CLOSE OUT MEMO

PRELIMINARY INQURY
Public Comrption [Jnit

A.S.A.:

Sandra Miller-Batiste

INVESTIGATION #: 64-12-27

SIGNATURE:

DATE:

.ll4.ay

8,2012

JOSE J. ARROJO Chief Assi

^\ onre, 5tt*l ltr¡

\

SUBJECT(S): Thomas Kroeger Tarin Smithline Marie Smithline

EMPLOYMENT: Attorney for

the Florida Bar

Public Defender

AGENCY:
PHONE:

INVESTIGATOR: Detective Cassandra

Reese

Miami Police Department

ALLEGATION: CRIMB
Grand Theft

STATUTE 8r2.014

DEGREE

)

CONCLUSION:
Criminal charges were not filed against the subjects because there was insufficient evidence to prove the crime of grand theft beyond a reasonable doubt. The Subjects purchased a ring from the Jeweler on a prior occasion. They expressed their dissatisfaction with the quality of the ring and at the Jeweler's suggestion they came back to the store to return the old ring, and select a new ring. The Subjects entered the store with the ring previously purchased from Nemaro Jewelers, which was defective, and it was at this time that incident in question occurred. The subjects are accused of stealing a ring from Nemaro Jewelers worth $2500.00. A copy of the store surveillance video secured by Miami Police, a copy of the same video enhanced by the secret service, and a copy of the store surveillance videos provided to the subjects' Attorney Ray Taseff by the owner of Nemaro Jewelers were reviewed to determine if they contained evidence of a theft. Upon review of the store surveillance video retrieved by the Miami Police, it was determined that the video was not clear enough to determine if or what Subject Thomas Kroger picked up, and whether or not he placed something in Subject Tarin Smithline's purse. As a result, Detective Reese sent the tape to the Secret Service to have it enhanced to
*
af)a lrt

Please Recycle 0674 - F:\On Call InvestigationsVreliminary Inquiry Thomas Kroeger, Tæin Srnithline, Marie Smithline.DocxlSMB

determine if the video contained evidence of a theft of the ring in question. The enhanced video was provided to this Assistant State Attorney on January 9,2012 by FDLE Agent SãtaOrigas. Upon viewingthe copy of theìideo enhanced by the Secret Service, it was determined that evidenc" of u theft of the ring'was still unclear. The video does not show what, if anything, Subject Kroeger picked up, nor does it show what, if anrthing, he placed in Subject Tarin Smithline's purse' There is movement by Subject Kroeger which seems to portray the subject removing an object from a ring display laocæ9d on the glass counter in front of him. It also appears that the- Subject k.o"g". ptaced something in Subjãct Tìrin Smithline's purse. However, it is not clear from looking at the enhanced-video whãt, iianything is picfed up by Subject Kroeger, nor is it clear what, if any'thing was placed in Subject Smithline,s purse.

Or December 1",2011, this Assistant State Attorney met with Subject's attorney, Ray Tasefi who provided a CD from Nemaro Jewelers containing several videos of the date in question. The videos dãpicted the incident fro¡1 ."u.rul camera angles. Upon viewing the contents of the CD, it became clear that after the aÎleged theft occurred, Subject Kroeger appeared to pick up a ring from the same place on the same display located on the glass counter in froñt of Subjãct Kroeger and look at it for several seconds. Then it appears that he pláced the ring back on the display in the same plãce. The videos also revealed that Subject Marie Smithline moved hei purse ou". to the area wheré SuU¡ect Kroegei was standing after being directed by the store clerk to do so. Prior to viewing the incident from this pärticular irgle, it appeared that Subject Marie Smithline deliberately moved her purse and gavã it to Subject Kroeger to facilitate rhe theft. Additionally, the video showed that prior to the alleged theft, it appeared that the o*n", of the store, Mr. perez, showed Subject Tarin Smithline several rings but placed them back in the glass case after she finished looking at them, as opposed to placing them on the display located on the glass case in froni of Subject Kroeger, and leaving them outside of the
locked case.

Upon reviewing the all of the videos provided, the witness statements, and reports provided in the case, there is reasonable doubt as to whether or not a theft occurred. There is also reasonable doubt as to what, if anything, SuLject Kroeger stole. The videos, nor the enhancement, provide a clear view of what was removed from the diiplay on the glass counter, if anything. Further, there is additional evidence which revealed that there is reasonable doubt as to whethir or not a theft occurred. For instance, according to store clerk Ivette Perez, both Tarin and Marie Smithline voluntarily emptied their purses on the glass counter and searched thru them several times. Additionally, in the civil action brought by the subjects against the owners of Nemaro Jewelers, the attorney for Nemaro Jewelers stated "this matter upp"u.i to have been an unfoftunate misunderstanding" and offered $2000 to cover any inconvenience that the Smithlinèi or Mr. Kroeger may have experienced' It should be noted that the attorney also staied that his client, Mr. Perez did not accuse the Smithlines or Kroeger of anything. Consequently, there is insufficient evidence to file criminal charges against the above listed subjects. The investigation is therefore closed.

cc:

Jose J.

Anojo


0674 - F:\On Call Investigations\Prelirninary Inquiry Thomas Kroeger, Tarin Smithline, Marie Smithline.DocxlSMB

Please Recycle

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful