| Probable cause affidavit: |
SUBMITTED BY: RUBY, SAMUEL 0562 (12-1429AR) DID UNLAWFULLY ENTER OR REMAIN IN A CERTAIN STRUCTURE OR CURTILAGE THEREOF, TO-WIT: THE VICTIMâS RESIDENCE, THE PROPERTY OF THE VICTIM, WITHOUT SAID PERSON'S CONSENT, WITH THE INTENT TO COMMIT AN OFFENSE THEREIN, TO-WIT: THE DEFENDANT DID STEAL THE VICTIMâS PROPERTY, IN VIOLATION OF FLORIDA STATUTE 810.02(3)(B). DID UNLAWFULLY AND KNOWINGLY OBTAIN, USE OR ENDEAVOR TO OBTAIN OR USE THE PROPERTY OF THE VICTIM, OF THE VALUE OF $300.00 OR MORE BUT LESS THAN $5,000.00, WITH THE INTENT TO EITHER TEMPORARILY OR PERMANENTLY DEPRIVE THE VICTIM OF A RIGHT TO THE PROPERTY, TO WIT: MISCELLANEOUS JEWELRY VALUED AT $1,000.00 AND A 410 SHOTGUN VALUED AT $150.00, OR A BENEFIT THEREOF, OR DID APPROPRIATE THE SAID PROPERTY TO HIS OWN USE OR THE USE OF ANY PERSON NOT ENTITLED THERETO, AND THE PROPERTY WAS TAKEN FROM A DWELLING OR FROM THE UNENCLOSED CURTILAGE OF A DWELLING, IN VIOLATION OF FLORIDA STATUTES AND 812.014(2)(C)(1). ON 053012 I RECEIVED AN EMAIL FORM DEPUTY SETTLES (0113) WHO ADVISED THAT SHE HAD MADE CONTACT WITH THE DEFENDANT AND HIS BROTHER AT THE CORNER OF DEMPSEY AND LIMA AT 2232 HOURS. PHOTOS WERE TAKEN BY DEPUTY SETTLES OF THE BOTTOMS OF THE DEFENDANTâS AND HIS BROTHERâS SHOES. WHEN I OBSERVED THE PHOTOGRAPHS THEY APPEARED TO MATCH THE SHOE IMPRESSIONS FOUND ON SCENE IN THIS CASE AND ALSO CASE 93561 WHICH OCCURRED ON SOUTH LIMA AVENUE. COPIES WERE MADE OF THE PHOTOS BY THIS DETECTIVE. I ALSO MADE COPIES OF THE PHOTOS TAKEN BY CST IN BOTH CASES. ON 060112 I RESPONDED TO 6625 SOUTH LIMA AVENUE IN ORDER TO MAKE CONTACT WITH THE DEFENDANT, MICHAEL TASCARELLA. UPON ARRIVAL MYSELF AND DEPUTY TODD HOLLOWAY MADE CONTACT WITH THE DEFENDANT ON THE FRONT PORCH OF HIS RESIDENCE. I ASKED THE DEFENDANT IF HE WOULD RETRIEVE HIS TENNIS SHOES SO I COULD OBSERVE THE PRINTING ON THE BOTTOM OF THE SHOE. HE ADVISED THAT HIS SHOES WERE WET AT THIS TIME AND CURRENTLY IN THE DRYER. I AGAIN ASKED THE DEFENDANT IF HE COULD BRING THOSE SHOES OUT SO I COULD SEE THEM. HE RETRIEVED THE SHOES BEING A BLACK PAIR OF NIKE AIR MAX M-90S, WHICH WERE THE SAME SHOES PHOTOGRAPHED BY DEPUTY SETTLES. I ASKED THE DEFENDANT IF I COULD TAKE THE SHOES TO BE COMPARED TO THE SHOE IMPRESSIONS FOUND ON SCENE IN BOTH LISTED BURGLARIES, WHERE HE ADVISED YES. A PROPERTY RECEIPT WAS COMPLETED AND SIGNED BY THE DEFENDANT AND TURNED IN TO EVIDENCE. I THEN BEGAN TO QUESTION THE DEFENDANT IN REFERENCE TO CRIMES BEING COMMITTED IN THE AREA. HE ADVISED THAT HE WAS AWARE OF FOUR WHEELER THEFTS AND GOLF CART THEFTS AND THAT AN ACQUAINTANCE OF HIS WAS COMMITTING THESE CRIMES. I ASKED THE DEFENDANT IF HE KNEW ANYTHING ABOUT THE BURGLARIES WHICH HAD OCCURRED, MAINLY THE BURGLARY ON PALMER AND THE BURGLARY ON LIMA. HE ADVISED HE DID KNOW ABOUT BOTH BURGLARIES AND AN ASSOCIATE OF HIS HAD BEEN IN TO THE RESIDENCES AT BOTH LOCATIONS AND HAD REMOVED PROPERTY. AT THAT TIME THE DEFENDANT WAS