Theft Crimes Case Results

Internal Reference #1009

Facts: On March 24 ^th, Officer R responded to a department store, in reference to a retail theft. Upon arrival, Officer Re (second officer) was already at the scene in contact with the suspect

Officer R first met with the department store Loss Prevention Officer, who stated the following:

At approximately 1447 hours, she noticed one B/F in the junior’s department. The female was observed selecting multiple pieces of junior clothing and entering the fitting rom. The Loss Prevention Officer stated that she followed the subject into the fitting room and observed the female the previously selected merchandise into her handbag and shopping bag. When the female exited the fitting room, she checked the fitting room for merchandise that was found to be missing. Keeping constant observation via CCTV and floor surveillance, the female was observed walking to the first floor when she exited via north doors, passing all points of sale without paying for the concealed merchandise. The female was apprehended outside the store and then escorted back to the Loss Prevention office. The Loss Prevention Office completed a written statement and signed it. According to the Loss Prevention Officer, the defendant removed a dress, three shirts, two sweaters, and one pair of pants valued at $209.88.

Officer R then made contact with a B/F who was by her Florida Drivers license was the defendant. Officer R read the defendant her constitutional rights from a department issued laminated Miranda card warning. The defendant stated that she understood her rights and agreed to speak to me about the incident. The defendant stated that she was a college student and that she was going on a family vacation to Georgia tomorrow. She admitted to selecting all the pieces of merchandise listed in this report and concealing them in her handbag and then exiting the store without paying for the items.

The defendant did not have any previous criminal history and had local ties to our community.

The Loss Prevention Officer transported the suspect from the store in the officer’s presence. The suspect was released on her own recognizance and issued an NTA to appear at the courthouse in Delray.

A written statement, a photo of the items taken, and a store receipt were collected at the store. This evidence will be placed at the police station. The defendant was issued a NTA and charged with Retail Theft (812.015(1D))

Results: Mr. Foley entered the client into PTI and case was dismissed.

Internal Reference #1011

Facts: On October 25 at approximately 19:36 hours, Detective P responded to the Hollywood location, within the jurisdiction of the Seminole Tribe of Florida in Broward County to a report of a theft.

Upon arrival, Detective P made contact with witness at the store. The witness advised that back on February 1, the defendant came into the store and stole 20 earrings and two bracelets from the Brighton line of jewelry. The witness stated that she recognized the defendant as the same individual that also came into the store on Saturday, October 23. The witness stated that she was assisting another customer and noticed the defendant in the area where the jewelry store is located. The defendant was observed by the earrings for approximately 10-15 minutes, the witness notified her co-worker to call security while she stalled him, the witness stated that the defendant became nervous and left the store quickly. Security arrived at the time that the defendant left the store, security was not able to apprehend him. The witness stated that after the defendant left the store, she went over to the area where the defendant was and noticed five security bar that were taken off the back of the earrings and hidden behind the rack where the earrings are displayed. The witness also stated that an inventory of the jewelry is done on a daily basis. On this date, the defendant did enter the store and walked around the store while talking on his cell phone. The witness called security and security surveillance was able to capture footage of the defendant leaving the store and going into the poker room. Detective P arrived at the Poker Room and met with the witness and security, the witness gave a full description of the defendant and what he was wearing. Detective P walked inside of the Poker Room and observed a male matching the description. The male was brought to the front of the Poker Room door, where the witness and security was. The witness positively identified the defendant as being the same subject that in the store earlier that day as well as the same individual that stole from the store back in February and Saturday October 23. The defendant denied having any knowledge of the thefts and denied ever being in the store at any time. The total theft was 25 pairs of earrings and two bracelets totaling approximately $1000.00, (One thousand Dollars). Due to a positive identification by staff and the Manager, surveillance video from February 1, October 23, October 25, showing the defendant as the suspect in the other thefts. The defendant was placed under arrest and charged with Grand Theft (812.014)

Results: After acquiring numerous documents from our client, Mr. Foley was able to establish a timeline of events, which ultimately conflicted with the police reports and alleged witnesses. By developing this timeline, Mr. Foley was able to convince the state attorney that our client could not of possibly committed this crime and had been improperly identified as the thief. Case Dismissed.

