Well, I'm just going to ring it up over here. And I'll get you a total up front. >> Okay, cool. >> Do you want >> Can I just pay for the merchandise with the card? >> It's too late now. >> I have a dog. I don't live with anybody and I have a dog at home. He's going to have nobody to take care of him. >> You can go ahead and leave with your receipt. >> You probably should have thought of that beforehand. I mean, don't you think? >> I realize that. >> March 5th, 2024. Officers were dispatched to a Target store in Georgia after loss prevention flagged an ongoing shoplifting incident. And not just by any shopper. The moment this woman walked through the door, loss prevention recognized her from a prior incident. A different Target, a different state, Hilton Head. She had been on their radar before she touched a thing. A white female in her late 40s, she had reportedly wasted no time once she entered the store. Jewelry and a gaming headset were already concealed inside a container before police even arrived on scene. Officers were briefed in real time and waited for the suspect to pass all points of sale before making contact. What they found inside that box would total nearly $2,400. And what she said next, on camera, without anyone asking, would become the most damaging evidence of all. >> She's pushing loading her cart up, pushing out. Um at the Hilton Head store. >> Mhm. >> So, we recognized her when she came in. >> Yeah. >> And she already selected jewelry, a gaming headset. She put it inside a container. She's selecting a few more things. >> Mhm. >> So, she's going to end up trying to push out most likely. Um one of our coworkers says she knows her from back in the day. And apparently in no >> Heavy set? >> Huh? >> Heavy set? Was that the heavy set female? >> No, no, no, no. She's slender. >> So, the lady up there >> Yeah, she she doesn't to that strong. You could probably take her. >> No, no, no, no, no, no. I know I know somebody in the past, but >> No, she's a white woman like in her mid-40s. >> Okay. >> Great dresser, white pants. >> Skinny. >> that outfit, but not her. Um but she's uh my buddy's going to let me know when she's like headed out. Okay. Cuz if she for some weird reason ends up paying for anything, I don't want to stop her, you know, unlock like >> right, but but if if that's a store we just go by the store policy cuz once if you read the code section >> [sighs] >> pertaining to shoplifting >> Mhm. >> All right, once the person um conceal >> Mhm. >> Once the person conceal you know, that's it. That's shoplifting right there. >> Yeah. >> But I know your policy don't she won't she must pass >> all points of sale. >> Points of sale. So, that y'all got y'all own you know law, then y'all got up y'all >> Right, right. Policy and law are obviously way different. Um apparently the lady that shoplifted back in November grabbed her ex-husband's girlfriend and tried to put her in her car. >> Yeah. >> Police. Take her? I don't know if she was trying to kidnap her. Apparently, she tried to handcuff her. I don't know the the whole details of the story, but apparently she tried to grab her ex-husband's new girlfriend and tried to handcuff her, put her in her car. >> Okay. Once she walked back there >> No, she's grabbing more stuff. >> That's a felony. >> Yeah, maybe it's over 500. >> Maybe it's a felony if it reach 500, right? >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Yeah, some of these people that we stop they're like, "What? It's a felony? I thought it was a thousand." >> It's over 500 and over. >> In Georgia, yeah, it's 500. I think in California it's like a thousand. >> Thousand, 1,500. The cell phone increased their price. >> Here is a legal point that matters before we get to the stop. Under OCGA section 16-8-14, the crime is legally complete the moment merchandise is willfully concealed with intent to appropriate. The pass all points of sale rule you just heard from loss prevention that is Target's internal policy, not the law. Officers could have detained her the moment that gaming headset went into the box. Target chose a higher threshold to minimize false stop civil liability, not because the law demanded it. >> Hi. >> Hey, ma'am. How's it going? I know we're going to detain you for shoplifting here. So, you're not going anywhere, but we're just going to check your box here. >> Sir, you don't have to detain me. I'll just >> to the AP office. >> Just follow me, ma'am. >> Just follow him, please. >> Dude, I don't need to be detained. >> Yes, ma'am, you do. Please follow him. >> Please don't do this to me. >> Ma'am, no one's doing this to you. You need to follow him that way. >> Please. >> It's either you come with us without cuffs or with cuffs. Choice is yours. >> at home. >> That's fine. With or without cuffs? Choice is yours. >> Are you taking me to jail? >> You're being detained right now. Are you being detained with or without cuffs? >> Are you taking me to jail? >> See you in camera. Keep it accurate. Keep it clean. >> All right, you don't have to follow me. >> No, you're being detained. He can he can touch you. He can he can touch you. Okay. >> Under Terry versus Ohio, 392 US 1, 1968, a stop requires only reasonable suspicion, not probable cause. Here, officers had live identification from loss prevention, camera confirmation of concealment, and a prior incident on record. That is not suspicion. That is an airtight foundation. The detention was lawful from the first contact. >> You got a car? Yeah, you can come over here. >> Well, I was just going to ring you up over here. >> And I'll get you a total right