| Probable cause affidavit: |
SUBMITTED BY: RAMOS, ROBALDO 0515 (AR12-3644) DID UNLAWFULLY AND KNOWINGLY OBTAIN, USE OR ENDEAVOR TO OBTAIN OR USE THE PROPERTY OF THE VICTIM, WAL-MART TO-WIT: TOTAL OF 54 ITEMS INCLUDING CLOTHING, SPORTING GOODS, TOOLS AND ELECTRONICS OF THE VALUE OF THREE HUNDRED DOLLARS ($300.00) OR MORE, BUT LESS THAN FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS ($5,000.00), TO WIT: $1324.43 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. 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 112812, I WAS DISPATCHED TO THE WAL-MART SUPERCENTER, LOCATED AT 2416 EAST GULF TO LAKE HIGHWAY, INVERNESS, IN REFERENCE TO A THEFT IN PROGRESS. UPON MY ARRIVAL, I MADE CONTACT WITH THE COMPLAINANT, MR JOSEPH COMPOSTELLA. HE ADVISED THAT ON TODAYâS DATE, AT APPROXIMATELY 1310 HOURS, HE HAD OBSERVED AN UNKNOWN SUSPECT AS HE PLACED MULTIPLE ITEMS IN A SHOPPING CART, EXITING AND ENTERING THE BUSINESS SEVERAL TIMES. HE ADVISED THAT DURING ONE TIME WHEN THE SUSPECT HAD EXITED THE STORE, HE SPOKE WITH THE DRIVER OF A 2001, WHITE IN COLOR, FORD, CROWN VICTORIA, BEARING FLORIDA LICENSE PLATE BGNP95. HE ADVISED THAT THE SUSPECT THEN RETURNED BACK INSIDE OF THE STORE, AND HE MADE CONTACT WITH THE SUSPECT, STOPPING HIM AND IDENTIFYING HIMSELF AS A LOSS PREVENTION OFFICER WITH WAL-MART, AND BEGAN TO ESCORT THE SUSPECT TO HIS OFFICE. HE ADVISED THAT HE ASKED THE SUSPECT WHY HE WAS STEALING ALL OF THESE ITEMS, TO WHICH THE SUSPECT ADVISED THAT HE HAD BEEN âCHRISTMAS SHOPPING.â UPON REACHING THE LOSS PREVENTION OFFICE, THE COMPLAINANT ADVISED THAT THE SUSPECT THEN RAN OUT OF THE STORE EXIT, HEADING WESTBOUND TOWARDS HIGHWAY 44. THE COMPLAINANT ADVISED THAT HE HAD LOST SIGHT OF THE SUSPECT PRIOR TO CONTACTING THE CITRUS COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE. IT IS UNKNOWN IF THE SUSPECT HAD ANYTHING ON HIS PERSON WHEN HE FLED THE STORE. ALL ITEMS IN THE SHOPPING CART, WHICH WERE CLOTHING, ELECTRONICS, DVDâS, AND OTHER MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS, WHICH THE SUSPECT HAD BEEN TAKING OUT OF THE EXIT WHEN FIRST CONTACTED BY THE COMPLAINANT WERE RECOVERED BACK TO WAL-MART. THE COMPLAINANT PROVIDED ME A RECEIPT TOTALING THE ITEMS, SHOWING 54 TOTAL ITEMS, VALUED AT A TOTAL OF $1324.43. THIS RECEIPT, ALONG WITH THE COMPLAINANTâS SWORN WRITTEN STATEMENT, WAS COLLECTED AND LATER TURNED IN TO CITRUS COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE RECORDS. AN EMAIL WAS SENT OUT AGENCY WIDE WITH PHOTOGRAPHS PROVIDED FROM WAL-MART FROM THEIR SURVEILLANCE FOOTAGE OF THE SUSPECT. , DEPUTY LOVULLO BOLOâD THE AREA, WHICH WAS MET WITH NEGATIVE RESULTS FOR THE SUSPECT. AT THE TIME OF THIS REPORT, CONTACT WAS NOT MADE WITH THE SUSPECT OR OWNER OF THE VEHICLE. SEE CRIME SCENE TECHNICIAN (CST) REPORT FOR SURVEILLANCE FOOTAGE PHOTOGRAPHS. ON 112912, DEPUTY HYRC CONDUCTED A FOLLOW UP INVESTIGATION AND IN THE PROCESSES, LOCATED AND IDENTIFIED THE DEFENDANT, MR MICHAEL BISSONETTE. DEPUTY HYRC ADVISED THAT HE READ THE DEFENDANT HIS MIRANDA WARNING AT WHICH TIME THE DEFENDANT ADMITTED TO THE CRIME. AT WHICH TIME, DEPUTY HOLTZHOUSE TRANSPORTED THE DEFENDANT TO THE CITRUS COUNTY DETENTION FACILITY. UPON MY ARRIVAL AT THE CITRUS COUNTY DETENTION FACILITY, I MADE CONTACT WITH THE DEFENDANT. I ADVISED HIM THAT I WAS THE PRIMARY DEPUTY INVESTIGATING THIS REPORT. I THEN ASKED THE DEFENDANT WHAT TOOK PLACE YESTERDAY AT WAL-MART. THE DEFENDANT STATED THAT EVERYTHING IS ON TAPE. I THEN ASKED WHAT HE WAS DOING INSIDE WAL-MART AND THE DEFENDANT ADVISED CHRISTMAS SHOPPING. HE STATED THAT HE DOES NOT HAVE A JOB, AND DOESNâT HAVE A HOME, SO HE WENT TO WAL-MART TO GET THE THINGS THAT HE NEEDED. THE DEFENDANT ADVISED THAT JOHN HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE INCIDENT AND IF JOHN HAD KNOWN THAT HE WAS THERE TO STEAL JOHN WOULD HAVE NEVER TAKEN HIM TO WAL-MART. I THEN ASKED THE DEFENDANT WHY HE RAN FROM THE LOSS PREVENTION OFFICER AFTER THEY DETAINED HIM AND HE STATED BECAUSE HE DID NOT WANT TO GO TO JAIL. I ADVISED THE DEFENDANT THAT HIS CHARGES WERE GRAND THEFT SHOPLIFTING AND RESISTING A MERCHANT WITHOUT VIOLENCE. I THEN ASKED MICHAEL IF HE KNEW HE DID NOT HAVE A JOB OR MONEY TO PAY FOR THE ITEMS WHY HE WENT TO WAL-MART. HE STATED IT WAS A DUMB IDEA. THE DEFENDANT BOND WAS SET AT A TOTAL OF $2,500.00 PER THE BOND SCHEDULE. |
