| Probable cause affidavit: |
SUBMITTED BY: CASADA, STEVEN 0460 (AR12-3383) DID, PLAN, MANAGE, SUPERVISE AND TRAFFIC IN STOLEN PROPERTY, IN VIOLATION OF FSS, 812.019(2). DID UNLAWFULLY AND KNOWINGLY OBTAIN OR USE, OR ENDEAVOR TO OBTAIN OR USE THE PROPERTY OF THE VICTIM, TO WIT: TWO DIGITAL CAMERAS, OF A VALUE OF OVER $100.00 BUT LESS THAN $300.00, 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 STATE STATUTE, 812.014(2)E). ON 081012, A petit THEFT WAS REPORTED TO THE CITRUS COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE IN REFERENCE TO electronic items (two digital cameras) WHICH HAD BEEN TAKEN FROM THE RESIDENCE. DURING THE INVESTIGATION, IT WAS LEARNED THAT THE DEFENDANT, mr. nicholas smith, removed the digital cameras from the victimâs residence and gave the cameras to the co-defendant in order for her to pawn them. pawn database records indicate the kodak digital camera was pawned on 050712, while the flip mini hd camera on 060512. the defendant knew the CAMERAS WERE stolen and was present with the co-defendant when she pawned the cameras. on 103112, I PROCEEDED TO 1152 sOUTH highlands aveNUE IN INVERNESS WHERE I MADE CONTACT WITH THE co-DEFENDANT. i explained to the co-defendant why i was there and asked if she wished to speak with me about her pawn transactions. THE co-DEFENDANT THEN ADVISED THAT THE DEFENDANT IN THIS CASE ASKED her to pawn the two cameras for him. the co-defendant explained that the defendant told her he had gotten the cameras from his brother. the co-defendant advised she had no knowledge the cameras were stolen. the co-defendant advised that she would wait for the defendant to come out of his house and meet her down the road. the meeting arrangements were such because the co-defendant had been trespassed from the defendantâs residence in 2006. once inside the co-defendantâs vehicle, the defendant showed the co-defendant the cameras and told her to go to the pawn shop so she could pawn them for the defendant. the co-defendant advised that she is 100 percent sure she has not been in the defendantâs residence since 2006. THE CO-DEFENDANT ADVISED THE DEFENDANT AND THE CO-DEFENDANT proceeded to the family jewelry and pawn on 050712 and 060512, where the CO-defendant advised she pawned the cameras. ON 103112, I MADE CONTACT WITH THE DEFENDANT AT THE CITRUS COUNTY DETENTION FACILITY AS HE WAS ALREADY INCARCERATED ON UNRELATED CHARGES. UPON MAKING CONTACT WITH THE DEFENDANT, PRIOR TO THE DIGITALLY RECORDED INTERVIEW, THE DEFENDANT WAS READ MIRANDA WARNINGS FROM A PRE-PRINTED CARD. THE DEFENDANT ADVISED HE UNDERSTOOD HIS RIGHTS AND WOULD SPEAK TO ME REGARDING THIS CASE. DURING THE INTERVIEW, THE DEFENDANT ADVISED THAT HE DID NOT REMEMBER ANYTHING CONCERNING ANY CAMERAS. WHEN I DESCRIBED THE FLIP MINI HD CAMERA THE DEFENDANT ADVISED HE REMEMBERED THAT CAMERA BECAUSE IT BELONGED TO HIS YOUNGER BROTHER. THE DEFENDANT STATED HE KNOWS FOR CERTAIN HE DID NOT TAKE THE CAMERA BECAUSE HE STATED HE WOULD NEVER STEAL FROM HIS YOUNGER BROTHER. I ADVISED THE DEFENDANT THAT THE CAMERAS