During my 29 years as a law enforcement officer in Florida, I've seen some pretty bad plans. But robbing your own lift driver and then swiping his cards across the street. This is a brand new low. >> Exactly happened inside the store that you said you were trying to buy something in the store over there. >> Well, I went in the dressing room. So, the lady was really rude to me. Like, I don't know if I look like I don't have money or what. >> So, I went in the dressing room and was in there, had like five or six outfits. She came and knocked on the door. I was like, "Yeah." She was like, "Are you okay?" I was like, "Yeah." She's like, "Well, there's some other people that are wanting to try on some clothes." And I was like, "Okay, I'm slow, right?" So, I came out, got a different size, went back, tried them on, came back out, went to the counter to pay. Um, there was a sweater that was like 325. >> A sweater that was what? >> A cashmere sweater. It was like $325. The jeans were like 168. It was 5. >> What's your first name again? My first Stephanie. >> Stephanie, can you mind you minding showing us your stuff to see if that sweater's in there? >> Yeah. No, it showing you at all. >> Yeah, please. Thank you, Stephanie. >> She has the sweater at the desk. >> She has the sweater? >> Yes. >> So, you didn't take anything out of it that you shouldn't have taken? >> No. >> Okay. We appreciate if you let us see. >> And I have all this stuff. >> I got you. That's all your stuff? >> You mind if we look? >> All right. And it's not in like the pillowcase or anything in here. You didn't So, what was it? Just a cashmere sweat. Here, just take it off so you can get it, please. And you're flying out today? >> Yeah. >> Where are you flying to? >> Kentucky. >> Kentucky. You have a ticket? >> So, you were in the change thing. You said she was being rude. Then what else happened? >> She was really rude. And I asked her, the other girl, I said, "Are you the manager?" And she said, "No, I am." And I said, "Well, you've been really rude to me." And I said, I don't really feel like that I should spend my money here >> the way you treated me. >> Okay. >> And I don't know if she got mad or what >> and you didn't take anything. >> Absolutely not. >> That that's what they're saying. That's We only have half the story >> of like accusers. Don't have the right to know what I'm being accused of. >> Stealing. >> And who's accusing me though? >> The store owner over there. That's who they're talking to over there. My guy, my partner's talking to them over there. >> Is it a woman? A guy? Uh, well, I have to find out. My partner's talking to him, so I don't know exactly, but someone's someone called, but >> she got mad. >> Yeah, listen, if that's what it is, that's fine. >> She's treating me bad. >> I got you, but we just have to double. You understand? We're the police. We got to double check. >> She was treating me like [ __ ] Like I didn't have money. >> I got you. >> So then I called my sugar daddy. Was like, um, can you wire $500 over here? >> Okay. So she's [laughter] she's saying she was treating me like I don't have money. So anywh who, I had my sugar daddy wire $500. Um, so apparently she doesn't have money. Her sugar daddy has money. >> This lady's treating me bad and I just want to show her that I have it and I was like, "No." >> So I see I see that you have a wallet there. You sure you don't have any IDs? >> Positive. >> Okay. >> Did they get anything back? >> No, I was I was waiting on the police. So, listen. Like I said, until we figure it out, you're just going to have to stand by. But they're talking to them over there. What's >> What's your name? >> Trained Will from the She's She said she's from Kentucky. This is a Louisville thing. That's where Muhammad Ali is from. >> Stephanie, >> I need that wallet. >> What? >> That brown wallet from this morning. Come clean with me by a driver this morning. Okay. And you were dropped off right by blue departure by American Airlines. >> Dropped off >> blue departures American by American uh the blue drop and dropped you off. >> I don't know exactly. >> You don't remember? >> She stole like a butterfly and she's being arrested like a bee. >> Okay. When the vehicle stopped, you stay you stay in the vehicle. The driver got out. Okay. Okay. And when he returned, right, he's missing his wallet. Where is it right now? >> His wallet was laying in the back seat of the car. >> Okay. [laughter] Okay. Do you mind if we look in the >> partial admissions or admissions always make me giggle? Like, how would you know about the brown wallet or how would you know that it was in the back seat or like it's it's uh always the coincidence, you know? It's just Oh, it just happens to be that you know what his wallet it looks like and where it was sitting right next to you. >> You got it. We know. You got it. >> Yeah. >> Okay. There was also $20 in the middle in the center console. Where is it? >> The reason why we make contact with you because we already know what happened. Okay. >> You mean this 20? >> I don't know how that got in there. >> We saw it. >> All right. >> I didn't steal anything out of the store. >> Okay. And I just picked that one because it was blank there. >> Did Did