Internal Reference #1015

Facts: Between 9/2 and 9/7, the Defendant unlawfully forcibly entered the Victim’s residence by breaking the kitchen window. On September 7 ^th, at about 1130 hrs, the victim returned to her residence and observed the defendant in her living room. The defendant fled the area on foot. Your affiant responded to the area and made contact with the Defendant. The defendant spontaneously uttered, “I was sleeping at that ladies house”. A show-up was conducted with the Victim who positively identified the Defendant as the person who as in her residence without her knowledge or permission. Two pieces of jewelry (approximate value $10) were recovered in the Defendant’s front left pants pocket. The victim positively identified the jewelry as hers. The victim advised the defendant did not have permission to take the jewelry. Post-Miranda, the Defendant admitted to entering the Victim’s residence and removing the Victim’s property. The defendant was arrested and charged with Burglary of a Residence (Unoccupied)(810.02-3(b)) and Petty Theft (Second Degree)(812.014-3a).

Process: Mr. Foley and his associate were sitting in court on another case wherein he filed a Motion to Suppress, which was ultimately granted. However, just prior to his motion, Mr. Foley observed another lawyer representing a individual in the box (an individual in the box is somebody who is in custody who sits in the jury box where the jurors sit during a case.) While listening to the previously mentioned lawyer, he realized that that lawyer had filed a Motion for Downward Departure. The defendant had been charged with Burglary of a Dwelling. The reason for a Downward Departure is when a defendant scores prison time. In this case, it was the defendant’s first offense however burglary of a dwelling scores 21.7 months of the bottom of the guidelines. Therefore, the attorney was trying to persuade the judge to reduce the mandatory prison time to probation. During the course of this motion, Mr. Foley learned of the alleged Facts of the case. Ultimately at the end of that attorney’s motion, the judge denied the lawyers motion and sentenced the defendant to 3 years of Florida State Prison. Later that evening, Mr. Foley was thinking about the case he had overheard and decided he wanted to look into it further because he was shocked that a first time offender with these particular Facts had become a convicted felon and was sentenced to 3 years in Florida State Prison. Mr. Foley contacted the state attorney and the judge and requested that the individual be brought back, which was granted. Mr. Foley went and met the defendant in the main jail. When the defendant saw Mr. Foley, he had a big smile on his face. Mr. Foley inquired, “Do you know me?” and he responded “No, just happy that you came to see me”. The defendant was surprisingly happy. During the course of a conversation with him, the defendant had explained that he had been living in a mental hospital and that he was no longer at that hospital and that they were going to help him get a job if he could locate his social security and birth records. Because the defendant’s mother had died when 16, he only had one living relative in Florida. The defendant took a bus to the town where his brother had previously lived. All he knew was his brother’s name. He had about $4 in his pocket. When he went to the town, he would just walk up to strangers and say, “Hi my name is… and do you know my brother, his name is…?”. No one knew his brother but he ran into someone he had known as a child. That person and him walked all day asking people if they knew his brother. They stopped for a snack and the defendant used his last couple of dollars on a coke and a candy bar. As evening approached, they had not found his brother. The defendant asked the other person if he could stay with him, but the other mans family said no. It is important to keep in mind that these two men were in their early 20’s. However, the other gentleman explained to the defendant that there was an apartment complex down the street, where many of the apartments had been abandoned. However he knew of one where the electric was still on but the property was abandoned. The defendant borrowed a PlayStation from this friend, and went to that apartment and set up the TV and PlayStation, played it, and then went to sleep. In the apartment, was a bible, some old clothes, a couple of cans of food left in the cubard, and a bed in one of the bedrooms. The defendant took the mattress and pulled it into the living room where the PlayStation was set up. Early the next morning, a woman entered the house, shocked that the defendant was sleeping on her mattress in the living room with a TV and a PlayStation on, she screamed, he screamed, and she started yelling “Why are you in the house?”. He apologized and left. While he was in the house, there was one earning approximate value, $7.00 that was left in the bathroom that the defendant picked up thinking it might be of value. Ultimately the defendant left. The information that the defendant shared with Mr. Foley and his associate had previously been shared with the defendant’s prior attorney, the same attorney that Mr. Foley had originally heard arguing the motion. That attorney did not use any of this information to benefit the defendant. Mr. Foley immediately figured out where the hospital was that the defendant had been staying. He had the defendant sign a waiver so that he could discuss his medical situation with doctors in the hospital. It turns out that the defendant had been in the mental hospital for the last 5 years. However, the hospital lost it’s funding and could not longer provide a place for the defendant, so the defendant was sleeping in the streets. They would sometimes provide him with a voucher to stay at a low-income housing facility but he did not have permanent housing, every morning he would have to walk to the hospital to get his psychotropic medication. All of this was relayed to the previous attorney however that attorney never shared any of this information with the court. Another thing Mr. Foley did was ask for a well-known doctor in the community to do a personal favor and go and evaluate the defendant in jail and get all of his medical background. With that information in hand, Mr. Foley then went to the alleged crime scene where there were approximately 200 apartments and 50% of them were vacant and had signs posted that they were condemned. There were signs up that said, “Trespassers will be arrested”. The actual apartment that the defendant had been in was abandoned. There were other properties that had signs on them saying, “condemned, no trespassing” that other people were squatting in. Mr. Foley was also able to investigate further and locate the defendant’s brother. No investigator, no super staff, just Mr. Foley and his associate taking his time out of his schedule. Mr. Foley took that information and filed a motion to vacate the previous prison sentence. The state attorneys office actually objected to Mr. Foley’s motion and his intrusion in the case. They put their #1 prosecutor in their office on the case. He objected to Mr. Foleys Motion to Vacate the prison sentence and the judge over his objection, vacated the sentence. However, the judge would not release the defendant from custody and said that Mr. Foley would have to file for a bond hearing, which he could not hear until the end of January. Mr. Foley protested to no avail and the judge would not do it even though Mr. Foley found the defendants brother and the defendant now had a place to live. Mr. Foley and the prosecutor argued in the hallway for 2 to 3 hours. Wherein, the prosecutor flat out told Mr. Foley, “I am the smartest lawyer to ever grace the hallways of this courthouse, and you have no chance against me, and I will crush you in trial.” Then he questioned Mr. Foley’s mental abilities by asking, “ How long have you even been an attorney?” After Mr. Foley convinced him to read his memorandum of law and case law their #1 realized that there was a conflict in the 4 ^th DCA that would ultimately require the two attorneys to fight it out before the Florida Supreme Court.