now. >> Okay. Do you want? >> Can I just pay for the merchandise? >> It's too late now. >> I have a dog. I don't live with anybody and I have a dog at home that's going to have nobody to take care of him. >> You can go ahead and leave if you want to receive a citation. You should have thought of that beforehand. And don't steal. >> I realize that. >> What she just said voluntarily, without being asked, is going to matter in court. Can I just pay for the merchandise? That question presupposes two facts she never contested. That the merchandise was hers and that she had not paid. Two concessions delivered on camera in front of officers under Federal Rule of Evidence 801 D2. A party's own statement used against them is not hearsay. She built the prosecution's corroborating case herself on camera in front of witnesses. >> Am I being arrested? >> We don't know yet. >> Do you have an ID? You're being detained right now. Do you have an ID? >> I'm sorry. >> Do you have an ID? Driver's license? >> No. >> No? >> So you were driving without a license? >> What's that? >> So you were driving without a license? >> I don't have it on me. It's at home. >> So you were driving without a license Huh? What's your What's your name? >> I have to figure out something to do with my dog. Is there no way you can just cite me? >> No. No, that's not the way it works, ma'am. I'm sorry, but that's not the way it works. That's not the way it works. >> My >> dog is going to have nowhere to go. >> Yeah, you see all this stuff? Yeah, yeah, you good with me. Yeah, I ain't going to do nothing. See, the way this this works, this is the way it works. You You're 48 years old, right? >> Yeah. >> You see all this stuff? You should have think about it. This is a huge store. They got cameras everywhere. All right? And whatever you were Whatever you took, they see it in camera. And whatever you paid for, they could tell whatever you paid for. All right? You see what I'm saying? Yeah, so that's pretty much a poor decision on your side. Very poor decision. Very poor decision. You know all these cameras here? They got your property. They got your merchandise, your items inside this store. And you It doesn't matter what it is. And if you feel like you want to escape scan or whatever you want to do, >> If I want to what? >> They could I'm saying, even if you escape scan, escape scan mean you're pretending like you're paying for an item. >> Okay. >> Okay? They could tell you exactly Their Their video camera could zoom in on you. They could zoom right in on your on your phone, your credit card, to see exactly what you're doing. Okay? We've been here for like 30 minutes? They watching you watching you watching you watching you doing all this. Come on. Come on. Come on, man. You You're too grown for this. Come on. >> Okay. Guys, I'm begging you. Please just let me go get my dog. >> I don't I don't see how that works. I mean, the unfortunate thing is the dog is caught in the middle of it, but you know, that doesn't change what you've done here. Correct. >> There's nothing you guys can do to help me. >> No. Correct. Yeah. >> We basically have a case on you. All right, this is not your first time doing this. And yeah, there's nothing We're going to get a total They're getting a total right now for all the ink. Um it's definitely over $100. So. I'm not I I don't send you I any of that, but the amount of being that you had is probably over $500 just for today plus what you have on you already. So. >> This has to be an arrest situation? >> Uh with this amount, yeah. Um right now you're sitting at $2,400 for what you took. >> But that's my misdemeanor doesn't have to be an arrest. >> Yes. Yes, ma'am. >> The $2,400 total did two things at once. It crossed Georgia's felony shoplifting threshold of $500 under OCGA section 16-8-14-B-1-A. That placed this case firmly in felony territory. Below the felony line, citation and release is an option. At felony, arrest is mandatory. It also removed the officer's discretion entirely. The moment that number was read aloud, the outcome was final. >> Yes. >> Does this mean that they'll be keeping me overnight or >> I'm not sure. Um I'm not sure how Chatham County does their jail. Um could be a couple hours, I don't know. Usually it's a couple hours with like shoplifting and stuff from what I've seen, but I can't like guarantee you anything. >> What about my car in the parking lot? Can it stay here? >> Yeah, it is. >> I mean, is there any chance they're going to keep me overnight? >> I'm I'm not sure. Yeah, it just depends. That's a question for the jail. >> I really am just because of my dog. I'm just concerned. >> I I understand. I mean, if I were you, what I would do would be to make arrangements for your dog right now. >> That's what I was going to ask. But I mean, in these types of situations, is it typically an overnight stay? >> Um I mean, at this time it could go either way just because it's 4:00, so. But like you said, for shoplifting, usually a couple hours. >> Okay. >> But I mean, that's again, that's a question for over at the jail. >> Totally ridiculous question, but the money that we paid for the lamp box, do I get that back? >> Um, yeah, you you can keep the box. You can put in your car or we can issue a refund for the box itself cuz you did >> refund will be fine. >> Okay. You did pay for the box, we saw that. Um, just not the contents inside. >> I'm going to receive it. >> Yes, thank you. >> I mean, isn't usually we have overnight? Right? I'm trying to make arrangements for my dog and my little one. >> I mean, we can't we can keep telling you