PROSECUTE. I DIDN'T TAKE ANYTHING, SIR. SIR, I switched the barcode. FIRST OF ALL, I DIDN'T SWITCH ANY BARCODES or anything, and I'm going to sue Target. Oh, heck no. >> On August 9th, 2023, officers were dispatched to a Target store after loss prevention flagged a woman with 32 documented prior incidents. The suspect, identified as Delma Grant, was an older woman who allegedly ran a precise retail fraud scheme. She would remove price stickers from cheap 50-cent plastic cups and bowls, affix them to clothing and housewares worth far more, then scan only the cheap barcodes at self-checkout, paying cents on the dollar for items that should have cost significantly more. According to LP, the scheme had been running since 2020 with an estimated $2,400 in losses to the store. On this particular visit, officers were already on site before she reached the register, and every moment was captured on camera. >> Hey, guys. >> What's up? >> Got a lady, she ticket switches stuff. She's She ticket switches like I don't know. She ticket switches using sock barcodes usually. >> Mhm. >> Um What was the face value? Like 2,400. We have a name for her. I'm not sure if it's 100% accurate, but we have her as Delma Grant. >> Delma Grant? >> Yes. >> That's an old name. >> Yeah, she's an old lady. I don't feel bad for her, though. She's She knows what she's doing. Like, she's been doing this for a while. Like, just to give you some insight, $2,400 >> How many No, 32 incidences? >> Yeah, so she's been doing this for a while. See, usually what she does is she grabs like little sock barcodes that are like a dollar, a little bit less. >> Mhm. >> So, put that on whatever else she's buying. >> And then she'll actually go through the checkout line? >> Mhm. >> But she'll scan the socks? >> Yeah, she scans the socks like 50 times. >> Yeah. >> So while she's scanning, can you pull up like what all those things are? Okay, okay. >> She's been doing this for so long that we have all these different incidents on her. >> Yeah. >> She's been here a while already? >> Um she's been here for I can't walk my lunch. She's been here for like 30 minutes. I'm expecting her to head to the front seat. >> Is she a nurse? >> I have no idea. I know the last time she came in though she was wearing scrubs, so that's kind of how I picked up on her today. I was like, okay, same scrubs. She's she's been hitting us forever. I know her incidents started 2020, so she's been doing it for 3 years now. I think she's doing the switching in there where she's changing the barcodes out. Cuz what she did she selected like an abundance of those >> But she just tape them on? >> Well, they're sticky is what it is, so um those 50 cent cups and 50 cent bowls like the little plastic ones >> Oh, yeah. >> She selected a lot of those is what I'm thinking. Cuz I've seen her do it here before, but what she's probably doing is taking the barcodes off of those and putting them putting them onto the apparel items that she's selected and the other stuff, so she can pay 50 cents for those. Oh, no, no, no. We'll get her once she pays at POS and once she exits. We have to like Target makes us let them leave. That way it shows like there's no possible way they could have intended to properly pay. Like that's why they call it the last point of sale, like there's no way that she could have paid properly. >> What the LP just described, affixing a cheaper barcode to a higher value item and scanning it at the register, is not a gray area under retail theft law. Most states specifically codify ticket switching as a larceny by deception or fraud. The defendant misrepresents an item's price to induce the cashier, or in this case the automated self-checkout system, to accept less than its true value, the crime is complete the moment that fraudulent scan processes, not when the customer exits the building. That is precisely why LP waited for her to reach the last point of sale before calling in officers. Once she scanned those cheap barcodes for high-value items and tendered payment, completed deceptive intent was locked in on camera with no innocent explanation remaining. >> I just needed her to get out of the picture at this point. And like I showed them, I've got 30-plus incidents of her switching barcodes. So, I know you guys technically could pull her for defacing the merchandise, but we don't want to do that cuz it's just Target won't let us do that. But my boss did give us permission like if she for some reason like maybe she sees the cop car or something, she abandons it, we will we can pursue trespass. All right. So, oh yeah, she's still ticket switching barcode. So, see, that and look at that's a big black bowl that she scanned. That's a small light little cup that she scanned. So, we're good. Let's just wait till she pass all points of sale with it then. Can you guys tell the difference? Do you see that's a big black bowl and this is like a small white cup? And then you should see her doing it again. And the little paper bowls. Yes, so she's still doing the cup. So, we're good. We just need her to leave now. Perfect. >> I wonder where she dumped the cups though. >> She dumped them. She left them right there. She left them where she dumped the other stuff. All