| Probable cause affidavit: |
SUBMITTED BY: CASALVIERI, BRIAN 1265 (AR16-18209) DID UNLAWFULLY AND KNOWINGLY TAKE, OBTAIN OR USE OR ENDEAVOR TO TAKE, OBTAIN OR USE THE PROPERTY OF WAL-MART, TO WIT: THE DEFENDANT ALTERED THE PRICE TAGS OF MULTIPLE CLOTHING ITEMS AND PROCEEDED TO PAY $10.37 FOR THE MERCHANDISE, WHICH HAD AN ACTUAL RETAIL VALUE OF $57.90, CARRYING AWAY THE SAID MERCHANDISE, WITH INTENT TO TEMPORARILY OR PERMANENTLY DEPRIVE, A MERCHANT, OF THE POSSESSION, USE, BENEFIT, OR FULL RETAIL VALUE OF SAID PROPERTY, SAID PROPERTY BEING OF A VALUE OF LESS THAN $100.00, IN VIOLATION OF FLORIDA STATE STATUTE 812.014(3)(A). ON 020816, I WAS DISPATCHED TO 1936 NORTH LECANTO HIGHWAY, LECANTO WAL-MART, IN REFERENCE TO A SHOP LIFTER IN CUSTODY. UPON ARRIVAL, I MADE CONTACT WITH THE LOSS PREVENTION AGENT/COMPLAINANT, MR ROBERT GROSS, WHO EXPLAINED THAT HE OBSERVED A FEMALE, LATER IDENTIFIED AS THE DEFENDANT, MS RHONDA BARRETT, DISPLAYING SUSPICIOUS BEHAVIOR ON THE SALES FLOOR. THE COMPLAINANT OBSERVED THE DEFENDANT RIPPING STICKERS AND PRICE TAGS OFF OF CLEARANCE MERCHANDISE AND PLACING THEM ON REGULAR PRICED MERCHANDISE IN THE CLOTHING DEPARTMENT. THE DEFENDANT CONTINUED THIS BEHAVIOR UNTIL SHE PROCEEDED TO THE SELF CHECK OUT AREA. THE DEFENDANT PAID A TOTAL OF $10.37 FOR THE MISCELLANEOUS CLOTHING ITEMS AND THE MERCHANDISE TOTAL SHOULD HAVE AMOUNTED TO $57.90. THE DIFFERENCE OF THE MERCHANDISE PRICING CAME TO $44.84. A RECEIPT FOR THE ITEMS WAS LATER RUNG UP AND THE TOTAL DIFFERENCE FOR THE MERCHANDISE AFTER TAX WAS $47.54. THE DEFENDANT WAS THEN STOPPED AFTER PASSING ALL FINAL POINTS OF SALE IN THE VESTIBULE AREA, AT WHICH TIME SHE WAS ESCORTED TO THE ASSET PROTECTION OFFICE. I THEN READ THE DEFENDANT HER MIRANDA RIGHTS, VIA AN AGENCY ISSUED PREPRINTED CARD, TO WHICH THE DEFENDANT STATED SHE UNDERSTOOD HER RIGHTS AND WISHED TO SPEAK TO ME. I ASKED THE DEFENDANT IF SHE HAD ANY PREVIOUS THEFT CONVICTIONS. THE DEFENDANT ADVISED SHE DID NOT; HOWEVER, SHE RECEIVED A NOTICE TO APPEAR CITATION FOR SHOPLIFTING AT THE INVERNESS WAL-MART IN NOVEMBER 2015; THE DEFENDANT IS STILL GOING THROUGH THE COURT PROCESS WITH THAT CASE. THE DEFENDANT CONTINUED TO EXPLAIN THAT SHE CAME TO WAL-MART TO BUY ICE CREAM AND ''MADE A STUPID MISTAKE'' BY CHANGING PRICE TAGS ON THE MERCHANDISE. THE DEFENDANT STATED SHE HAD SOME MONEY TO PAY FOR ITEMS; HOWEVER, NOT ENOUGH TO PAY FOR THEM AT FULL PRICE. THE DEFENDANT WAS PLACED IN HANDCUFFS (DOUBLE LOCKED) AND ESCORTED TO THE REAR SEAT OF MY PATROL VEHICLE. THE DEFENDANT WAS THEN TRANSPORTED TO THE CITRUS COUNTY DETENTION FACILITY FOR BOOKING AND PROCESSING. THE DEFENDANT 'S BOND WAS SET AT $500.00 PER THE BOND SCHEDULE. |