Due to the fact that the defendant had been sitting in jail for several months and that Christmas was approaching, Mr. Foley negotiated with the prosecutor to change charges to a third degree felony and misdemeanor and withhold adjudication the defendant was placed on five years of probation in the mental health court. The best result possible would have been for the state to reduce the charge to trespassing, and misdemeanor. Unfortunately, the only way to reduce the case to a trespass charge was to place the Felony case before a Jury and have the defendant remain in custody until the Judge was ready to hear the bond hearing. The client preferred to get out of jail and spend the Holidays with his family. This was a compromise but still one of the cases that Mr. Foley is most proud of because he was able to reverse a conviction and prison sentence to a lower charge and probation. Additionally, Mr. Foley found the defendant’s lost brother and the defendant now resides with his brother while receiving mental health treatment.

Results: This was a very significant case for Mr. Foley. He was able to help an individual who needed him when the system failed. He was able to convince the state to change the charge from Burglary of a Dwelling (15 yr max and scores 22.79 months in FSP at bottom of the guidelines) to Burglary of a Structure (5year max) and Petty Theft. The defendant had already been sentenced to 3 years in prison but Mr. Foley was able to convince the judge to reverse that sentence and then negotiate a 5-year probationary term on a reduced charge. The defendant was sentenced to 5 years of probation in the mental health court. Reversed a Prison sentence No Jail, No Prison.