right. Hey, I'm sorry to bother. Um so, I have someone right here at the POS. She is ticket switch. She switched barcodes. She scanned everything in, but her card might decline. It looks like she's struggling to render payment. If that's the case, the police are saying they have enough to like charge her with shoplifting because she switched the barcodes, but what should we do? You see, we can? >> Yeah, Target can press charges as long as the police want to. Um I'm I'm willing to prosecute on that. >> Okay. Okay. Okay. All right. Thank you. All right. Bye. Hey, so she's still at the POS and she's been at the POS for 20 minutes now trying to render payment and the officer told me that >> the first time I got my baton, I went home and I played with it and I couldn't get this to close. I was like >> So, he said she got something if you guys want to pull her or you guys pull her. We'll do it. All right. Thanks, Mark. >> Go ahead. I'll I'll take your lead. Got it. >> Hey, ma'am. Drop your phone for me. >> Uh-huh. >> Drop your phone for me. >> Yes. >> You're under arrest right now, okay? Place your hands behind Place your hands behind your back. We'll tell you as soon as you're in cuffs. >> What I did? >> We'll tell you as soon as you're in cuffs. >> What did I do? >> We'll We'll tell you Let me get some handcuffs on you and then um we'll bring you to [snorts] the back and we'll explain everything. Yeah. Sorry. >> What did I do, sir? >> Well, I'll let you know. Just let me get these cuffs on you real quick. Don't want to mess up your watch. >> Uh-huh. What in the world did I do? >> We'll explain. Just give us a second. Would you like me to grab your cell phone for you? >> Yes. What did I do, man? >> We'll explain it in the office, okay? You going to move it over there? Did you want me to disconnect the call? >> Yes. What did I do? >> I'll take your purse, miss. >> Okay. >> So, the loss prevention officer is going to explain everything to you. Um we're just going to sit down, have a conversation. He'll explain everything. >> Right. Cuz I didn't do I mean, for y'all to come up and just handcuff me like that in front of everyone and I didn't do anything. >> everything back here. >> How you all going to handcuff me for >> Have a seat over here on the uh the uh bench for me. >> Yes. >> Let's go. You can sit there or there, either way. >> Yeah, I I don't want to sit down. >> Sit down. >> I don't want to sit down, sir, because this this hurt me. It hurt my arms. >> When the officer said, "You are under arrest right now." The legal threshold crossed was probable cause, not merely reasonable suspicion. LP's documented file of 32 prior incidents, combined with real-time surveillance confirming the barcode swap and the completed POS scan, gave officers sufficient grounds. Notice that the officer did not immediately state the reason for the arrest, instead deferring the explanation until after handcuffing. That is procedurally standard. Officers are not required to announce the reason at the precise moment of arrest, provided the legal justification exists. However, delaying that explanation in a crowded retail environment significantly elevated the subject's emotional response, a pattern we are about to see play out. >> You're switching switching the barcodes. >> Okay. >> Uh >> Huh? >> Switching the barcodes of an item is a crime. >> I didn't switch no barcode. >> We have you on camera now, and we >> What did you do? Sir, you didn't see me switching nothing. I didn't switch no barcode anywhere. >> Yes, ma'am. >> Sir, show me, please. >> I have I have it right here. They've seen it. They've >> Sir, no. Uh-uh. You you need to show me. Show me what did I do. >> You don't need me to show >> Okay. Show me what did I do. >> You You switched the barcodes of the items that you rang up. >> Sir, Sir, I promise you I didn't switch no barcode. >> I We have it on >> Sir, I didn't switch no barcode. >> What's your name? >> I I didn't switch no barcode. Only thing I came here to do, I first [laughter] I came here I was going to change my pajamas, but I didn't have I couldn't get into the time. I was >> What? >> I came >> The time and how you made the purchase. >> Like I Yeah, I came >> You changed your pajamas? >> Yes, I I had I bought me some pajamas yesterday. Change. Yeah, but then when I got to the register um she told me it was fine for me to go ahead and put that in there. I don't have anything else. >> Right. I'm just looking for you got ID in here, ma'am? >> No, my my ID and everything is in the car. >> All right. What's your name, ma'am? >> And and then for you to go you you're not supposed to just search my my items. >> Well, you're arrested right now, ma'am. So >> Yes, but what I'm saying is arrested for what? >> Shoplifting. >> Shoplifting? >> Please sit down. >> Sir, show me proof that I shoplifted anything. >> We just told you. >> Sir, I didn't I know I did not. No, I did not. >> Okay, have a seat for me. >> That oh, hell no. Uh-uh. Uh-uh. Uh-uh. Only thing I did, I went and I bought what I had I I was trying to get my money off the charm the whole time. >> What's your name, ma'am? >> I'm not giving that information unless y'all tell me some stuff. >> We did. >> No, no, y'all did not. The