| Probable cause affidavit: |
SUBMITTED BY: SANCHEZ, MICHAEL 1242 (AR14-10821) DID UNLAWFULLY AND INTENTIONALLY THREATEN BY WORD OR ACT TO DO VIOLENCE TO THE PERSON OF THE VICTIM, COUPLED WITH AN APPARENT ABILITY TO CARRY OUT SAID THREAT, AND UTILIZED A DEADLY WEAPON, TO WIT: A 357 MAGNUM PISTOL, WITHOUT THE INTENT TO KILL, AND DID AN ACT OR ACTS WHICH CREATED A WELL-FOUNDED FEAR IN THE VICTIM THAT SUCH VIOLENCE WAS IMMINENT, IN VIOLATION OF FLORIDA STATE STATUTE, 784.021(1)(A). ON 061714 AT APPROXIMATELY 1025 HOURS, I WAS DISPATCHED TO 1664 EAST MANKO DRIVE IN HERNANDO, IN REFERENCE TO THREATS WITH A FIREARM. WHILE EN ROUTE TO THE SCENE, DISPATCH ADVISED THAT THE SUSPECT HAD LEFT THE INCIDENT LOCATION IN A WHITE UTILITY VEHICLE. DISPATCH FURTHER ADVISED ME OF THE TAG NUMBER OF THE SUSPECTâS VEHICLE OF: 887KCJ. UPON RUNNING THAT TAG, THE VEHICLE CAME BACK TO A MR MIKE EYES, WHO WAS LATER IDENTIFIED AS THE DEFENDANT. I CONTINUED TO THE INCIDENT LOCATION WHILE DEPUTIES LABORDA (0735) AND CASALVIERI (1265) WENT TO MAKE CONTACT WITH THE DEFENDANT AT HIS RESIDENCE. UPON ARRIVING ON SCENE, I MADE CONTACT WITH THE VICTIM. HE ADVISED THAT THE DEFENDANT CAME TO HIS SHOP TO SETTLE UP ON A JOB THEY COMPLETED FOR THE DEFENDANT APPROXIMATELY TWO WEEKS AGO. THE VICTIM EXPLAINED THAT THE DEFENDANT HAD A COMPLAINT ABOUT THE JOB THAT WAS DONE, AND THE PRICE IT COST HIM. THE VICTIM STATED THE DEFENDANT THEN ADVISED HIM THAT THE WELDS HE HAD WELDED FOR THE VICTIM HAD BROKEN. THE DEFENDANT FURTHER STATED THAT HE FELT THAT HE PAID TOO MUCH FOR THAT TO HAPPEN. AT THAT TIME THE VICTIM ASKED THE DEFENDANT IF HE COULD SEE THE BROKEN WELDS, AND A VERBAL ALTERCATION ENSUED BETWEEN THE TWO. DURING THE ALTERCATION, THE VICTIM TOLD THE DEFENDANT THAT HE WAS FULL OF SHIT. AT THAT TIME, THE DEFENDANT RETURNED TO HIS VEHICLE WHICH WAS APPROXIMATELY TEN TO FIFTEEN FEET AWAY FROM WHERE THE VICTIM WAS STANDING. THE DEFENDANT THEN REACHED INSIDE HIS VEHICLE AND ARMED HIMSELF WITH A 357 MAGNUM REVOLVER, BLACK IN COLOR, WHICH WAS INSIDE THE DEFENDANTâS VEHICLE SECURED INSIDE A HOLSTER. THE DEFENDANT THEN POINTED THE FIREARM AT THE VICTIM FROM THE SIDE OF HIS VEHICLE. THE DEFENDANT THEN TOLD THE VICTIM THAT HE WOULD SHOOT THE VICTIMâS FAT ASS, WHILE HE WAS HOLDING AND POINTING THE REVOLVER AT THE VICTIM, WHO WAS WORKING ON ANOTHER CUSTOMERâS BOAT. THE VICTIM STATED HE TOLD THE DEFENDANT THAT HE WOULD KICK HIS ASS IF HE SHOT HIM. THE VICTIM ADVISED THAT HE WAS IN FEAR FOR HIS LIFE, DUE TO THE FACT THE DEFENDANT HAD POINTED THE REVOLVER AT HIM AND SAID HE WAS GOING TO SHOOT HIM. HOWEVER, THE VICTIM STATED THAT HE FELT THE FIGHT OR FLIGHT FEELING, WHICH IS WHY HE TOLD THE DEFENDANT THAT HE WOULD KICK