Internal Reference #1025

Facts: Witness viewed via CTV. The defendant selected several items and placed them inside her white purse. Defendant was then seen paid for some items inside the store. Defendant was then seen by witness select other items in the store and placing them inside her purse. Defendant then walked pass several cashiers making no attempts to pay for items. Defendant was then stopped by security. Upon the officer’s arrival, the defendant had several items inside her purse. Items were recovered by store. Defendant was given a P.T.A from the store. The defendant was charged with Petty Theft (812.014).

Result: The charge of Petty Theft for the defendant was dismissed.

Internal Reference #1027

Facts: On 07/08/08 the victim contacted the Sheriff’s Office in reference to a Burglary that occurred in Pompano Beach. The property is owned by a man who is listed as victim #2. Detective W responded to the scene and made contact with the victim who told him that she believed she knew the persons responsible for the crime. The victim further advised that she was approached by a female who told her that she observed three suspects known to her as the suspects enter onto the property and removed several items from the garage. According to the victim, the female previously rented the lower unit of the property. The victim advised that the three suspects mentioned by the witness had moved out of the residence located in Pompano Beach. On June 29, 2008 due to non-payment of rent. The victim advised that three suspects were employed by her. According to the victim, the three suspects were terminated by the co-owner of the business, victim #2. According to the victim shortly after they were terminated the suspects became upset with Landry. The victims believe that the non-payment of rent along with there termination was motive for the suspects to take items from the property and sell them for money. The victim provided a forwarding address for the three suspects who were said to be residing together.

On 07/11/08, Detective W made contact with the three suspects at their address. The three suspects voluntarily responded to the Pompano Beach District Office. The three suspects read and signed Miranda Warning Form.

Suspect Y was interviewed first and admitted to entering onto the victim’s property without their permission, and taking item from the garage with the help of the two above listed suspects. Suspect Y advised that she knew the property inside of the garage was listed for sale on Craigslist by the victim. Suspect Y stated that on the mentioned date she entered the garage, which she stated was open, and proceeded to move items from the garage to her vehicle. Suspect Y stated that she recalled taking two lamps and other misc. items from the garage. Suspect Y stated that she along with the two co-defendants took the property to the Swap Shop to sale, and donated what was left over to the Salvation Army.

Suspect F was interviewed and, Post Miranda F admitted to being present at the scene of the burglary, and entering into the garage. Suspect F stated that he along with Suspect H and Suspect Y gain entry to the garage using Suspect Y’s Key. Suspect F stated that he along with Suspect Y and Suspect H set-up a table at the Swap Shop and sold two lamps, two black televisons, and a framed poster for approximately $209.00. Suspect F went onto state that the remaining property was taken to the Salvation Army and another store. Suspect F stated that the victim did not give him permission to be on the property. When asked why he participated in the burglary, Suspect F stated that he does not like the victim who he previously worked for. Suspect F stated that the victim constantly took money from his paycheck in the past for no reason.

Suspect H was interviewed and Post Miranda admitted to entering onto the victim’s property with their permission. Suspect H stated that she assisted in moving and transporting items to the Sway Shop from the victim’s residence. When asked what she took Suspect H advised that she remembered asking several pieces of China (dish sets). Suspect H did not advise anything further.

Detective W made contact with the victim’s on 07/30/08 and obtained a taped statement. The victim’s advised that they were able to retrieve a washer and dryer that were taken from a store in Fort Lauderdale. The victim’s also advised that they received pictures via camera phone of the three mentioned suspects selling their property at the Swap Shop. The victim stated that the pictures were taken by the listed witness. I am currently waiting for the victim to give me the pictures to be stored in evidence. The victim’s stated that they would like to seek prosecution for the crime committed against them. The three suspects were arrested and transported to the Broward County Main Jail.

Charges:

1. Burglary of unoccupied dwelling(Second Degree Felony, 15 year maximum prison sentence, 22.7 months, a second degree felony. This charge faces a maximum of 15 years Florida State Prison and scores 21.7 months at the bottom of the guidelines.