first thing y'all did was handcuff me. >> You're under arrest for shoplifting. >> How you under arrest? First of all, sir, look here. First of all, I didn't leave out the store with anything and I didn't change no price I didn't change no prices on anything. Only thing I did was scan what I had. >> When you were scanning things, they were it was coming up as a white plastic cup. >> Listen, I scanned what I had. You're not going to sit up here and tell me that I shoplifted anything. >> Okay. >> I scanned the stuff that I had. >> That's something that if you wish to fight in court, you can fight it in court. >> Oh, I'm definitely going to fight this in court. I'm definitely going to fight this in court now. >> What's your last name, Ms. Fuller? >> Not till y'all give me some information because this is not fair. >> What do you want? >> My stuff. >> We observed you ringing up items on the camera and we >> Man, I rang up everything. No, those are mine cuz my bag is in the car. >> Uh-uh, those are mine. We are selecting those on camera. >> Those are mine. >> I have you >> No. No, no, sir. First of all, you seen me get another size. That's what I did. And if you see me if you see me when I put it back. >> Okay, I'll tell you what. We won't even prosecute for this then. We'll just prosecute for the >> Because Yeah, because the only thing you had to do is look and see that I was getting another size. That's all. >> And they didn't have another size. >> Listen carefully to what the subject keeps returning to. She did not leave the store. That claim is legally important. And it is built on a genuine misunderstanding of how this charge works. In traditional shoplifting cases, some courts historically required a suspect to exit the premises for the theft to be complete, but the charge here is not traditional shoplifting. It is larceny by deception. Complete the moment the fraudulent barcode was scanned. She did not need to walk out the door. The crime was already done at the register. >> But you still take a switch merchandise today and that's what we're >> No. Uh-uh. Uh-uh. >> Okay. >> Uh-uh. >> We have 30 items. >> And then and then you all are not supposed to search my purse. This lady right here supposed to search. >> No. >> If you would like me to search instead of the police officer >> Yes, ma'am, because this is out of order right here what they're doing. This is very much out of order. >> Do you want me to finish the search? >> Uh-uh. Put that stuff back in my purse. Put everything back in my purse. Because I'm not Uh-uh. I'm very This is very Uh-uh. Uh-uh. Uh-uh. Sir, you can put my Those are my items. >> These? >> Yes. Those are mine. You can put it right back in my purse. >> Those are my items. >> Put it back in there. >> But so we're not even going to prosecute on this. We're just GOING TO >> PROSECUTE? I DIDN'T TAKE ANYTHING, SIR. SIR, [laughter] I SWITCHED THE BARCODE. >> YES. >> FIRST OF ALL, I DIDN'T SWITCH ANY BARCODES OR ANYTHING. AND I'M GOING TO SUE TARGET. OH, heck no. Uh-uh. No. No. No. I'm going to I'm going to sue you all. I'm going to sue you all because this is not fair. This is not right. No. >> Okay. >> And then to have the police to come and handcuff me at the register around everybody? >> Okay. >> Oh, heck no. Uh-uh. >> All right. >> Didn't even DIDN'T EVEN BRING ME BACK HERE. Didn't even bring me back here. You're going to come up there and handcuff me in front of everybody. >> Okay, ma'am. >> Oh, I'm definitely going to get me a lawyer. >> Two things just happened that are going to matter significantly. First, in the middle of a string of denials, she said, verbatim, sir, I switched the barcode, before immediately walking it back. Whether that statement survives a suppression hearing is a separate question. But if it does, it is textbook, an on-camera first-person description of the criminal act volunteered spontaneously on the day of arrest. That is the most powerful category of evidence. Second, and this is what the defense will move on first. She said clearly, I am definitely going to get me a lawyer. Under Edwards versus Arizona, 451 US 477 1981, that is an unambiguous invocation of the right to counsel the moment she said it. All questioning by law enforcement should have ceased. The conversation that continued creates a real suppression risk for every statement that followed. >> I'm not talking to you because I didn't cuz you didn't do anything to me. >> Okay. >> You didn't You You stood back. >> That's the reason why we're here. >> Listen. It doesn't matter whether he's the reason. I'm talking about what you all did. Penny, just banned me out the store. >> We're doing that, too. >> I know that, but Penny, let me go. >> That's up to them, but I don't think they are. That's That's all I'm asking. >> Sir, >> we can't >> please, sir. Please, cuz this is going to be on me, and I'm going to lose my job. I work at the hospital and they search me. Please. I Please, sir. >> He's got to keep his job, too. >> I I understand it. But this is a judge. It's their call. Please, sir. I won't step back in here or nowhere around it. Please, sir. I'll lose my job if this is on here. Please. It took me so long to get this job. Please, sir. I'm just begging you. Please. Just