you make a couple attempts >> to charge his credit card? >> I did. >> You did? Okay. >> They're not going to like tell you the story. You've got to get it out of them. And the more they ask her, she's not denying anything. You just have to ask her. You have to know what to ask her. >> We get where we going. Okay. Come clean with me. Okay. Which card did you try to use? >> I tried to use them all. You try to use them allin >> Yeah. >> Okay. You know these are not yours, right? >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> And I'm glad that they were declined. >> Look at that. And I'm glad that they were declined. Am I right? What she's doing here is uh you can see a smile on her face, a very slight smile on her face. That's something called duper delight or duping delight. And uh when people are being deceitful and they think that they got one over on somebody, they tend to smile or have to fight the smile. It's uh common in body language. >> They already climbed because security and also because he free some more, >> right? But you know it's not yours. You shouldn't be taking it. All right. >> We recall for the wall if she admits to commit a crime. She's 10. >> Hey, what's going on? So, uh, this lady from before, what's the deal with her? >> Okay, this is her receipt. >> That's her receipt >> that she tried to uh pay those and the car get declined. >> That's a lot of stuff. >> And declined and declined and declined. But, uh, I >> Oh, that's from it getting declined. That's not just items. >> Yeah, that's what I was thinking, too. Like, what what did she buy? One of everything. >> Yeah, I understand. >> I feel like that that's like a man's name. Mhm. Yeah. So, you asked her about it? >> No, I just realized it when I cancel everything >> cuz she she tried to buy the decline. She only uh one of the cars get approved for only like $2 and something. >> I got you. >> So, then she said, "No, I don't want it. You're being rude to me. I don't want to spend my money here or whatever." I say, "Okay." >> This is what happens often with police officers as well. This is the same tactic she tried on her. When people know that they're caught dead to rights, they put something back on you by saying, "Well, you were rude to me." Because they think that it's going to make you feel like, "Oh my god, I don't want to get complained, you know, I don't want to have to deal with this complaint or and so they they make something up like you were rude to me just just as the distraction." She was probably never rude to her. >> I can make a coffee. >> Yeah. No, no. Well, whatever you want, G. So, >> one of those one >> Uhhuh. >> is the one I think that I'm missing. >> Cuz I look We'll we'll double check when we look through her stuff. That's what you think you're missing? >> Cuz she tried this one and the dark one and a pair of pants. And when she walk away of the fitting room, I asked her, "What is the other piece?" >> Like I said, we looked through her stuff and I didn't see it. I'm going to look through your stuff again. You're positive you didn't take their sweater? >> Positive. >> You're 100%. >> I'm 100%. >> All right. It's like she I took a picture of what it is. They're not >> They think they're not sure. But um >> Yeah, we Yeah, she she has a wallet inside one of her bags. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. So, >> my guess is that if she doesn't have it on her, she was very comfortable talking about the thefts themselves, and she's very confident that she didn't steal anything, it's probably because she only attempted to steal stuff by using the credit card. Um, but if that uh sweater is still missing and it's not on her, what they need to do is go through the cameras and follow her path. It's probably stuffed in a trash can or down a the back of a seat or something. Um, it's it's in that airport somewhere. >> Stephanie, right? Stephanie, we're not getting anything back on your ID. So, you're giving me a fake name, right? Britney. Britney, now we're done lying, right? I know your real name. We know you stole something. Do you have anything else that that from there so we can get it now? >> You haven't been honest with me and I don't appreciate it. >> You understand? So that's it. Just that. >> Yeah. >> Are we positive? >> 100%. When we search this, we're not going to find any. >> Again, like I said, I don't appreciate being lied to. >> I understand. >> Do you have any drugs on you? >> We're going to find it. And it's going to be super annoying if we find it over there. Do you understand? Do you have drugs on you? quick body language lesson. He says, "Do you have any drugs on you?" And she turns her head away from him and says, "No." Eye contact is not necessarily an a complete indicator of deception. Like if you if they turn their head away from you, it doesn't necessarily mean just because they're not making eye contact does not necessarily mean that they're lying. Um, but she does turn her head away and she says no very confidently. probably because there's no drugs on her. It's probably on in her stuff. >> Um there is. >> See, again, Britney, I don't appreciate being [clears throat] lied to. >> Well, I'm telling you now. >> Okay. What's in there? >> Um there's a crystal