| Probable cause affidavit: |
SUBMITTED BY: STOKES, ERIC 0736 (AR15-17688) DID UNLAWFULLY AND KNOWINGLY OBTAIN OR USE, OR ENDEAVOR TO OBTAIN OR USE THE PROPERTY OF THE VICTIM, TO WIT: THE WAL-MART IN HOMOSASSA, FLORIDA, 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/HER OWN USE OR THE USE OF ANY PERSON NOT ENTITLED THERETO, AND THE PROPERTY STOLEN WAS VALUED AT $100.00 OR LESS, AND IS IN VIOLATION OF FLORIDA STATE STATUTE, 812.014(3)(A) ON 122015, I WAS DISPATCHED TO THE WAL-MART LOCATED AT 6885 SOUTH SUNCOAST BOULEVARD IN HOMOSASSA, FLORIDA, IN REFERENCE TO A FOLLOW UP BEING CONDUCTED ON THIS CASE. WHILE EN ROUTE, I WAS ADVISED THAT THE ASSET PROTECTION MANAGER/COMPLAINANT, MR ARELAS LEON, HAD SEEN THE SUSPECTS INSIDE THE STORE WHERE THEY HAD ONCE AGAIN COMMITTED A RETAIL THEFT IN THE SAME MANNER AS PREVIOUSLY DESCRIBED. THE COMPLAINANT THEN SHOWED ME THE VIDEO SURVEILLANCE WHERE THE SUSPECTS COULD BE SEEN PURCHASING SEVERAL ITEMS IN THE SELF CHECK OUT LANE. DURING SAID TRANSACTION, THE SUSPECTS PLACED A 20 OUNCE MOUNTAIN DEW BOTTLE NEXT TO THE BAR CODE SCANNER, BUT NOT IN RANGE OF THE SCANNER. THE FEMALE SUSPECT, LATER IDENTIFIED AS MS DINA TOWERS, CAN BE SEEN SELECTING TWO BOXES OF AN UNKNOWN CANDY AND PLACING THEM SIDE BY SIDE. SHE IS THEN SEEN RUNNING THE BOXES OF CANDY THROUGH THE BAR CODE SCANNER SO AS TO ONLY SCAN ONE ITEM. SHE THEN PLACED BOTH ITEMS INSIDE THE SHOPPING BAG, AND AT THE END OF THE TRANSACTION, THE MOUNTAIN DEW BOTTLE WAS PLACED IN THE SHOPPING BAG WITH NO ATTEMPT MADE TO SCAN ITS BAR CODE. AFTER PAYING FOR THE ITEMS THAT WERE SCANNED, THE SUSPECTS EXITED THE STORE AFTER PASSING ALL POINTS OF SALE WITHOUT MAKING ANY ATTEMPT TO PAY FOR THE ITEMS THAT WERE NOT SCANNED. THE SUSPECTS THEN LEFT THE STORE ON FOOT. IN REFERENCE TO MY PREVIOUS FOLLOW UP, THE MALE SUSPECT HAD POSSIBLY BEEN IDENTIFIED AS MR PAUL HOOPER. I THEN RESPONDED TO 7070 SOUTH SORRELL AVENUE IN HOMOSASSA WHERE CONTACT WAS MADE WITH BOTH SUSPECTS. THE COMPLAINANT HAD PRINTED A PHOTO STILL OF THE SUSPECTS, WHICH I UTILIZED TO IDENTIFY THEM. I OBSERVED SUSPECT TOWERS TO BE WEARING THE SAME CLOTHING SHE WAS SEEN WEARING IN THE PHOTO. SUSPECT HOOPER WAS ALSO WEARING THE SAME SHORTS AND SHOES HE IS SEEN WEARING IN THE PHOTO. AFTER POSITIVELY IDENTIFYING THE SUSPECTS, I SEPARATED THEM FOR QUESTIONING. I FIRST SPOKE WITH SUSPECT TOWERS, WHO WAS READ HER MIRANDA RIGHTS VIA PRE-PRINTED AGENCY