what Just please. I just Can I just pay for the stuff that you see, sir? >> Unfortunately, we've had 33 incidents of you doing this. >> But what I've never been in here. Sir, no, you didn't >> [laughter] >> I said I've never been Oh my god. >> You've never been in this store before? Is that your first time? >> I always SHOP IN HERE. I LIVE RIGHT DOWN THE STREET. >> OKAY. >> SIR, you have never caught me in no shoplifting or anything like that in here. >> I >> Oh my god. I can't believe this. I No, no, you did not. Uh-uh. >> I have it here. >> Sir, what How much is the items? >> They >> Oh my I didn't Sir, I didn't even leave out the door. >> Yes, ma'am. Did you get a picture? >> I didn't leave the I didn't leave out the door. I didn't leave out the door. I didn't pay for anything or anything. >> It's $59.26. >> Is that a misdemeanor or felony? >> It's a misdemeanor. >> Sir, please please. I'm going to lose my job. Please, sir. >> You can pay for your bill of $59.26. >> I'm sorry. It's not It's not my choice. >> Well, whose choice is it? Whose choice >> policy. >> Well, can you talk to corporate, please? >> I already have. They I called You heard me call them earlier. And they What did they say? >> To arrest her. >> Yes. >> I have never been in this store getting caught for no shoplifting or anything, sir. Please. Can you please just Look, sir, can I Can I I beg I beg you. Please. I have nobody to get me out on bond. Not only that, not only having this charge on me I have to work tomorrow or anything. >> Well, you didn't rob the store, but you were stealing product, which is money. >> and look here. I can see if if I was going out that door and y'all ran behind me and grabbed me or whatever, but you grabbed me right there in the middle of front of everyone. You bum rushed me. You did this and that. You could have called me in the >> We didn't treat you poorly. >> did. >> We weren't rough with you. >> Sir, sir, you Yes, you know y'all was not. No, y'all was not. NO, Y'ALL WAS NOT. NO, YOU was not because my my granddaughter was on My granddaughter was on video and the way that you all came up and grabbed me by my arm and yanked it up like that in front of everybody and handcuffed me. You could have walked me in the back. >> No, ma'am. >> Yes, you could. >> know you from Adam. So, I have to treat you just like I would treat anybody else. [laughter] >> No, you don't. >> Fairly, impartially. >> No, no, you did not. No, you did not and I'm not being ar- I'm not being argumentative to you. I'm just upset and I'm embarrassed. >> I can understand that. >> I'm upset and I'm embarrassed. That's all. They They can't be worried about it as long as I know they they banging from here. >> Yes, ma'am, they did. And I'll go ahead and show you everybody that needed to sign off on it. So, there's your name, your signature, the property manager name and signature and that is my name and my signature. >> Okay, that's fine. >> All right. >> And it wasn't indefinite? >> Yes, ma'am, it is permanently. >> That's kind of harsh, isn't it? >> I didn't I didn't decide that. >> Sir, isn't that kind of harsh? >> What? >> Indefinite. >> It's not my choice. It's what It's part of the procedure. >> Yeah, you got the paperwork or something? >> Yes, ma'am. >> What's going on? So, this is a copy of the arrest report. You're going to get a copy of this and then there's going to be a case report number on here that you can pull from our system. >> Yes, sir. Oh, thank you so much. >> You got it? >> Yes. >> Ooh, let me unclip those for you real quick. >> You need it right here? >> Yeah, I'm going to just get them out of your way. >> Okay. >> You look really nice with the price. You want to help me with the seat belt? >> The charge in this case is theft by barcode or ticket switching, codified in most US state statutes as larceny by deception or organized retail theft. The specific state state statute should be verified and inserted before publishing. The total charged amount was $59.46, a misdemeanor. A second charge, defacing merchandise, was identified but declined by Target Corporate. That is their prosecutorial call to make. For theft by deception, the prosecution must prove taking another's property with intent to permanently deprive by means of price deception. All three elements are established by surveillance footage alone, independent of anything the subject said in the back office. 32 prior incidents of identical conduct eliminate accident or mistake as a defense. The barcode affixing and the POS scan were both captured on camera. The most significant procedural issue in this footage, no Miranda warning appears on camera after the arrest. Under Miranda versus Arizona, 384 US 436, 1966, any custodial interrogation by law enforcement must be preceded by Miranda advisements. The back office questioning qualifies as interrogation under Rhode Island versus Innis, 446 US 291, 1980. Express questioning designed to elicit incriminating responses from a suspect in custody without Miranda. Verbal statements made during that session are subject to suppression. This does not automatically sink the case. Surveillance footage of the barcode swap is independent of any statement, unaffected by Miranda. LP officers