR TO IT. THE CO-DEFENDANT WAS UNABLE TO EXPLAIN WHY THE GENERATOR BOX WAS FOUND IN A WAL-MART SHOPPING CART, NOT TOO FAR FROM HIS VEHICLE, FILLED WITH STOLEN MERCHANDISE. I THEN MADE CONTACT WITH COMPLAINANT/WITNESS, MR COMPOSTELLA, WHO PROVIDED ME WITH A WRITTEN STATEMENT. MR COMPOSTELLA ADVISED HE OBSERVED A MALE LATER IDENTIFIED AS THE CO-DEFENDANT, MR JEREMY BODTMAN, DISPLAY SUSPICIOUS BEHAVIOR IN THE STORE. MR COMPOSTELLA ADVISED HE CONTINUED TO DO FLOOR SURVEILLANCE AND OBSERVED THE CO-DEFENDANT SELECT MULTIPLE ITEMS AND CONCEAL THEM IN A GENERATOR BOX. THE CO-DEFENDANT THEN PROCEEDED TO THE FRONT OF THE STORE AND EXITED THE STORE PASSING ALL POINTS OF SALE WITHOUT MAKING ANY ATTEMPTS TO PAY FOR ANY OF THE ITEMS IN THE SHOPPING CART. MR COMPOSTELLA ADVISED THE CO-DEFENDANT THEN MADE IT TO HIS VEHICLE WITH THE MERCHANDISE AND AT THAT TIME, HE NOTICED THIS DEPUTY PULLING INTO THE PARKING LOT AND ATTEMPTED TO FLEE THE PARKING LOT AT THAT TIME IN HIS VEHICLE. THE COMPLAINANT/WITNESS PROVIDED ME WITH SURVEILLANCE FOOTAGE OF THE CO-DEFENDANT TAKING ITEMS AND PLACING THEM INTO THE CART. IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT THE GENERATOR BOX THAT WAS USED TO CONCEAL THE ITEMS WAS THE SAME BRAND OF GENERATOR THAT WAS LOCATED IN THE TRUNK COMPARTMENT OF THE CO-DEFENDANT'S VEHICLE. DURING MY INVESTIGATION, I OBSERVED THAT THE CO-DEFENDANT HAD A NEW YORK TAG GUB8458 WHICH WAS PLACED ON HIS 2002 GRAY CHRYSLER. AFTER RUNNING THE TAG, IT WAS FOUND THAT THE TAG BELONGED TO A 2005 GRAY CHEVROLET FOUR DOOR VEHICLE. WHEN I QUESTIONED THE CO-DEFENDANT ABOUT THE TAG, HE ADVISED THAT HE GOT THAT TAG OFF OF HIS FATHER'S VEHICLE AND THOUGHT HE HAD SWITCHED IT OVER TO HIS VEHICLE. HE STATED HE WAS UNAWARE THAT THE TAG WAS INCORRECT FOR THAT VEHICLE. THE DEFENDANT WAS THEN PLACED IN HANDCUFFS, DOUBLE-LOCKED, BEHIND THE BACK, SEATED AND SECURED IN THE REAR OF MY PATROL VEHICLE. THE DEFENDANT WAS ADVISED SHE WAS BEING PLACED UNDER ARREST FOR ACCESSORY BEFORE/AFTER THE FACT OF THE CO-DEFENDANT COMMITTING A SECOND DEGREE OR THIRD DEGREE FELONY. AT THAT TIME, THE DEFENDANT WAS TRANSPORTED TO CITRUS COUNTY DETENTION FACILITY FOR BOOKING AND PROCESSING. THE DEFENDANT'S BOND WAS SET AT $2,000.00 PER THE BOND SCHEDULE. |