CARD. SHE ADVISED THAT SHE UNDERSTOOD HER RIGHTS AND WOULD SPEAK WITH ME. AT THAT TIME, I SHOWED HER THE PHOTO, ALONG WITH A COPY OF THE RECEIPT FROM TODAY'S TRANSACTION. SHE ADVISED THAT IT WAS HER AND SUSPECT HOOPER THAT WERE SEEN IN THE PHOTO, AND VERIFIED THE RECEIPT AS BEING HER TRANSACTION. I THEN ASKED HER IF SHE AND SUSPECT HOOPER HAD PURCHASED A BOTTLE OF MOUNTAIN DEW. AT THAT TIME, SHE ADVISED THAT SHE FORGOT TO SCAN IT. I THEN ASKED HER IF SHE FORGOT TO SCAN ANY OTHER ITEMS, TO WHICH SHE ADVISED THERE WAS A SECOND PACKAGE OF GUMMY BEAR CANDY THAT WAS NOT SCANNED. I THEN ADVISED SUSPECT TOWERS THAT I HAD VIDEO SURVEILLANCE OF HER AND SUSPECT HOOPER NOT SCANNING MULTIPLE ITEMS IN THE SELF CHECK OUT LANES ON MULTIPLE OCCASIONS. SUSPECT TOWERS THEN STATED THAT SHE DOES DO THIS ON PURPOSE. I THEN SPOKE WITH SUSPECT HOOPER, WHO ADVISED ME THAT THEY DID NOT SCAN THE MOUNTAIN DEW OR GUMMY BEAR CANDY ON TODAY'S TRANSACTION. HE FURTHER STATED THAT ON APPROXIMATELY FIVE OTHER TRANSACTIONS, THEY HAD DONE SIMILAR ACTS. AT THAT TIME SUSPECT HOOPER WAS PLACED UNDER ARREST, HANDCUFFED (DOUBLE LOCKED) IN FRONT AND SEATED IN THE REAR OF MY PATROL VEHICLE. SUSPECT TOWERS ADVISED ME THAT SHE WAS ON FELONY PROBATION FOR BURGLARY, AT WHICH TIME I INFORMED HER THAT TODAY'S ARREST WOULD VIOLATE HER PROBATION IN REFERENCE TO A NEW LAW VIOLATION. SHE WAS THEN HANDCUFFED (DOUBLE LOCKED) IN THE FRONT AND ALSO SEATED IN THE REAR OF MY PATROL VEHICLE. IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT BOTH SUSPECTS WERE CO-OPERATIVE WITH MY INVESTIGATION, AND WERE FORTHCOMING IN PROVIDING INFORMATION CONCERNING THEIR INVOLVEMENT IN THIS CASE. BOTH SUBJECTS WERE THEN TRANSPORTED TO THE CITRUS COUNTY DETENTION FACILITY FOR BOOKING AND PROCESSING. DEFENDANT HOOPER'S BOND WAS SET AT $500.00 PER THE BOND SCHEDULE FOR THE ABOVE LISTED CHARGE. DEFENDANT TOWERS' BOND WAS SET AT DUE TO THE NEW LAW VIOLATION. SEE CASE 2012-166019 FOR THE PROBATION ARREST. DEFENDANT TOWERS WAS ARRESTED ON 101112 FOR PETIT THEFT IN MARION COUNTY, AND WAS GIVEN A DISPOSITION OF ADJUDICATION WITHHELD WITH A PLEA OF NOLA CONTENDRE. SHE WAS ALSO ARRESTED ON 103012 FOR RETAIL THEFT ($300.00 OR MORE) WITH A DISPOSITION OF ADJUDICATION WITHHELD AND PLEA OF NOLO CONTENDRE. DUE TO THESE CHARGES, DEFENDANT TOWERS QUALIFIED FOR THE MODIFIED CHARGE OF PETIT THEFT FROM A MERCHANT, SECOND OR SUBSEQUENT OFFENSE, 812.015(2). \t\t |