are private actors, not state agents. Miranda applies to government interrogation. Had only LP been questioning her, Miranda may not have been required, even post-arrest. But police were present and actively participated in the back office session. That participation brings Miranda obligations back into play. In the middle of repeated denials, the subject said, "Sir, I switched the barcode." Then immediately walked it back. If admissible, that is the prosecution's strongest single piece of evidence. A first-person, on-camera, spontaneous description of the criminal act. The defense will move to suppress it on Miranda grounds. Editors should verify original audio before publishing. Auto caption may have introduced error. When she said, "I am definitely going to get me a lawyer." That was an unambiguous invocation of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel. Under Edwards versus Arizona, 451 US 477, 1981. Once a suspect invokes the right to counsel, all police questioning must immediately cease. It may not resume without counsel present, unless the suspect herself reinitiates. Any statements after that point are vulnerable to suppression under Edwards. The purse search, post-arrest, was valid under Chimel versus California, 395 US 752, 1969. A lawful arrest authorizes a warrantless search of the person and their immediate area. The purse was on her person at the time of arrest, squarely within Chimel's scope. The subject was charged with theft for the current incident only. Prior incidents were not prosecuted due to expired limitations or insufficient evidence. She was issued a permanent ban from all Target locations. Total charge $59.46, a misdemeanor. The LP officer receives an A from identifying Grant by her scrubs at the door through the final paperwork. Every procedural checkpoint the shopkeeper's privilege under Restatement Second of Torts section 120A requires was met. Reasonable grounds, limited detention, law enforcement handoff. He waited for POS confirmation, documented 32 prior incidents, demonstrated live surveillance to officers, and secured corporate authorization before proceeding. However, back office questioning continued after the subject invoked her right to counsel. LP is not bound by Edwards versus Arizona the way police are, but continuing that conversation alongside present officers created a procedural fog. Law enforcement will need to untangle it at the suppression hearing. A textbook retail loss prevention case, the kind prosecutors actually want to take to court. The lead officer receives a B plus. His arrest was legally grounded in ample probable cause. 32 documented incidents plus real-time surveillance is a high confidence threshold. His demeanor throughout the back office confrontation was measured and professional. However, no Miranda warning is visible on camera following the arrest. The back office session goes well beyond the booking exception in Pennsylvania versus Muniz 496 US 582 1990. If Miranda was not given, post-arrest statements face a real suppression challenge. This was otherwise solid police work. One procedural gap does not erase the strength of the visual evidence, but it is the gap defense counsel will target first. The subject receives a D. Returning to the same store for her 33rd documented incident using the same method for three consecutive years eliminates any argument of isolated mistake or momentary lapse. On camera, the accidental statement. "Sir, I switched the barcode." handed the prosecution a first-person description of the act in the middle of a denial. She corrected herself immediately. Courts do not expunge what is spoken on tape. However, she remained physically compliant throughout the arrest. And she clearly and correctly invoked her right to counsel at the critical moment. That one decision, had she made it immediately upon arrest, might have kept the entire back office conversation off the record. Her argument that she did not leave out the door reflects genuine knowledge of shoplifting law, but it does not apply to this charge. Barcode switching is complete at the register. The door was irrelevant. The three years, the 32 incidents, and one sentence built this case. Three lessons from this footage, all anchored in what actually happened on camera. The first, barcode switching is theft at the register, not at the door. Larceny by deception is complete the moment a fraudulent barcode clears the scanner. If you swap a label and scan it, the crime is done. The second stress can break your filter, and cameras are always running. The admission was not a response to a direct question, just a slip. By the time she corrected herself, it was already on tape. If you are ever placed under arrest, stop talking and ask for a lawyer. The third retail loss prevention now builds cases the way investigators do. 32 documented incidents, live surveillance, corporate authorization, all before anyone was handcuffed. Casual retail fraud is no longer meeting an unprepared opponent. Thank you for watching. If this breakdown helped you understand how these cases actually work beyond the headlines, consider subscribing and hitting the notification bell. Every case we cover goes this deep. See you in the next one.