| Probable cause affidavit: |
SUBMITTED BY: SLINGERLAND, DANIEL 0443 (AR13-4541) DID UNLAWFULLY AND KNOWINGLY TAKE, OBTAIN OR USE OR ENDEAVOR TO TAKE, OBTAIN OR USE THE PROPERTY OF BEALLS DEPARTMENT STORE, TO WIT: TWO PURSES, A PAIR OF SHOES, AND A NECKLACE, CARRYING AWAY THE SAID MERCHANDISE, WITH INTENT TO TEMPORARILY OR PERMANENTLY DEPRIVE, A MERCHANT, OF THE POSSESSION, USE, BENEFIT, OR FULL RETAIL VALUE OF SAID PROPERTY, SAID PROPERTY BEING OF A VALUE OF LESS THAN $300.00, IN VIOLATION OF FLORIDA STATE STATUTES 812.015, 812.014(1), AND 812.014(3)(A); AND DID UNLAWFULLY AND KNOWINGLY, while committing or after committing theft of property, resist the reasonable effort of a merchant OR merchantâs employee, to recover the property WHICH THE merchant OR merchantâs employee had probable cause to believe the individual had concealed or removed from its place of display or elsewhere, IN VIOLATION OF FLORIDA STATE STATUTE 812.015(6). ON 021813 AT 1533 HOURS, I RESPONDED TO BEALLS DEPARTMENT STORE LOCATED AT 2851 EAST GULF TO LAKE HIGHWAY, IN INVERNESS, IN REFERENCE TO A SHOPLIFTER THAT WAS RESISTING LOSS PREVENTION. UPON ARRIVAL, I WAS ADVISED THAT THE DEFENDANT, LATER IDENTIFIED AS MS MELISSA A INGENERI, HAD BEEN DETAINED AND WAS IN THE LOSS PREVENTION OFFICE. I THEN MADE CONTACT WITH DETECTIVE SANTIAGO WHO HAD ARRIVED ON SCENE BEFORE ME. DETECTIVE SANTIAGO ADVISED THAT HE HAD SPOKEN TO THE VICTIM, MR CHAD WHITLER, THE LOSS PREVENTION OFFICER, WHO ADVISED THAT HE HAD OBSERVED THE DEFENDANT EXIT THE STORE WITH A LARGE WHITE PURSE CONTAINING OTHER MERCHANDISE THAT BELONGED TO BEALLS. HE STATED THAT THE DEFENDANT PASSED ALL POINTS OF SALE AND THAT THE LOSS PREVENTION OFFICE CONTACTED THE DEFENDANT ON THE SIDEWALK IN FRONT OF THE STORE, IDENTIFIED HIMSELF AS BEALLS SECURITY, AND BEGAN TO DETAIN THE DEFENDANT. AT THAT TIME, THE DEFENDANT DROPPED THE MERCHANDISE AND BEGAN STRUGGLING WITH THE VICTIM ATTEMPTING TO FREE HERSELF. THE DEFENDANT AND THE VICTIM STRUGGLED FOR A FEW MINUTES DURING WHICH TIME THE VICTIM AND THE DEFENDANT WENT TO THE GROUND AND THE VICTIM WAS ABLE TO HANDCUFF THE DEFENDANT. WHILE TALKING WITH DETECTIVE SANTIAGO, THE DEFENDANT CONTINUOUSLY INTERRUPTED STATING THAT SHE ONLY TOOK THE PROPERTY TO SHOW IT TO HER NIECE WHO WAS STANDING BY A DISPLAY ON THE SIDEWALK. THE DEFENDANT STATED THAT SHE DID NOT RESIST THE VICTIM, THAT THE VICTIM ATTACKED HER. THE VICTIM SHOWED ME VIDEO SURVEILLANCE LOOKING FROM INSIDE THE STORE OUT THE EASTERN SET OF ENTRY DOORS. HE ADVISED THAT DURING THIS PERIOD OF TIME HE HAD MADE CONTACT WITH THE DEFENDANT TO THE EAST OF THE DOORS AND BEGAN STRUGGLING WITH THE DEFENDANT. DURING THE VIDEO I COULD NOT SEE THE VICTIM MAKE CONTACT WITH THE DEFENDANT, HOWEVER, THERE WAS A SHORT PERIOD OF TIME AS THE VICTIM WAS ATTEMPTING TO ESCORT THE DEFENDANT BACK INTO THE STORE THAT THE VICTIM AND THE DEFENDANT WERE