the same thing over and over, but >> I know, but you do this a lot, I'm sure. So, what do you typically see? >> I mean, typically do I arrest people for shoplifting at Target a lot? Not necessarily. >> Shoplifting at Target? >> So, um, I mean, it could go either way, like I told you before. You can ask him when you're out there. In the event that it does be an overnight thing, I would, again, make arrangements for your dog now so that either way you're covered. You know what I'm saying? >> That's what I'm trying to do. >> Right. >> Is this typically like a transfer of this kind of bond amount or >> Uh, these are questions that I cannot answer for you. That would be up to the judge. >> I know you can't know for sure. >> Yeah, no, I don't know at all. I mean, that's whatever the judge decides based on a many circumstances. >> If there is a bond, is a person allowed to bond themselves out like using a debit card? I have an unlimited one. >> What's that? >> You don't get a bond if it's a felony. You got to see a judge. You can't bond out. You got to see a judge. Of course. >> So, I'm not going to get out today. >> No. Unless it changes, unless the court changes their um, but we will go, we will verify for you. >> Okay. >> But now as long as I tell you once it's a felony, you must face a judge. Unless it changes beyond my knowledge, you know. We just officers, we don't we we're not law makers. >> Okay, so no bond? >> No, what I'm saying is this, based on my knowledge, whenever it's a felony amount, you do not post a bond. So, maybe after you see a judge, then you get the judge will decide whatever you do. I know sometimes you post bond and all that stuff, but sometimes you got to see a judge first. This is a felony amount. >> I I I can't I can't ask >> So, when you see a judge first, then they will decide. >> I thought you said there was a chance I could be out today. >> Who me? >> No, no, this is me. >> No, I said that's up to the judge. That's what the judge is going to decide in the courts and all that. >> they will decide all that. >> We don't decide that, so. >> But with it being this time of day, it's not going to get decided today, is >> I don't think so. >> No, no, no. >> So, it's an overnight there overnight? >> Yeah, like I said, we we we like I said, based on my knowledge, it's they you see a judge like in the morning. Yeah, okay. I don't want to give her information that's is wrong. Misleading information. You understand what I'm saying? >> I I do. So, there's there's zero chance I could get out today? >> I like I said, maybe you go there they say, "Hey, time for you to go and see the judge." I don't know. >> All right, Ms. Hill. Put the handcuffs on you real quick. I'll take your hat off here. >> Okay. >> What's that receipt there? Is that for your refund? >> Yeah. >> Okay. I don't know if I can put it in there, but >> The officer is correct on the no bond question. Under Georgia law, a felony arrest requires a first appearance hearing before a magistrate before bail can be set. This is not officer discretion. It is statutory procedure. Unlike misdemeanor shoplifting, where citation and release is routine, at the felony level, she stays in custody until a judge decides. >> Hands behind your back. You'll come before you. >> Now for the full legal breakdown. Let us work through the charges, the law, and what it all means. Primary charge felony shoplifting under OCGA section 16-8-14. Georgia's theft by shoplifting statute. Under section 16-8-14A, a person commits this offense when with intent to appropriate merchandise without paying or to deprive the owner of possession or value they conceal or take possession of goods from a retail establishment. The felony elevation applies under section 16-8-14B1A when merchandise value exceeds $500. Every element is documented in this footage. Intent to appropriate, she concealed merchandise and paid for none of it. Her own words confirmed it when she asked to pay retroactively. Active concealment loss prevention watched it happen live on camera. Retail establishment Target, not in dispute. Total $2,400, 4.8 times the felony floor. There is a second charge here that most people miss. Driving without a valid license. Under OCGA section 40-5-20A, no person shall drive on Georgia highways without a valid driver's license. When officers asked for ID, she confirmed she had no license, not on her and not at home. She had driven herself to this store. That is a separate independent offense from the shoplifting charge. Was the initial detention lawful? Yes. And not even close. Terry versus Ohio sets the standard at reasonable articulable suspicion. Officers had loss preventions in-person identification from a prior incident. Live camera documentation and a real-time briefing en route. That combination meets and substantially exceeds reasonable suspicion. By first contact, probable cause had already been established. Loss prevention explained that concealment alone satisfies Georgia law, Target policy. However, requires passing all points of sale first. This is a business decision. In civil litigation, a clean exit past checkout removes ambiguity about intent. The policy served the store, not the law in this case. It also delivered a cleaner evidentiary package. Now, the most legally significant moment in this footage, when she voluntarily asked, "Can I just pay for the merchandise?" She produced what evidentiary law calls an admission by party opponent. Under Federal Rule of Evidence 801D2, a party's own out-of-court statement offered against them is not hearsay. It is fully admissible. This admission