(810.02-4(5)),

2. Dealing in stolen property(second degree felony, facing 15 years in Florida State Prison) (812.019(1)), and

3. Grand Theft(Third degree felony, facing 5 years in Florida State Prison) (812.014-2c(1)).

Result:

Count One (Burglary of an unoccupied dwelling)-sentenced to one year probation (special provisions), the defendant sentenced under sentencing guidelines Adjudication Withheld.

Count Two (Dealing in stolen property) - Adjudication Withheld and 12 months probation to run concurrent with count one special provision sentence under sentencing guideline.

Count Three (Grand Theft) - was reduced to petty theft and then the petty theft was dismissed as part of the plea negotiation.

No Prison, No Jail, No Conviction.

Internal Reference #1028

Facts: The defendant and co-defendant entered the victim/business and the above listed defendant then selected misc. clothing (total value $361.00) from the sales floor. The defendant then unlawfully and intentionally concealed the items inside her purse. The defendant then exited the store, passing all points of sale without attempting to pay for said items. Said actions were observed via CCTV and the victim wishes to prosecute. Post Miranda, the defendant admitted to said actions and the defendant was then placed into custody.

The defendant was arrested and charged with Grand Theft 3 ^rd Degree(812.014(2)C(1)

Process: Mr. Foley applied for the defendant to enter into the pre trial intervention program, according to the client, they had no pervious arrest. Upon closer examination, the defendant had prior arrests and was not eligible for the diversion program.

Result: Mr. Foley was able to secure a negotiated resolution of a withhold of adjudication 18 months probation. No Jail, No Prison, No conviction.

Internal Reference #1029

Facts: The defendant entered the location attempting to cash a check. When the witness tried to cash the check, it was reported stolen. The witness called the police. Upon arrival, the defendant was still at the location with two checks. Contact was made with the victim who advised that he did not write or give the suspect a check or permission to cash one.

The Defendant was arrested and charged with Utter forged instrument and Grand Theft Auto 3 ^rd degree.

Process: Mr. Foley was hired on the grand theft charge. Because the defendant had a previous criminal history, the states initial offer was adjudication 12 months probation. Mr. Foley negotiated that sentence.

Results: Prior to Mr. Foley taking the case, the state dismissed the forged instrument charge. Mr. Foley was able to secure a Withhold Adjudication with special conditions for the Grand Theft 3 ^rd Degree charge. No Prison, No Jail, No Conviction.

Internal Reference #1040

Law office of Roger P Foley represented suspect #2

Facts: On February 08,2012, Deputy K responded to the area in Parkland, specifically inside a gated community. Deputy K was advised that a white male, later identified as suspect #1 had knocked on the door numerous times and rang the doorbell as if there was an emergency at the witness’s residence. A female later was identified as suspect #2 and stood at the base of the driveway as suspect #1 asked if “Richard was there.”. When the witness said “No”, the witness heard suspect #2 say “lets go to the next house.” Upon Deputy K’s arrival, he checked the area and then observed the suspects walking from behind the victim’s residence, which is fenced in. Suspect #1 was observed carrying a black backpack. Deputy K made contact with the two suspects. Suspect #2 stated “we’re cutting through” when asked why they were in the area. Neither of the two suspects could produce identification. When Deputy M arrived on scene, Deputy K conducted a pat down on suspect #1 for officer safety reasons as Deputy M stayed with suspect #2. Both suspects identified themselves at this time. Deputy K asked suspect #1 about the backpack that was in his possession. Suspect #1reported the backpack belonged to a friend. Deputy K then advised suspect #1 of his Miranda Rights and Suspect #1 advised he understood his rights. Suspect #1 reported that he was trying to find a friend of his named “Rick”, but he didn’t know his last name or address. Suspect #1 did not know what city he was in now. Deputy K then asked Suspect #1 for permission to look in the backpack. Suspect #1 consented to the opening of the backpack. Deputy K found 2 sets of gloves and a black lug wrench. Deputy K observed the lug wrench to have damage and black paint missing. Suspect #1 was placed under arrest at this time. Deputy K went to the rear of the victim’s residence where he observed the two suspects walking from. Deputy K observed the rear screened patio door propped open. He then observed slider open and damaged. He also observed black transfer scruff marks on the glass slider but no apparent entry into the residence. Deputy Y then met with the witness. Deputy Y explained the process for conducting a show-up. The witness agreed and signed the show-up affidavit. The witness looked out her window to view the suspects individually. The witness immediately identified Suspect #1 as the person that knocked on her door. She also identified suspect #2 as the person who stood in her driveway. Both suspects were arrested and transported to the sheriff’s office.