meth. >> Okay. >> Do you have drugs on your persons, in your bra, in your underwear? I'm having a female officer come over here. She's going to search. >> We might as well just stick me in a hole and then we'll >> Yeah. You know what? with all this. >> The subtitle said we might as well just stick her in the wholesale. But what he said is the holding cell. But you have to remember also that people at airports are generally prepared to have their stuff searched. So they either hide it really well or they don't keep it on them. >> Getting a free ride home, huh? >> Free ride to the jail. >> Yep. They're getting a free ride back to Kentucky. Kentucky. >> Kentucky. >> This is beautiful. Y'all probably have way bigger stuff than >> I agree. This is an actual >> This is something I'm going to be honest. This is a complete waste of time. You are wasting our time. >> But you put yourself in this situation, right? >> Yes. >> Unfortunately, >> I'm sorry. >> Going down. >> It is what it is. Listen, we I don't like to give people hard times and don't give me hard times. I would appreciate you don't give us any more of a hard time. And that means just telling us the truth. That's all I want. The truth. That's all I care. >> I got her luggage out. I got her little Aldi bag out and and I open her door, you know, trying to be a gentleman. Hey, do you need some help or anything? She said, "No, no." I open the other door and I say, "Look, you got some more stuff. I can help you carry it to the bag and put it there." And she say, "Oh, yeah. You take this." But for some reason, she kept her pillow in a blankety and she was hiding something. I wasn't sure. I didn't want to question her because, you know, we already had like a bad bad vibe at first, [clears throat] you know, like, "Okay, whatever." So, I check her out and I like in my head I'm like one less person to worry. >> I'm ready to go home and not worry about anything else. I'll go to exit 224 to fill up my gas and I open the compartment because I know my wallet was there because a passenger before her it was there and I confirmed it >> where exactly in your >> um on you know how they got that the two seat the driver and the passenger right in the center. >> The center console >> called console. Yeah. And I know my wallet was there. So when I open it to I'm like, "Oh no, why is the wallet not there?" I look for the 20 bucks. I'm like, "Okay, it's not there." So I check the whole car because I'm I know I did not move it. >> But hey, just in case. You never know. >> Yeah. >> I start getting notification on the phone that my car being used, which I'm going to show you the notification. >> Yeah. If you can send those to me, I'd appreciate that your car is your card is being used. Yeah. Know, you should be good. Like I said, it it was 100% her. >> You can use my ra. She ended up admitting it to us. >> Charges emerged. Wallet theft, access device fraud, and controlled substance possession. The encounter began as a consensual contact, the lowest threshold of police interaction. Florida v. Bostic, 1991. No justification is required to initiate a consensual encounter. Test. Would a reasonable person feel free to decline officer requests or terminate the interaction? At the encounter's outset, no detention had occurred. The subject was free to leave. I beg to differ. It showed right in there that the officer told her, "Hey, until we get this figured out, you you got to stand by here." Nobody in their right mind would think that they were free to leave. I think that this um analysis is wrong. I think they had enough to stop her. >> Requested consent before searching the subject's belongings twice with agreement received. Schneckloth vamonte 1970. Voluntary consent eliminates the fourth amendment warrant requirement. Scent validity is assessed through totality of circumstances. No single factor is determinative. Multiple officers present during an active felony investigation weigh against voluntariness of consent. >> This is true. I mean, if there were more than two or three officers there, uh, she could make the argument that she felt coerced into making the um into giving consent. In other words, she acquiesced. She didn't give consent. She just gave in and said, "Okay, go ahead. do what you guys got to do. There's a million of you here. There's only one at me. That's not what happened, though. She was already being detained as it was. Even so, having two officers at the scene would not be a factor. >> Terry V. Ohio, 1968. Brief investigatory detention requires only reasonable suspicion, not probable cause. Chenable suspicion. Specific articulable facts supporting belief that criminal activity is a foot. These held reasonable suspicion from two independent sources. The store report and ride share complaint. Dual source reasonable suspicion substantially exceeds the Terry threshold. Detention was constitutionally sound. Asking the subject to remain at the scene converted the consensual encounter into a Terry stop. Technne infination a syimmetry. Officers asserted awareness of events before the subject had disclosed any details. VC cup 1969. Misrepresenting evidence strength during non-custodial questioning is permissible. does not automatically render