VISIBLE ON THE VIDEO SURVEILLANCE AND I DID OBSERVE THE DEFENDANT ACTIVELY RESISTING THE EFFORTS OF THE VICTIM. I OBSERVED THE DEFENDANT PLANTING HER FEET ON THE GROUND ATTEMPTING TO PULL AWAY FROM THE DEFENDANT. I ALSO OBSERVED THE DEFENDANT GRAB A RAILING AND BRACE HERSELF AGAINST THE RESTRAINT OF THE VICTIM. I THEN SPOKE WITH THE VICTIM AND HE ADVISED THAT HE FIRST OBSERVED THE DEFENDANT AND HER NIECE INSIDE THE JEWELRY SECTION. HE FOLLOWED THE DEFENDANT WHO WAS CLEARLY CARRYING A WHITE PURSE WITH THE TAG STILL ON THE PURSE AND OBSERVED HER EXIT THE STORE PASSING ALL POINTS OF SALE. WHEN HE MADE CONTACT WITH THE DEFENDANT HE IDENTIFIED HIMSELF AS A SECURITY OFFICER WITH BEALLS. HE ADVISED THAT HE INSTRUCTED THE DEFENDANT TO COME WITH HIM BACK INSIDE THE STORE AND THAT HE DID GRAB DEFENDANT BY HER UPPER ARM. AT THAT POINT THE DEFENDANT BEGAN RESISTING. HE STATED THAT HE DID ADVISE THE DEFENDANT SEVERAL TIMES TO STOP RESISTING WHILE HE ATTEMPTED TO GAIN CONTROL OF THE DEFENDANT. THE DEFENDANT REFUSED TO COMPLY. I THEN MADE CONTACT WITH THE DEFENDANT. SHE WAS ADVISED OF HER MIRANDA RIGHTS VIA PREPARED CARD. SHE UNDERSTOOD HER RIGHTS AND SHE WAIVED HER RIGHTS AND AGREED TO SPEAK WITH ME. THE DEFENDANT CONFIRMED THE FOUR PIECES OF MERCHANDISE WERE THE ITEMS SHE CARRIED OUT OF THE STORE. THE DEFENDANT STATED SHE PLACED THE SMALLER ITEMS, A PINK PURSE, A PAIR OF SHOES, AND A NECKLACE, INTO THE LARGE WHITE PURSE AND CARRIED THE ITEMS OUT OF THE STORE TO SHOW HER NIECE, WHO WAS STANDING ON THE SIDEWALK NEAR A STAND OF MERCHANDISE ON DISPLAY. THE DEFENDANT STATED SHE DID NOT INTEND TO STEAL ANY OF THE MERCHANDISE, SHE WANTED HER NIECES OPINION, AND WAS GOING TO GO BACK INTO THE STORE TO PAY FOR THE MERCHANDISE. I ASKED THE DEFENDANT IF SHE HAD HER WALLET IN HER POSSESSION, TO WHICH SHE STATED, NO, IT WAS in the VEHICLE. I ASKED HER HOW SHE WAS GOING TO PAY FOR THE MERCHANDISE, TO WHICH SHE STATED SHE WOULD HAVE GOT HER WALLET. I CHECKED THE DEFENDANTâS PURSE, which DID NOT CONTAIN ANY MONEY, CREDIT CARDS, CHECKBOOK, OR OTHER MEANS WITH WHICH TO PAY FOR THE MERCHANDISE. A WALLET CONTAINED WITHIN HER PURSE DID CONTAIN TWO SMALL PAIRS OF WIRE SNIPS THAT THE DEFENDANT CLAIMED SHE USED FOR HER BUSINESS AS A PAINTING CONTRACTOR. WHEN I ASKED THE DEFENDANT WHY SHE DID NOT LEAVE HER MERCHANDISE IN THE SHOPPING CART TO SHOW HER NIECE, SHE STATED IT WAS EASIER TO PUT IT ALL IN ONE BAG. I ASKED THE DEFENDANT IF SHE WAS AWARE THAT THERE WAS NO MERCHANDISE DISPLAY STAND WHERE SHE made CONTACT WITH HER NIECE, TO WHICH THE DEFENDANT COULD NOT PROVIDE AN EXPLANATION. AT THAT TIME, THE DEFENDANT WAS PLACED UNDER ARREST, SHE HAD PREVIOUSLY BEEN HANDCUFFED BEHIND HER BACK (DOUBLE LOCKED). SHE WAS THEN PLACED IN THE BACK SEAT OF MY PATROL VEHICLE AND TRANSPORTED TO THE CITRUS COUNTY DETENTION FACILITY FOR PROCESSING. HER BOND WAS SET AT $750.00 PER THE BOND SCHEDULE. |