SOMEHOW ENDED UP IN THE FAMILY JEWELRY AND PAWN SHOPS POSSESSION, AS THEY WERE PAWNED BY THE CO-DEFENDANT. HE THEN STATED THAT THE CO-DEFENDANT HAD BEEN IN HIS MOMâS HOUSE AND SHE MUST HAVE BEEN THE ONE WHO STOLE THE CAMERAS. I ADVISED HIM THAT I HAD ALREADY SPOKEN TO THE CO-DEFENDANT ABOUT THE CAMERAS AND THAT THE CO-DEFENDANT ADVISED ME THAT SHE GOT THEM FROM HIM (DEFENDANT). IN ADDITION, I ADVISED THE SUSPECT THAT THE CO-DEFENDANT TOLD THIS DETECTIVE THAT HE (DEFENDANT) TOLD THE CO-DEFENDANT HE (THE DEFENDANT) GOT THEM FROM HIS BROTHERS. THE DEFENDANT THEN DENIED EVER TAKING ANY CAMERAS FROM HIS MOMâS RESIDENCE. THE DEFENDANT WAS ALSO ADVISED THAT AN INDEPENDENT WITNESS HAD ALSO TOLD THE VICTIM THAT SHE HAD A CONVERSATION WITH THE DEFENDANT WHERE HE (DEFENDANT) ADMITTED TO TAKING THEM FROM HIS BROTHERS. THE DEFENDANT CONTINUED TO DENY EVER REMOVING THE CAMERAS FROM HIS MOMâS RESIDENCE AND STATED THAT THIS DETECTIVE NEEDED TO GO TALK TO THE WITNESS IN PERSON ABOUT THE CAMERAS. THE DEFENDANT ADVISED THAT THE WITNESS WOULD TELL ME THE TRUTH ABOUT THE CAMERAS. UPON COMPLETION OF THE INTERVIEW, I ADVISED THE DEFENDANT I WOULD GIVE HIM THE BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT AND THAT THIS DETECTIVE WOULD IN FACT CONTACT WITH THE WITNESS. ON 110112, I MADE CONTACT WITH THE WITNESS AT HER RESIDENCE. THE WITNESS ADVISED THIS DETECTIVE THAT SHE HAD A CONVERSATION WITH THE DEFENDANTâS GRANDMA ABOUT THE MISSING CAMERAS. THE WITNESS THEN ADVISED THIS DETECTIVE SHE CONFRONTED THE DEFENDANT ABOUT THE CAMERAS. AT WHICH TIME HE ORIGINALLY TOLD HER THAT HE BORROWED THE CAMERAS FROM HIS BROTHER AND THAT HE WOULD RETURN THE CAMERAS TO HIS BROTHER SOON. THE WITNESS THEN ADVISED THIS DETECTIVE THAT APPROXIMATELY ONE MONTH AFTER THE DEFENDANT TOLD HER HE BORROWED THE CAMERAS; HE ADMITTED TO HER THAT HE TOOK THE CAMERAS OUT OF HIS BROTHERâS ROOM. AFTER TAKING THE CAMERAS, THE DEFENDANT TOLD THE WITNESS HE HAD THE CO-DEFENDANT PAWN THE CAMERAS FOR DRUGS. THE WITNESS FILLED OUT A SWORN WRITTEN STATEMENT REGARDING THIS INFORMATION. THE WRITTEN STATEMENT WAS LATER TURNED INTO THE CITRUS COUNTY SHERIFFâS OFFICE RECORDS DIVISION. on 110112, i made contact with the victim in this case and asked her if she has ever seen the co-defendant IN HER RESIDENCE. THE VICTIM ADVISED SHE HAS NOT SEEN NOR KNOWN ABOUT THE CO-DEFENDANT BEING IN HER RESIDENCE SINCE THE CO-DEFENDANT WAS TRESPASSED âFIVE OR SIX YEARS AGO.â ON 110212, I PROCEEDED TO THE CITRUS COUNTY DETENTION FACILITY TO INFORM DETENTION STAFF THAT I HAD ADDITIONAL CHARGES FOR THE DEFENDANT. THE DETENTION STAFF WAS INFORMED THAT THE DEFENDANT WAS BEING CHARGED WITH TWO COUNTS OF PETIT THEFT AND TWO COUNTS OF DEALING IN STOLEN PROPERTY. THE DEFENDANT'S BOND WAS SET AT $20,500.00 PER THE BOND SCHEDULE. "If you are a person with a disability who needs any accommodation in order to participate in this proceeding, you are entitled, at no cost to you, to the provision of certain assistance. Please contact the ADA Coordinator at the Office of the Trial Court *NOT-EXEMPT* |