resulting statements involuntary when applied in the pre-custody phase. Constraint Frasier protection applies in the non-custodial phase only. Custody attaches. The fifth amendment governs and Miranda obligations begin. Amendment Miranda analasis v Arizona 1966. Custodial interrogation requires advisement of constitutional rights before questioning rights. >> Okay, they're kind of correct on this here. this I think it's AI analysis but when you're going to ask questions of somebody they have to be mirandized if they are in custody. So if they're no longer free to leave it requires custody. It requires interrogation meaning you're asking questions that might elicit a criminal implication. It requires that the subject that you're talking to understands what the Miranda warnings actually are. And it also requires a clear waiver. The only thing that would happen if they talked to her about committing crimes and she admitted to crimes before Miranda and and she was in custody is they'll throw those statements out. They might throw those statements out in court, but they won't necessarily throw the evidence out. Now, if she says, "Well, yes, I stole the wallet and it's right there in that pocket." That could be an issue if there was no Miranda read. However, these are all edited, so I don't know at what point they read Miranda. They may have. Hey, hit subscribe if you like this stuff. But I've also got this other channel called the Comm Center. It's true crime cases from the 911 call to the verdict. Check it out. The link is in the description. >> Use of statements against suspect, right to counsel, appointed counsel if indigent. Miranda is not triggered by suspicion alone. Custody and interrogation must both be simultaneously present. Custodial threshold states v Mendenhal 1980. Custody exists when a reasonable person would not feel free to leave. Standard is objective judged from the reasonable person's perspective, not the officer's intent. Number of officers, duration of stop, scope of questioning, degree of restraint on movement. Toise one, consensual, no detention, subject free to leave. Two, investigatory reasonable suspicion brief Terry detention pre-iranda phase. Three, de facto custody. Confirmed crimes. Identity exposed. Movement cretailed. Drugrelated questioning occurred during phase three, the de facto custodial phase. Point. Multiple felony admissions recorded. False identity confirmed. Subject detained at scene. A reasonable person in those circumstances would not have felt free to walk away. No Miranda advisement is audible in the body cam record prior to the controlled substance admission. This is the most consequential legal vulnerability in this encounter for the prosecution. Court finds custody existed when drug questions were posed. The admission faces a suppression motion. Exclusionary rule. Evidence obtained in violation of Miranda is inadmissible at trial. Fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine extends exclusion to all evidence causally derived from the violation. United States 1963 established this derivative exclusion principle. Physical evidence recovered as a result of the suppressed admission could also be excluded. Timmer v. McCarti, 1984. Routine roadside detentions are not automatically custodial. However, Burkimer was premised on a routine traffic stop, not a confirmed multifelony investigation. Cumulated weight of confirmed crimes and identity exposure distinguishes this from a routine stop and fraud admissions were made during phase 2 when Miranda had not yet attached. statements were obtained lawfully in the non-custodial phase. The fraud and theft charges survive. Only the drug charge is at risk unless the court also finds phase 2 statements were derivatively tainted. Charge one 18 USC paragraph 1029. Subject admitted on camera to attempting to use all of the stolen credit cards. Each unauthorized card swipe is a discrete count. Maximum penalty 10 years imprisonment per count. See? >> Okay. what what they're citing here are federal offenses. I doubt that this would be charged federally. The threshold is very low. It's fraudulent use of a credit card in the state of Florida. Uh because that credit card didn't belong to her. U but these are US codes. This this 18 USC, this is fraud and related activity and they're talking about a 10-year punishment and all that. That's all federal. That that that wouldn't apply here. On camera admission eliminates the authentication challenge typically required at trial. Decline transaction receipts independently corroborate each attempted use. Male name on cards presented by a female subject provides additional independent corroboration of unauthorized use. Charge carries the strongest evidentiary foundation of all charges identified in this encounter. Two, theft state law framework requires taking of property belonging to another with intent to permanently deprive. Three elements are established through victim testimony alone without reliance on subjects statements. The driver confirmed the wallet's presence before the ride and its absence after. Constitutionally durable. Mobile fraud alerts received seconds after drop off independently corroborate the theft timeline. Charge survives any Miranda suppression ruling. It rests entirely on independent victim evidence. Three controlled substance possession 21844. Crystalmethamphetamine is a schedule 2 controlled substance. >> Okay, again we're talking about federal statutes that would not apply. These US codes are actual US codes, but the threshold is so low here. The federal government is not going to charge you for simply possessing a meth pipe at an airport. That's going to be a local jurisdiction issue. 