Arrested and charged with Burglary of a unoccupied dwelling (810,023)(b)

Process: The defendant (suspect #2) was facing 15 years Florida State Prison on Burglary of an Unoccupied Dwelling with a minimum sentence of 21.7 months Florida State Prison. Additionally, the defendant had been on probation for Dealing in Stolen Property and False Info/Pawn Item and on the violation of probation was facing a maximum of 20 years prison. Mr. Foley filed dispositive Motion to Suppress and minutes prior to the hearing the state offered to change the second-degree felony (burglary) to a misdemeanor Trespass charge. The defendant received a withhold of adjudication and court cost.

On the violation of probation, the defendant agreed to admit to the trespassing charge and was reinstated onto probation however the probation was modified from monthly reporting to administrative probation – no reporting.

Administrative Probation means that the defendant is only supervised in theory by the department of corrections and only violates his or her probation if arrested for a new crime. Accordingly, one Motion to Suppress, ultimately resulted in a 15-year felony being changed to a misdemeanor and the defendant no longer had to report to a probation officer.

Result:

Case One: Burglary of Unoccupied Dwelling- Reduced to misdemeanor trespassing, withhold adjudication and court costs.

Case Two – Violation of Probation – Admitted to trespass, probation was modified from reporting probation to administrative probation.

Internal Reference #1043

Facts: On 6/21 at or about 1440 hours Officer C responded to a store in Coconut Creek. Upon arrival he met with the witness. The witness stated that he and another witnessed a white female subject later identified as the defendant conceal items from her shopping cart inside recycle bags in the garden center. The defendant then proceeded to walk out of the retail exiting passing all points of purchase making no attempt to pay for the items she concealed inside the store. Both witnesses approached the defendant and identified themselves verbally and physically with their badges and escorted her to their office. Officer C later took a taped recorded statement from the witness. He also took a photo of all of the stolen items and downloaded both the photos and statement in the Foray system in evidence. The defendant made several statements that she “suffers from obsessive compulsive disorder (O.C.D.) and that is why she has stolen in the past.”

Officer C also took the register receipt of the stolen items, which added up to $377.99. He also pulled the property number for video surveillance of the defendant intentionally concealing the items and exiting the store without paying. Officer C transported the defendant to the police department for processing and alter transported her to the jail.

The defendant was arrested and charged with Theft-Retail/Shoplifting (812.014-2C1)

Results: Mr. Foley was able to secure Withhold Adjudication for the theft charge. The defendant avoided any jail time and received 18 months probation and court costs. No Prison, No Jail, No Conviction.

Internal Reference #1057

Facts: The defendant was charged with Petty Theft (812.014(2e))

Results: Mr. Foley was successful in getting the case Nolle Prosequi (dismissed)

Internal Reference #1061

Facts: Officer K responded to the store in reference to a shoplifter in custody. Upon Officer K’s arrival, he made contact with the store loss prevention officer (witness). The witness advised that he observed a black female, later to be identified as the defendant, in the garden department loading a shopping cart with flowers. The defendant left that cart by the returns register and went to the self-checkout and purchased some items. The defendant returned to the cart and pushed the cart outside the store without paying for the flowers, total retail value $225.71, where she was detained by the witness. The store desired prosecution and the defendant was arrested for Larceny-Retail Theft.

