| Probable cause affidavit: |
SUBMITTED BY: NEWTON, LAURA 0459 (AR12-3070)(12-178582) DID UNLAWFULLY AND KNOWINGLY OBTAIN, USE OR ENDEAVOR TO OBTAIN OR USE THE PROPERTY OF THE VICTIM, TO-WIT: SUBOXONE A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE, 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 HER 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 STATUTE 812.014(2)(C)(13); ON 100812, I RESPONDED TO THE WAL-MART SUPER CENTER LOCATED AT 2461 EAST GULF TO LAKE HWY IN INVERNESS, IN REFERENCE TO A THEFT. UPON ARRIVAL, I MADE CONTACT WITH MR LARRY REDDING, WHO IDENTIFIED HIMSELF AS A LOSS PREVENTION OFFICER. THE COMPLAINANT, MR REDDING, ADVISED THAT THEY HAD AN EMPLOYEE WHO HAD BEEN STEALING FROM THE PHARMACY. THE COMPLAINANT TOOK ME TO THE BACK OFFICE OF THE STORE, WHERE I OBSERVED THE DEFENDANT, MS SHAINA ISENHOUR, SEATED AT A TABLE WRITING A STATEMENT. THE COMPLAINANT EXPLAINED THAT APPROXIMATELY A MONTH PRIOR, ANOTHER PHARMACIST NAMED MS DEBBIE LIGHTLE HAD COME TO HIM, IN REFERENCE TO SUSPICIOUS BEHAVIOR THAT HAD BEEN EXHIBITED BY THE DEFENDANT. MS LIGHTLE ADVISED THE COMPLAINANT THAT THE DEFENDANT WAS TAKING EXCESSIVELY LONG BATHROOM BREAKS, AS WELL AS CLOCKING IN AND TAKING APPROXIMATELY 20 MINUTES TO GET TO HER WORK AREA. THE COMPLAINANT ADVISED THAT HE BEGAN WATCHING THE DEFENDANT’S ACTIVITIES ON THE CLOSED CIRCUIT TELEVISION SYSTEM, WHERE HE DID CONFIRM THAT THE DEFENDANT WAS CLOCKING IN, THEN WASTING TIME PRIOR TO ARRIVING AT HER POST IN THE PHARMACY. HOWEVER, WHILE IN THE INVESTIGATION OF THIS INCIDENT, HE BEGAN NOTICING OTHER BEHAVIOR EXHIBITED BY THE DEFENDANT THAT WAS QUESTIONABLE. HE STATED THAT HE OBSERVED THE DEFENDANT TAKING A LOT OF BATHROOM BREAKS THROUGHOUT THE DAY, AND EACH ONE WAS LASTING IN EXCESS OF 10 MINUTES. HE ALSO ADVISED THAT IT WAS AT THIS POINT WHERE HE OBSERVED THE DEFENDANT ON FIVE DIFFERENT OCCASIONS, REMOVING MEDICATION FROM THE SAME SHELF, AND SLIDING IT UP HER SHIRT SLEEVES. THE COMPLAINANT STATED THAT IT APPEARED AS THOUGH SHE WAS ONLY TAKING A FEW AT A TIME, AND THEN GOING INTO THE BATHROOM. THE COMPLAINANT STATED THAT WHEN THE DEFENDANT ARRIVED AT WORK TODAY, HE CONFRONTED HER, AT WHICH TIME SHE ADVISED SHE HAD BEEN TAKING THE MEDICATION. I OBSERVED THE VIDEO, WHERE YOU COULD SEE THE DEFENDANT PULLING MEDICATION FROM THE SHELF, AND SLIDING IT INTO HER SHIRT SLEEVE. I WAS ADVISED THAT THE MEDICATION SHE HAD BEEN STEALING WAS CALLED SUBOXONE. UPON PULLING UP THE NAME ON DRUGS.COM, IT DID SHOW THE MEDICATION TO BE A SCHEDULE THREE NARCOTIC, TO BE ACQUIRED BY PRESCRIPTION ONLY, AS IT IS CLASSIFIED AS AN OPIATE. THE VIDEOS SHOWED THAT DURING THE FIRST FOUR INCIDENTS, THE DEFENDANT HAD TAKEN APPROXIMATELY SIX SUBOXONE FILMS, BEING 8MG-2MG IN STRENGTH. DURING THE FINAL AND FIFTH INCIDENT, THE DEFENDANT TOOK TWO SUBOXONE PILLS, BEING 8MG-2MG IN STRENGTH. ACCORDING TO DRUGS.COM, THE PILLS WERE SCHEDULED THE SAME WAY AS THE