| Probable cause affidavit: |
SUBMITTED By: CAREY, LEE 0753 (AR14-9633) did, WITHOUT LAWFUL AUTHORITY, KNOWINGLY OR RECKLESSLY TAKE OR ENTICE, OR AID OR ABET, HIRES, OR OTHErWISE PROCURES ANOTHER TO TAKE OR ENTICE ANY CHILD, in the absence of a court order determining rights of custody or visitation and did INTERFERE or deprive said child from the rightful custody of a parent or custodian who had a right to custody of said child, in violation of Florida Statute 787.03(1). ON 0325814, I WAS CONDUCTING AN INVESTIGATION ON RUNAWAY JUVENILES REFERENCE CASE NUMBER 2014-41144. DURING THE COURSE OF THE INVESTIGATION I WAS INFORMED BY A WITNESS THAT THE TWO RUNAWAY FEMALE JUVENILES WERE HIDING OUT AT 9892 WEST ORCHARD STREET. DEPUTY POLLIARD (1288) AND I RESPONDED TO THIS ADDRESS AND MADE CONTACT WITH THE DEFENDANT, MR RYAN WILLIAM MOORE. AS WE APPROACHED THE RESIDENCE, THE DEFENDANT WAS IN HIS FRONT YARD AND TOLD US HE WAS GOING TO RECORD THE CONVERSATION USING HIS CELL PONE. UPON SPEAKING WITH THE DEFENDANT, I ADVISED HIM THE REASON I WAS AT THIS LOCATION AND STATED I WAS LOOKING FOR THE TWO MISSING RUNAWAY JUVENILES. I ADVISED THE DEFENDANT THAT THE RUNWAY JUVENILES WERE 13 AND 14 YEARS OF AGE and PROVIDED HIM WITH THEIR NAMES. THE DEFENDANT ADVISED HE DID NOT KNOW THE TWO RUNAWAY JUVENILES. THE DEFENDANT WAS NERVOUS AS I SPOKE WITH HIM. I ADVISED THE DEFENDANT THAT I WAS FAIRLY CERTAIN THE RUNAWAY JUVENILES WERE INSIDE HIS RESIDENCE. HE ADVISED THAT HE DID NOT KNOW THE RUNAWAY JUVENILES AND THEY WERE NEVER INSIDE HIS RESIDENCE. I THEN REQUESTED TO MAKE ENTRY INTO HIS RESIDENCE TO VERIFY THAT the RUNAWAY JUVENILES WERE NOT IN HIS RESIDENCE, TO which HE STATED I COULD NOT. THE DEFENDANT THEN BECAME ARGUMENTATIVE AND DEFENSIVE STATING HE DID NOT KNOW THE RUNAWAY JUVENILES OVER AND OVER AGAIN. DUE TO THE DEFENDANTâS BEHAVIOR AND FAILURE TO MAKE EYE CONTACT, I ADVISED HIM I DID NOT BELIEVE HIS STATEMENTS. THE DEFENDANT THEN DEMANDED MY NAME AND BADGE NUMBER, AND I PROVIDED HIM WITH AN AGENCY CASE CARD BEARING MY NAME AND INFORMATION. I THEN ADVISED HIM THAT IF THE RUNAWAY JUVENILE WERE INSIDE HIS RESIDENCE HE COULD JUST TELL ME AND NO ONE WOULD BE IN ANY TROUBLE. I ADVISED HIM IF THEY WERE INSIDE THE RESIDENCE AND HE DID NOT ALLOW ME TO CONDUCT MY INVESTIGATION, HE WOULD BE INTERFERING WITH CHILD CUSTODY BECAUSE BOTH RUNAWAY JUVENILES WERE REGISTERED IN FCIC/NCIC AS JUVENILE RUNAWAYS. THE DEFENDANT THEN AGAIN STATED THAT HE HAD NO KNOWLEDGE OF THE FEMALES AND DID NOT KNOW WHO THEY WERE. THE DEFENDANT STATED HE UNDERSTOOD THAT HE WOULD GET IN TROUBLE FOR HIDING THE RUNAWAY JUVENILES INSIDE HIS RESIDENCE. I THEN ADVISED THE DEFENDANT THAT IF HE WAS HIDING THE RUNAWAY JUVENILES BECAUSE OF PROBLEMS WITH THEIR HOME LIFE, HE COULD JUST TELL ME, TO WHICH THE DEFENDANT AGAIN STATED THAT HE DID NOT KNOW WHO THE RUNAWAY JUVENILES WERE AND AT THAT POINT ASKED ME TO LEAVE HIS PROPERTY. DEPUTY POLLIARD AND I THEN LEFT THE RESIDENCE AND PARKED OUR PATROL