89313 Florida statute possession of uh drug paraphernalia >> under 21 USC 20 high abuse potential severe psychological or physical dependence simple possession under par 44 up to 1 year state penalties for methamphetamine far exceed this charge rests entirely on the unadvised admission making the Miranda determination fully dispositive charge four false identification to law enforcement providing a false name to law enforcement is a criminal Criminal offense in all 50 states. False name failed database verification within minutes triggering direct investigative escalation. False identification during a lot investigation is an aggravating factor in most state statutes. Charge is self-proving from the body cam record. No admission from the subject is required. February 16, 2026 confirmed on body cam. No public record of charges filed or case resolution identified at time of analysis. record supports four charge categories with varying constitutional durability. Central prosecution risk fifth amendment suppression of the crystal meth admission and fraud charges stand independently constitutionally insulated from the Miranda issue. One B+ professional investigative technique maintained across a complex multi-offense field encounteration asymmetry lawfully deployed under Fraser v Cup 1969 during the non-custodial phase verbal consent obtained before each search fourth amendment compliance via Schneckloth maintained this multiple voluntary disclosure opportunities extended before investigative escalation deduction no Miranda adisement administered before controlled substance questioning The court finds de facto custody existed at that juncture. The drug admission faces suppression. Procedural gap with potentially dispositive evidentary consequences. Final grade B+ two. Grade A. Parallel store investigation produced independently sustainable evidence without reliance on subjects admissions. Male name on declined receipts. An observation independently inconsistent with the female subject. Independent corroboration survives any Miranda suppression ruling on other charges. Shoplifting allegation accurately resolved. All merchandise confirmed. Present. No overcharging. Deduction. Shared Miranda adisement responsibility during joint custodial investigation. Grade eight. Chabdic. Grade D. Four simultaneous offense categories across a single 10-minute encounter. Multiple counts of 18,000 1029. Each unauthorized card swipe a separate federal felony. False identity provided to law enforcement. Obstruction charge plus direct escalation against herself. Amendment. Right to remain silent, not invoked at any point during extended questioning. Successive choice, theft, fraud, false ID, drug admission, compounded criminal exposure, ical conduct during arrest, and partial honesty prevent a failing grade. Final grade D. Two lessons learned. For law enforcement, Miranda attaches upon custody, not upon the formal declaration of arrest. When a reasonable person would not feel free to leave, Miranda obligations are triggered. Early advisement costs nothing and protects the evidentiary value of every subsequent admission obtained to parallel investigation. Contact and cover builds independently sustainable evidence chains. Corroboration derived without reliance on subject statements survive suppression challenges at trial. For the public, the fifth amendment right to remain silent is available before formal arrest. Investigatory stop begins. Silence is constitutionally protected and cannot be used against you. False identification is detectable within minutes through modern database verification. Providing it compounds criminal exposure and accelerates investigative escalation against the provider. Each unauthorized card swipe is a separate federal felony. Volume of attempts multiplies charge exposure. Voluntary disclosure during the non-custodial phase without council present is strategically disadvantageous. This is why it's incredibly important to not listen to AI assessments. They got just about everything wrong. Now, on camera, she admitted to taking the lift driver's wallet, attempting to use all of his credit cards, and giving officers a false name. She also admitted to having crystal meth on her person, but it was a pipe. The store's merchandise was fully accounted for. There was nothing actually taken from the shop. The transcript identified four potential charge categories, including theft, access device fraud, false identification to law enforcement, and possession of that controlled substance. She was sentenced after pleading guilty to some of those charges to 90 days. She had already served 29 by that time. Go watch the original video. It's linked in the description. If you like this video, watch this next one. Be safe and don't get body cammed.