FILMS WERE. THE COMPLAINANT PROVIDED ME WITH A STATEMENT SHOWING THE FIVE INCIDENT DATES AS 082312, 090212, 092012, 092312 AND 100212. THE TIMES OF THE OCCURRENCES ARE ALSO NOTED ON THE STATEMENT, TO MATCH THE VIDEO THAT THE COMPLAINANT PROVIDED. THE DEFENDANT COMPLETED HER WRITTEN STATEMENT, WHICH I ALSO RECEIVED A COPY OF. WHEN SHE FINISHED, I COMPLETED AN INTERVIEW WITH THE DEFENDANT WHILE IN THE OFFICE. THE DEFENDANT WAS READ HER MIRANDA RIGHTS, VIA PRE-PRINTED CARD, WHICH SHE ADVISED SHE UNDERSTOOD AND AGREED TO ANSWER MY QUESTIONS. THE DEFENDANT ADVISED THAT SHE KNEW WHY SHE HAD BEEN CALLED TO THE OFFICE, AND THAT SHE HAD TAKEN THE MEDICATIONS. THE DEFENDANT ADVISED THAT SHE HAD ONLY TAKEN THE MEDICATION BECAUSE SHE WANTED TO GET BETTER. I ASKED THE DEFENDANT TO EXPLAIN, AT WHICH TIME SHE STATED THAT SHE HAD BEEN IN A VEHICLE ACCIDENT SEVERAL YEARS AGO, AND BECAUSE OF THE ACCIDENT, SHE WAS SEEING A PAIN MANAGEMENT DOCTOR. SHE ADVISED THAT THE DOCTOR HAD PRESCRIBED HER PAIN KILLERS, AND THAT SHE HAD BEEN TAKING THEM FOR SEVERAL YEARS, HOWEVER SHE NO LONGER WISHED TO TAKE THEM ANYMORE. THE DEFENDANT STATED THAT SHE HAS ASKED HER DOCTOR TO TAKE HER OFF THE MEDICATION, BUT HE WOULD NOT. THE DEFENDANT THEN STATED THAT SHE DECIDED SHE WOULD DO IT ON HER OWN, BUT COULD NOT BECAUSE SHE COULD NOT BE OUT OF WORK. AT WHICH TIME SHE BEGAN TAKING THE SUBOXONE TO HELP HER WITH THE DETOXIFICATION PROCESS, SO SHE WOULD NOT MISS WORK. SHE EXPLAINED THAT SHE WOULD REMOVE THE MEDICATION, THEN GO INTO THE BATHROOM TO TAKE IT. THE DEFENDANT DID APOLOGIZE FOR HER ACTIONS AND STATED SHE WOULD REIMBURSE WALMART FOR THE MEDICATIONS. THE SUBOXONE SUBLINGUAL FILMS ARE SUPPLIED IN A 30 COUNT BOX, WHICH COSTS WALMART $211.15 TO STOCK. THE COMPLAINANT ADVISED THAT HE COULD ONLY CONFIRM SIX MISSING BY COUNT OF THEIR INVENTORY, HOWEVER, THEY HAD BEEN RECEIVING COMPLAINTS FROM CUSTOMERS THAT ARE PRESCRIBED THE SUBOXONE MEDICATION BY BOX OF 30, THAT THE BOXES THEY RECEIVED HAD BEEN OPENED AND PATCHES WERE MISSING. THE COST PER PATCH, BASED UPON THE COST FOR WALMART IS $7.03 EACH. THE SUBOXONE PILLS, WHICH WERE THE SAME MILLIGRAM AS THE PATCHES (8MG-2MG), ARE PURCHASED BY WALMART AT A COST OF $289.80, FOR A BOTTLE OF 30. BY COUNT OF THE INVENTORY, THEY WERE ABLE TO ESTABLISH THAT THE DEFENDANT HAD TAKEN AT LEAST TWO PILLS, AT A COST OF $9.66 EACH. THE TOTAL COST OF THE SIX FILMS AND TWO PILLS WAS TOTALED TO BE $61.50. THE DEFENDANT WAS PLACED UNDER ARREST, HANDCUFFS DOUBLE LOCKED AND TRANSPORTED TO THE CITRUS COUNTY JAIL, WHERE SHE WAS CHARGED WITH ONE COUNT OF THEFT OF CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE, FOR EACH OF THE FIVE DAYS SHE HAD STOLEN THE MEDICATIONS. THE DEFENDANT’S BOND WAS SET AT $10,000 PER SCHEDULE. THE COPY OF THE VIDEO AND STATEMENTS WERE TURNED IN TO THE CITRUS COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE EVIDENCE LOCKER AND THE RECORDS DEPARTMENT. |