The defendant was arrested and charged with Larceny-Retail Theft (F.S.S 812.015)

Result: Mr. Foley withdrew from the case.

Internal Reference #1062

Facts: On 5/18, Investigator W was assigned this case for a follow up investigation, involving a burglary that occurred at the residence. Upon reviewing the original report it was learned that the victim’s son left his garage door open as he went inside the residence with his friends.

When the victim’s son exited the house he noticed that his bicycle was gone. The victim notified the police and they took the report. The victim stated that the bicycle was valued at $500.00.

On 5/20 at 1600 hours, a witness observed the defendant riding his friend’s bicycle in a plaza area. The witness approached the defendant and told him that he thought that the bicycle that he was on was his friend’s that was stolen two days prior. The defendant then took off on the bicycle towards the mobile home park. The witness followed him and summoned the help of other witnesses in the area.

Another witness observed the defendant on the stolen bicycle and helped the first witness. The defendant dropped the bicycle behind at residence. The victim was able to identify the bike as belonging to her son and also the serial number matched.

A witness advised that she knew of the suspect and has seen him inside the mobile home park. The witness was shown a photo line up by Detective D and was able to identify the defendant in the photo line up. The witness also gave a sworn taped statement to Detective D.

On 5/29, Detective B and Investigator W made contact with the defendant at his residence. The defendant was read Miranda by the detective from a prepared card. The defendant stated he understood and agreed to answer Investigator W’s questions. Investigator W asked the defendant if he remembered an incident involving a burglary and bicycle theft. The defendant put his head down and stated that he had to steal the bike because it was the only way he could get away from the three guys who were beating him up. The defendant stated that three men were punching him in the head and told him “Don’t look up punk”. The defendant stated that he was able to get away from them and he entered the garage and took the bike and rode it home. The defendant denies being chased days later. The defendant stated that he tried to call the police when the three guys were punching him but they “never showed up”. A check for the calls for service on that day did not indicate any fights and/or disturbance calls in the area of the burglary.

The defendant was placed into custody for the Burglary Residence and Possession of Stolen Property. A search of the defendant’s property incident to arrest revealed a pill bottle without a label on it. The pill bottle contained 23 oxycodone (WEIGHT 5.5 grams) 15mg pills and 37 partial Xanax (Alprazolam) pills. Both of the pills were identified by the poison control operator and PDR as Oxycodone and Alprazolam. The defendant immediately stated that he has a prescription for the pills and that the label was not on the bottle because the “rain made it wear off”. The defendant could not give the name of his doctor but said that he filled his prescriptions yesterday.

Inside the defendant’s wallet, Investigator W discovered Florida Drivers Licenses belonging to other people. There were also 5 credit cards belonging to another person. The defendant advised that he found them on the road outside a store.

The victim who was the owner of the credit card and drivers license the defendant had advised that he wanted to prosecute and gave a sworn taped statement to Detective B. The total value of items lost for this victim was estimated at $100.00. This victim stated that in addition to the wallet and credit he also had approximately $80 in US Currency in his wallet. This victim was able to identify his credit cards as well and took possession of them at the police department.

The victim of the burglary provided a sworn taped statement and stated that she did not give anyone permission to enter her garage and/or remove her property. The victim (a police officer) stated that she still wanted to prosecute.

Charges:

1. Trafficking in Oxycodone (30 year maximum sentence with a three- year minimum mandatory sentence)
2. Burglary of a Dwelling Occupied (15 years maximum in Florida State Prison and scored approximately two years Florida State Prison)
3. Grand Theft (Maximum 5 years Florida State Prison)
4. Possession of Alprazolam (Maximum 5 years Florida State Prison)
5. Petty Theft (364 days in count jail maximum)