READ HIS MIRANDA RIGHTS VIA PRE PRINTED CARD BY DEPUTY HOLLOWAY. WE ASKED HIM IF HE WISHED TO CONTINUE SPEAKING WITH US WHERE HE STATED YES. THE DEFENDANT DID ASKED IF WE COULD SET A DATE IN ORDER TO COME BACK AND SPEAK WITH HIM AS HE WAS NOT READY TO TELL US EVERYTHING THAT HE WAS INVOLVED IN. AFTER SPEAKING WITH THE DEFENDANT FOR SEVERAL MINUTES I ASKED HIM IF HE WOULD GIVE A DIGITALLY RECORDED STATEMENT ABOUT WHAT HAD OCCURRED AT BOTH LOCATIONS AND HE STATED YES. THE DIGITAL RECORDING STARTED AT 1202 HOURS WHERE THE DEFENDANT DID RAISE HIS RIGHT HAND AND SWEAR THAT THE STATEMENT HE PROVIDED WAS TRUE AND CORRECT TO THE BEST OF HIS KNOWLEDGE. THE DEFENDANT ADVISED DURING THE RECORDING THAT HE AND HIS ASSOCIATE, STEVEN NERO, WENT TO THE RESIDENCE AT 6322 SOUTH PALMER AVENUE. HE ADVISED THAT STEVEN WAS PLANNING TO GO INTO THE RESIDENCE AND REMOVED PROPERTY BELONGING TO THE VICTIM AND THAT ALL HE DID WAS STAND IN THE DRIVEWAY. HE THEN ADVISED THAT HE STOOD ON THE RIGHT HAND SIDE OF THE VICTIMâS TRAILER BUT DID NOT ENTER THE BACKYARD. WHEN I ASKED WHY HE DID NOT ENTER THE BACKYARD WHICH WAS FENCED WITH CHAIN LINK HE STATED HE COULD NOT SQUEEZE THROUGH THE LOCKED GATE. I ASKED HIM WHAT HAD BEEN REMOVED FROM THE RESIDENCE WHERE HE ADVISED THAT STEVEN REMOVED A GUN AND FAKE JEWELRY. I ASKED THE DEFENDANT IF HE HAD BEEN IN THE RESIDENCE AND HE SAID NO. I THEN ASKED THE DEFENDANT ABOUT THE BURGLARY THAT HAD TAKEN PLACE AT 6020 SOUTH LIMA AVENUE. HE ADVISED HE AGAIN MET STEVEN NERO AT THE VICTIMâS RESIDENCE AND THAT STEVEN WALKED UP TO THE DOOR OF THE RESIDENCE AND KNOCKED TO SEE IF ANYONE AT HOME. HE ADVISED WHEN NO ONE ANSWERED, STEVEN PUT HIS HAND INSIDE OF THE SHIRT HE WAS WEARING AND GRABBED THE DOORKNOB AND ENTERED THE RESIDENCE. HE SAID HE STOOD AT THE BACK OF THE RESIDENCE WHILE STEVEN ENTERED AND REMOVED A FLAT SCREEN TELEVISION AND OTHER ITEMS. I ASKED WHAT HAPPENED TO THE ITEMS REMOVED FROM BOTH RESIDENCES WHERE HE ADVISED THAT STEVEN SOLD THE TELEVISION TO A CLIFF CORVEAU AND THE GUN TO AN OLD MAN DOING LAWN WORK ON GROSS AVENUE. HE ADVISED THAT STEVEN THREW THE JEWELRY AWAY THAT HAD BEEN TAKEN FROM THE PALMER ADDRESS, ALONG WITH ANOTHER ITEM THAT WAS TAKEN FROM LIMA. THE ITEMS POSSIBLY BEING A CAMERA. AFTER FURTHER SPEAKING WITH THE DEFENDANT, HE ADVISED HE WAS IN THE BACKYARD OF THE PALMER ADDRESS AND HAD PLANNED ON GOING INTO THE RESIDENCE BUT HIS ASSOCIATE WAS IN AND OUT SO QUICKLY HE DID NOT GET THE CHANCE. I EXPLAINED TO THE DEFENDANT THAT HIS SHOE IMPRESSING WERE ALSO FOUND AT THE LIMA RESIDENCE. HE ADVISED HE DID NOT WISH TO MAKE ANY FURTHER STATEMENTS UNTIL HIS ATTORNEY WAS PRESENT. I ADVISED THE DEFENDANT THAT HE WAS BEING PLACED UNDER ARREST FOR THE BURGLARY OF BOTH LOCATIONS WHERE HE WAS THEN HANDCUFFED (DOUBLE LOCKED) BEHIND THE BACK AND TRANSPORTED TO THE CITRUS COUNTY DETENTION FACILITY FOR BOOKING AND PROCESSING. THE DEFENDANTâS BOND WAS SET AT $7,000.00 PER THE BOND SCHEDULE. |