VEHICLES DOWN THE STREET TO WATCH THE DEFENDANTâS RESIDENCE. I THEN STARTED TO âBOLOâ THE AREA AND DROVE DOWN THE INTERSECTING STREET OF NORTH BAY AVENUE AND OBSERVED A GROUP OF FEMALES MATCHING THE DESCRIPTION OF THE RUNAWAY JUVENILES. I THEN MADE CONTACT WITH THEM AND THEY WERE IDENTIFIED AS THE MISSING RUNAWAY JUVENILES. THEY WERE RECOVERED AND THEIR PARENTS WERE CONTACTED. WHILE WAITING FOR THEIR PARENTS TO COME AND PICK THEM UP, THEY ASKED ME HOW I FOUND OUT WHERE THEY WERE, AT WHICH TIME, I ADVISED THEM THAT THE DEFENDANT HAD âRATTEDâ THEM OUT AND TOLD ME THEY WERE HIDING INSIDE HIS RESIDENCE. AT THAT TIME, THEY TOLD ME THAT IT WAS NOT FAIR AND THAT I SHOULD TAKE THE DEFENDANT TO JAIL BECAUSE HE LIED TO ME AND THEY WERE IN THE RESIDENCE WHEN WE WERE TALKING TO HIM AT HIS FRONT DOOR. THE RUNAWAY JUVENILES ADVISED THAT THE DEFENDANT TOLD THEM TO RUN OUT THE BACK DOOR AND THROUGH THE WOODS WHERE I INTERCEPTED THEM. THE RUNWAY JUVENILESâ PARENTS ARRIVED ON SCENE AND UPON SPEAKING WITH THEM THEY ADVISED THEY HAD NEVER GIVEN THE RUNAWAY JUVENILE PERMISSION TO EVER BE AT THE DEFENDANTâS RESIDENCE. THEY ADVISED THAT THEY HAD NO IDEA WHO THE DEFENDANT WAS AND HE HAD NEVER BEEN AUTHORIZED TO BE WITH THEIR CHILDREN. THE JUVENILES WERE THEN RELEASED TO THEIR PARENTS. DEPUTY POLLIARD AND I RESPONDED BACK TO 9892 WEST ORCHARD STREET. THE DEFENDANT DID NOT ANSWER THE DOOR AT THAT TIME, SO I LEFT A CASE CARD WITH MY NAME AND INFORMATION IN THE DOOR. LATER ON THROUGH THE SHIFT I WENT BACK BY THE DEFENDANTâS RESIDENCE AND OBSERVED THE BUSINESS CARD TO NO LONGER BE IN THE DOOR. AS I PARKED MY PATROL VEHICLE, THE DEFENDANT WAS WALKING DOWN THE DRIVEWAY TO MEET ME. I THEN INSTRUCTED THE DEFENDANT TO PLACE HIS HANDS BEHIND HIS BACK AND I HANDCUFFED HIM (DOUBLE LOCKED). THE DEFENDANT WAS THEN SECURED IN THE REAR OF MY PATROL VEHICLE. I ADVISED THE DEFENDANT I WAS PLACING HIM UNDER ARREST FOR INTERFERING with CHILD CUSTODY AND AT THAT TIME, I TURNED ON MY IN CAR DASH CAMERA AND BEGAN INTERVIEWING THE DEFENDANT. I ADVISED THE DEFENDANT OF HIS MIRANDA RIGHTS VIA AN AGENCY ISSUED CARD. HE ADVISED HE UNDERSTOOD HIS RIGHTS AND AGREED TO SPEAK WITH ME AT THAT TIME. DURING THE INTERVIEW HE AT FIST DENIED KNOWING THE GIRLS WERE IN HIS RESIDENCE AND AFTER FURTHER QUESTIONING THE DEFENDANT ADMITTED THAT THE RUNWAY JUVENILES WERE HIDING INSIDE HIS RESIDENCE WHEN HE FIRST SPOKE TO ME. HE ADVISED THAT HE DID KNOW HE WAS LYING TO ME, BUT DID NOT MEAN ANYTHING BY IT AND FELT LIKE HE WAS PROTECTING THE TWO RUNAWAYS. I THEN ASKED THE DEFENDANT WHY HE WAS PROTECTING THE RUNAWAYS TO WHICH HE STATED IT WAS FROM ONE OF THE GIRLS SISTERS WHO âCAN HAVE AN ATTITUDE.ââ THE DEFENDANT WAS THEN TRANSPORTED TO THE CITRUS COUNTY DETENTION FACILITY WHERE HE WAS RELEASED TO THEM FOR BOOKING AND PROCESSING. THE DEFENDANT WAS CHARGED WITH ONE COUNT OF INTERFERING WITH CHILD CUSTODY WHERE HIS BOND WAS SET AT $2,000.00. A COPY OF THE IN CARD DASH CAM VIDEO WAS SUBMITTED INTO EVIDENCE. |
