Police say a Florida man was intentionally incapacitated before his $98,400 watch vanished, but no toxicology test confirmed drugging in the Broward case.
HALLANDALE BEACH, Fla. — Police accuse Lynda Mae Crouse of taking a nearly $100,000 Rolex after a late-night visit to a man she had met at Gulfstream Park, but one of the case’s most serious allegations remains unconfirmed by laboratory evidence: the man’s belief that he was drugged.
The distinction is central to understanding the Broward County case. Crouse, 32, was arrested in September and is accused of second-degree grand theft in connection with a gold Rolex Presidential appraised at $98,400. The Hallandale Beach man said he suddenly became extremely tired and confused while Crouse was in his home on April 12, then woke hours later to find the watch gone. He did not seek medical treatment or undergo a toxicology test, according to the probable cause affidavit described in multiple reports.
Police nevertheless allege that the sudden symptoms were intentional rather than accidental. Their reasoning draws partly from the man’s timeline and partly from other investigations in Miami-Dade County. The Broward affidavit said detectives identified four active cases involving Crouse and men who reported meeting her at nightlife venues, later feeling as if they had been drugged and then discovering expensive watches missing. In one City of Miami case, police said a toxicology screen detected zolpidem, a prescription sleep medication. That result belongs to a different alleged victim, not the Hallandale Beach man.
The April encounter began at the Carousel Club inside Gulfstream Park. The man told detectives that he met Crouse around midnight and exchanged Instagram information with her before the two separated after roughly 20 minutes. At about 1:20 a.m., he sent an Uber to pick her up and bring her to his home. The pair drank alcohol in the living room, but the man later said the amount he consumed was not enough to make him black out or pass out.
At some point, the man went into his bedroom to change clothes, leaving Crouse alone in the living room. He said that was when he began feeling unusual and extremely tired. He then heard what he called a clapping sound. When he returned to the living room, he told investigators, Crouse appeared to be acting differently and said she was leaving. His confusion and fatigue worsened, and he fell asleep within minutes after she left.
The man awoke several hours later and said he still felt strange. Remembering the sound, he checked the box where his Rolex had been kept. It was empty. He told police he believed the noise had been the box lid closing. Investigators described the missing watch as a gold 40 mm Rolex Presidential with baguette diamond hour markers and round diamonds around the bezel. The man gave them a signed appraisal valuing it at $98,400 and later identified Crouse from a six-person photo lineup.
Those facts provide evidence of a reported theft, but they do not answer every question surrounding the alleged drugging. The affidavit, as summarized by news organizations, does not describe a witness who saw Crouse put a substance into the man’s drink. It does not identify a substance recovered from the home, and it does not cite a blood or urine test from the Broward victim. The man’s continuing symptoms, which he said lasted into the following day, are part of his sworn account but do not by themselves establish what caused them.
The separate Miami toxicology result gave Hallandale Beach investigators a point of comparison. Police said zolpidem can cause rapid sedation, confusion and memory problems, particularly when consumed with alcohol. They wrote that those effects resembled the Broward victim’s description and alleged that Crouse gave him a similar substance. That is a police conclusion contained in the investigation, not a confirmed finding about what was in the Broward man’s system. The difference is important because criminal allegations can include investigative inferences that prosecutors still must prove with admissible evidence.
The other Miami-Dade cases also require careful framing. Hallandale Beach police described them as active investigations from Miami, Miami Beach and Aventura involving a similar method. Public reporting reviewed for this article did not establish convictions against Crouse in those matters. Similar allegations may help investigators decide what leads to pursue, but each case carries its own facts, witnesses and evidentiary limits. A pattern alleged by police does not by itself establish that the conduct occurred in the Broward case.
Crouse was arrested Sept. 11 after Seminole tribal police encountered her during an unrelated trespassing call, according to Local 10. A records check revealed the outstanding Broward warrant, and she was booked into the county jail. Reports later said a magistrate set bond at $2,500 and ordered her to have no contact with the alleged victim. She was released after posting bond. The reports reviewed at the time did not identify an attorney who had issued a public response on her behalf.
Even the charging description was not identical across early coverage. Law&Crime and Local 10 reported a second-degree grand theft charge, while NBC 6 South Florida said arrest records listed robbery and grand theft. The publicly available reports reviewed for this article did not contain a later charging document that conclusively reconciled those descriptions. The second-degree grand theft count is therefore the most consistently documented allegation, while the robbery reference remains tied to the separate arrest-record report.
The case also contains a straightforward piece of documentary evidence: the appraisal. The man’s signed valuation placed the watch at $98,400, while Local 10 reported a retail price of $74,350. An appraisal can reflect factors beyond a listed retail price, including the specific configuration and condition of an item, but the reviewed sources did not provide the appraiser’s methodology. What is clear is that police used the signed appraisal to document the value claimed in the theft report.
Older South Florida cases show why police may be alert to this type of allegation, but they are separate from Crouse’s case. CBS Miami reported in 2015 that a Hallandale Beach man said a woman drugged him and stole two watches. In 2019, Broward authorities investigated another unrelated report in which a casino visitor said women drugged him before cash and a Rolex disappeared. Neither incident establishes anything about Crouse. Their relevance is limited to regional context: law enforcement has previously received similar reports involving nightlife, suspected incapacitation and costly watches.
No reviewed report said the watch had been recovered. That means the public narrative remains centered on the man’s statement, his identification of Crouse, proof that he possessed a high-value watch, the timing of her visit and the police comparison with other investigations. There may be additional evidence in court files or investigative records that has not been publicly reported, but it would be improper to assume such evidence exists without verification.
The case remains a criminal allegation, not a finding of guilt. As of Oct. 21, no later publicly reported disposition was located in the sources reviewed. Crouse is accused of second-degree grand theft, and the claim that the Hallandale Beach man was drugged should remain attributed to police because toxicology did not confirm it in this incident.
Author note: Last updated Oct. 21, 2026.