THE DEFENDANTâS ASS IF HE SHOT HIM. THE VICTIM THEN ADVISED THE DEFENDANT THAT HE WAS GOING TO CALL THE POLICE, AT WHICH TIME THE DEFENDANT STATED THAT HIS SON IS A STATE TROOPER BEFORE GETTING INSIDE HIS VEHICLE AND LEAVING THE AREA. THE VICTIM COMPLETED A SWORN WRITTEN STATEMENT WHICH CORROBORATED THE STATEMENTS HE PROVIDED THIS DEPUTY. I NEXT SPOKE WITH WITNESS ONE, WHO ADVISED THAT HE WAS WORKING APPROXIMATELY TEN FEET BEHIND THE VICTIM. HE STATED THAT HIS FRIEND, THE DEFENDANT, ARRIVED AT THE SHOP. WITNESS ONE ADVISED THAT THE DEFENDANT BEGAN TO ARGUE WITH THE VICTIM ABOUT THE JOB THAT WAS DONE FOR HIM AND ITS PRICE. WITNESS ONE STATED HE DID NOT INTERVENE DUE TO BEING FRIENDS WITH THE DEFENDANT. WITNESS ONE ADVISED THAT A VERBAL ALTERCATION THEN ENSUED BETWEEN THE VICTIM AND THE DEFENDANT, AT WHICH TIME THE VICTIM WAS YELLING AT THE DEFENDANT TO LEAVE THE SHOP. AT THAT TIME, THE DEFENDANT, WHO WAS APPROXIMATELY TEN FEET FROM THE VICTIM BY HIS VEHICLE, WAS YELLING BACK AT THE VICTIM. WITNESS ONE FURTHER STATED THAT THE DEFENDANT ENTERED HIS VEHICLE, RETRIEVED AND REMOVED A BLACK FIREARM FROM ITS HOLSTER AND PROCEEDED TO POINT IT AT THE VICTIM. THE DEFENDANT THEN TOLD THE VICTIM THAT HE WOULD SHOOT HIS FAT ASS. WITNESS ONE ADVISED THAT HE BECAME EXTREMELY NERVOUS DUE TO BEING IN THE LINE OF FIRE IF THE DEFENDANT FOLLOWED THROUGH AND SHOT THE VICTIM. WITNESS ONE HEARD THE VICTIM ADVISE THE DEFENDANT THAT HE WOULD KICK HIS ASS IF HE SHOT HIM. WITNESS ONE STATED THAT HE OBSERVED THE DEFENDANT PLACE THE FIREARM BACK INSIDE ITS HOLSTER; RE-ENTER HIS VEHICLE AND THEN LEAVE THE AREA. WITNESS ONE ADVISED THAT HE IS FRIENDS WITH THE DEFENDANT AND DID NOT WANT TO SEE HIM GET IN TO TROUBLE; HOWEVER, THERE WAS NO REASON FOR THE DEFENDANT TO PULL A FIREARM ON THE VICTIM OVER A VERBAL DISPUTE. WITNESS ONE WAS SWORN IN TO HIS VERBAL STATEMENT DUE TO STATING HE COULD NOT WRITE VERY WELL. NEXT, I SPOKE WITH WITNESS TWO, WHO ADVISED THAT THE DEFENDANT CAME TO HIS SHOP TO PAY FOR A JOB THAT WAS DONE FOR HIM. HE EXPLAINED THAT THE VICTIM IS EMPLOYED AT THE SHOP. HE STATED THAT THE DEFENDANT ADVISED HIM THAT HE WAS NOT HAPPY WITH THE OUTCOME OF HIS JOB OR ITS PRICE. WITNESS TWO STATED THAT WHILE HE WAS SPEAKING WITH THE DEFENDANT ABOUT THE PRICE OF THE JOB, HE OBSERVED A FIREARM ON THE FRONT SEAT OF THE VICTIMâS VEHICLE. AFTER THE DEFENDANT PAID WITNESS TWO, HE WALKED TOWARD THE AREA WHERE THE VICTIM WAS WORKING. AT THAT TIME, A VERBAL ARGUMENT ENSUED BETWEEN THE VICTIM AND THE DEFENDANT; HOWEVER, WITNESS TWO COULD NOT ADVISE WHAT WAS SAID. WITNESS TWO THEN OBSERVED THE DEFENDANT WALK TO HIS VEHICLE, PULL OUT A FIREARM AND POINT IT AT THE VICTIM. WITNESS TWO THEN WALKED BACK INSIDE THE SHOP AS THE DEFENDANT WAS SHAKING AND WAIVING THE FIREARM AROUND. WITNESS TWO ADVISED THAT THE DEFENDANTâS WIFE (WITNESS THREE) WAS SITTING INSIDE THE DEFENDANTâS VEHICLE AND BEGAN YELLING AT THE DEFENDANT. THE DEFENDANT THEN RE-ENTERED HIS VEHICLE AND LEFT THE SCENE. WITNESS TWO PROVIDED A SWORN WRITTEN STATEMENT WHICH CORROBORATED THE STATEMENTS HE PROVIDED THIS DEPUTY. I THEN CONTACTED DEPUTY LABORDA, WHO WAS ON SCENE AT THE DEFENDANTâS RESIDENCE, ALONG WITH THE DEFENDANTâS WIFE (WITNESS THREE). DEPUTY LABORDA ADVISED THAT HE CONDUCTED AN INTERVIEW WITH THE DEFENDANT POST MIRANDA, WHO STATED THAT HE WAS INVOLVED IN A VERBAL ARGUMENT WITH THE VICTIM; HOWEVER, HE NEVER ACTUALLY PULLED A GUN OUT AND POINTED IT AT THE VICTIM. WHEN DEPUTIES LABORDA AND CASALVIERI ASKED THE DEFENDANT IF HE HAD THE FIREARM, HE ADVISED HE DID HAVE IT IN HIS HAND, HOWEVER, IT WAS IN A HOLSTER THAT WAS WRAPPED IN A GRAY WOOL DRAWSTRING BAG. THE DEFENDANT FURTHER ADVISED THE DEPUTIES THAT HE DID NOT KNOW IF THE VICTIM HAD A WEAPON ON HIM, WHICH IS WHY HE HAD HIS GUN IN HIS HAND. DEPUTY CASALVIERI LATER ADVISED THAT WHEN HE SPOKE WITH THE DEFENDANT AGAIN, THE DEFENDANT CHANGED HIS STORY AND STATED THE GUN WAS JUST IN THE BROWN HOLSTER, AND NO LONGER HAD THE GRAY WOOL DRAW STRING BAG AROUND IT. DEPUTIES LABORDA AND CASALVIERI THEN SPOKE WITH WITNESS THREE. SHE ADVISED THAT SHE WAS IN THE DEFENDANTâS VEHICLE AND WITNESSED THE VERBAL ARGUMENT THAT OCCURRED BETWEEN THE VICTIM AND THE DEFENDANT. SHE ADVISED THE DEPUTIES THAT DURING THE VERBAL ALTERCATION, HER HUSBAND/DEFENDANT TOOK OUT HIS FIREARM, AT WHICH TIME SHE HEARD THE DEFENDANT TELL THE VICTIM TO STOP. WITNESS THREE ADVISED THE DEPUTIES THAT SHE DID NOT THINK THAT THE FIREARM WAS LOADED, AND THAT HER HUSBAND/DEFENDANT DID NOT POINT IT AT ANYONE. HOWEVER, SHE DID STATE THAT HER HUSBAND/DEFENDANT DID REMOVE THE FIREARM FROM ITS HOLSTER. AFTER GATHERING ALL THE INFORMATION FROM DEPUTIES LABORDA AND CASALVIERI, I ADVISED DEPUTY CASALVIERI THAT I HAD PROBABLE CAUSE TO ARREST THE DEFENDANT FOR AGGRAVATED ASSAULT WITH A DEADLY WEAPON. DEPUTY CASALVIERI THEN ADVISED THAT HE WOULD GATHER SWORN WRITTEN STATEMENTS AND TRANSPORT THE DEFENDANT TO THE CITRUS COUNTY DETENTION FACILITY FOR BOOKING AND PROCESSING. I PROVIDED THE VICTIM WITH AN AGENCY CASE CARD WITH MY NAME AND THIS ASSIGNED CASE NUMBER. I ADVISED HIM TO CONTACT THIS AGENCY WITH ANY FURTHER INFORMATION. I THEN LEFT THE INCIDENT LOCATION AND PROCEEDED TO THE CITRUS COUNTY DETENTION FACILITY. UPON ARRIVAL AT THE CITRUS COUNTY DETENTION FACILITY, THE DEFENDANT WAS TURNED OVER TO DETENTION STAFF FOR PROCESSING. THE DEFENDANTâS BOND WAS SET AT $2,000.00 PER THE BOND SCHEDULE. |