Process: Mr. Foley was retained three years after the incident. The defendant had fled the jurisdiction and was living in another state. The defendant was picked up by police in another state and transported on a police bus back to the state of Florida. Mr. Foley met with the defendant in jail and the defendant indicated that he had a prescription for the oxycodone, however he could not recall where he filled the prescription. The family did not have sufficient monies to hire a private investigator so Mr. Foley and the family researched a 5-mile radius of his last known address in Florida and 28 pharmacies appeared. Mr. Foley contacted all 28 pharmacies and proof of a legal prescription being filled could not be found. Several depositions were taken in the case and the question on the trafficking charge was whether the prescription that the defendant had in evidence matched the pills confiscated by the defendant. The defense believed that there was a reasonable doubt in regards to the trafficking, however the Burglary of a Dwelling charge scored approximately two years in Florida State Prison if convicted. The likelihood of a conviction of the Burglary charge was great. Therefore, even if the trafficking case was won, the defendant would still have been required to do approximately two-years Florida State Prison on the Burglary of a Dwelling charge. After numerous meetings with the lead prosecutor on the case, in preparation for trial, the state attorney agreed to dismiss the trafficking and oxycodone charge and the grand theft charge and change the burglary of a dwelling from a second degree felony to a third degree felony. It was changed from Burglary of a Dwelling occupied, which scores 22 months Florida State Prison, to another second degree felony, Dealing in Stolen property. The reason for the change was that the Dealing in Stolen Property charge does not require prison according to the Florida punishment code.

Result:

1. Trafficking Oxycodone – Dismissed
2. Burglary of a Dwelling(occupied) – Reduced to Dealing in Stolen Property. Withhold of Adjudication with 10 years of probation.
3. Grand Theft – Dismissed
4. Possession of Alprazolam – Withhold of Adjudication and 5 years of probation to run concurrent with count 2
5. Petty Theft- Withhold of Adjudication

Internal Reference #1064

Facts: Officer W met with the Loss Prevention Employee (witness) who provided him with an affidavit stating the following: The witness observed the defendant select several items of clothing and enter the fitting room. The witness went into the same fitting room and observed the defendant conceal the property in her handbag. Constant surveillance was maintained as the defendant exited the fitting room and exited the store without paying. The defendant was stopped by the witness and detained until police arrived and the property was recovered. The defendant was subsequently arrested and transported to the jail. Total mount was $495.50.

The defendant was arrested and charged with Grand Theft (812.014(2C1))

Results: After retaining Mr. Foley, was successful in getting the case Nolle Prosqeui (dismissed)

Internal Reference #1068

Facts: Victim states that on 5/07, she became aware that her personal smart phone(worth $600) was taken from her rightful control and custody. The victim reports that the defendant is the sole perpetrator of the theft in question. The victim is acquainted with the defendant having a professional working relationship. The victim further advises that she had the opportunity to thoroughly view surveillance video footage of the crime as it takes place, clearly showing the defendant as intentionally handling and ultimately placing the cellular phone in his pants pocket. During the date of the police report the victim was of sober mind and remained adamant that the defendant received no specific or expressed permission to take the property form its rightful place. According to the victim, surveillance footage shows the defendant conducting several hand to hand transactions with other persons involving the phone in question The victim states that the stolen phone was originally placed (by victim) unattended with in a semi restricted area with limited access. Both the victim and the defendant both advise that they have the same access, being employees at the incident location. On date of police contact, the victim positively identified the defendant. The defendant was arrested.

The defendant was arrested and charged with Grand Theft

Results: Case Dismissed.

Internal Reference #1071

Facts: The defendant did commit the offense of Grand Theft. The defendant passed all points of purchase with property belonging to the store, with the willful intent to permanently deprive them of their property(amount stolen #388.87)

The security specialist(witness) observed the defendant selecting merchandise. The defendant began to place merchandise in her cart. The defendant then proceeded toward the exit passing all points of sale. At this time the security specialist identified himself and the defendant was escorted to the security office. The security specialist who was the representative for the store signed an affidavit wishing to pursue prosecution.

The defendant was subsequently arrested and transported to the booking facility for further processing. The defendant was later transferred to jail.

Charges: Grand Theft ($300-$5000)(812.014(2)(C)(1))

Results: Grand Theft(third degree) – Withhold of Adjudication, one year of probation, and court costs. No Prison, No Jail, No Conviction.