is powerful for three reasons. First, it was spontaneous, not the product of any questioning. That removes any Miranda-based suppression argument for this specific statement. Second, it presupposes guilt. She did not ask what she was being accused of. She asked to pay retroactively. Third, it was made on camera, in front of officers. Her follow-up added a second on-camera acknowledgement to the record. Based on what is visible in the footage, Miranda rights were not read on camera prior to the formal arrest. Miranda versus Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 1966, requires warnings before any custodial interrogation. Two protective factors apply here. First, the admission was spontaneous, not in response to questioning. Rhode Island versus Innis, 446 US 291, 1980, defined interrogation as express questioning or its functional equivalent. A volunteered, unprompted statement bypasses this entirely. It cannot be suppressed on Miranda grounds, regardless of custody. Second, the AP office exchange was largely the suspect asking questions of the officers, not the reverse. For any officer-directed post-arrest questions, failure to Mirandize creates suppressibility risk. That asterisk remains in the record. The outcome felony shoplifting charge, lifetime ban from Target, with a $2,400 total and an on-camera admission, the prosecution begins this case in an exceptionally strong position. The record was built before she ever reached the parking lot. The officers receive a B plus. From first contact, both maintained calm, professional authority throughout nearly 10 minutes of an emotionally charged interaction. They correctly distinguished between detention and arrest, accurately advised on the no-bond implications of a felony charge, and never asked interrogation-style questions that might complicate admissibility. However, Miranda rights were not visible on camera at any point, despite the encounter transitioning to a formal felony arrest. The spontaneous admission survives Miranda analysis on its own, but post-arrest questioning without Miranda creates suppressibility exposure. That procedural gap is what keeps this from an A overall. A well-executed detention with one Miranda-shaped asterisk. Ms. Hill receives a D. Her single most consequential decision came inside that AP office. Can I just pay for the merchandise? That one question, unprompted, on camera, handed the prosecution an implicit admission. She did not ask what she was being accused of. She presupposed both possession and non-payment. Combined with loss prevention's direct camera documentation of the concealment, that sentence closes the prosecution's case on intent. She also did not invoke her right to remain silent at any point, a constitutional right available from the moment of detention. To her credit, she remained non-violent and compliant throughout, which preserved her from additional charges in the physical encounter. However, the totality tells a compounding story. $2,400 in merchandise, a prior incident at another Target, a driving without license charge surfacing in the same stop, and an on-camera admission with no exit left unused. Target loss prevention receives an A-. From the moment of recognition, they executed this stop correctly. They identified her on entry from a prior incident, monitored her live on camera as she concealed the merchandise, briefed responding officers in real time, and held their position until she cleared all points of sale. Under United States versus Cortez, 449 US 411, 1981, law enforcement may consider prior contact and established behavioral patterns as part of the totality of circumstances. Loss prevention's identification from a prior incident is constitutionally valid. One qualifier, background information about the alleged November incident and the alleged incident involving the ex-husband's girlfriend was offered with the word apparently flagging unverified second-hand information. Any written affidavit must maintain that same precision. Three lessons from this footage. First, consummation is the crime, not the exit. Most people believe shoplifting only counts once you leave the store. Under OCGA section 16-814, the law disagrees. The offense is complete the moment merchandise is concealed with intent. When that headset went into the box, the crime was done. The door had nothing to do with it. Second, every word in a detention room is evidence. Can I just pay for the merchandise? Is the kind of statement that defense attorneys spend careers trying to suppress? It was not coerced. No officer asked her about the merchandise. She volunteered it. From the moment of detention, remain silent and request an attorney. Every word before that, spontaneous or not, can be used against you. Third, prior behavior creates present liability. Loss prevention did not catch her by scanning a crowd. They recognized her by face and behavioral pattern from an incident at a different Target in a different state. In retail environments with shared loss prevention intelligence networks, a shoplifting incident creates a profile that follows you across jurisdictions. The recognition that triggered this entire chain of events happened before she touched a single item. If you made it this far, thank you. You now understand how concealment law works. What makes a spontaneous statement admissible? And why one question in that AP office may have sealed a conviction. If this kind of breakdown is useful to you, subscribe and hit the bell. Every video gets the same treatment. The footage, the law, and what it actually means. See you on the next one.