Three constitutional doctrines [music] explain everything in this footage. Miranda, the private actor rule, and search incident to arrest. >> [music] >> This one right here. >> You're going to audio record me? >> It's charging. I use it too much. >> It's not true problems. >> [music] >> How you doing? Uh Target kind of briefly informed me of what was going on. Today? And in order for me to talk to you, I need to read you your rights, all right? Have you ever been arrested before, sir? >> Yes, sir. >> All right, sir. So, you have the right to remain silent. Do you understand that? >> I hear him. >> Anything you say can be used against you in court. Do you understand that? >> Yes, sir. >> You have the right to have an attorney present now or at any time during questioning. Do you understand that? >> Yes, sir. >> If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you without cost. Do you understand that? >> Mhm. >> If you talk to me, you have the right to stop answering questions or speak to an attorney at any time. Do you understand that? >> Yes, sir. >> All right. With your uh rights in mind, do you wish to talk to me today? >> Yeah, that's fine. >> Okay. So, I was notified by Target that apparently over the course of your employment, there's a lot of cash registers that were turned up short, and that they have video surveillance of you uh folding money in your hand, and instead of putting it into the money counter, you slipped it into your pocket. >> Yeah. >> Is that accurate? >> Yes, sir. >> Okay. Is there a reason why this was happening, or are you >> It was just like financial hardships. >> Okay. >> And then it turned into a bad habit that should have subsided long, long ago, or never even started, but yeah, that's what it stemmed from. >> Okay. Do you happen to have a drug problem, cuz we do have like drug court, we have programs to get people help with their drugs. >> Okay. >> Nothing like that. Nothing like that. Just needed to get out of a hole, and then it stuck with a bad habit, really. >> Okay. Um, do you roughly know about how much it's been going on for the past, you know, almost a year, or 6 months? >> Uh, I I believe it was 6 months since I started. That's when I bought my house, that's when I needed to um, finalize some things that >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> Okay. You got how much money, roughly? >> They're they're estimating 10,000. >> 10,000? >> Yeah. >> Okay. Do you think it might be a little bit more than that, cuz I know it's about 10,000 only in the last 2 months. >> 2 months? >> Yeah. The last two last, uh, 30 to maybe 90 30, I would say 30 to 60 days is about just over 9 grand. >> Well, yeah, not that I'm aware of. Like I told them I I when I received it, I I spent it on on like materials and stuff, cuz I'm remodeling my house, so I'm not sure. >> Okay. Nothing that I'm aware of. Okay. Understandable. You married, sir? >> Uh, I'm just engaged, got kids, yeah. >> Okay. How many kids do you have? >> Um, technically two. >> Okay. >> Mhm. >> Biological or >> No. >> Okay. All right. Um You have anything you'd like to add? >> Yeah, if you what I would do is the whole statement form, if he wants to >> Well, they have a an admission form here. Can I see that? >> Is this uh your form, sir, that you uh >> Yeah. >> you signed out? >> Mhm. >> [cough and clears throat] >> If you can read it. >> The detective administered Miranda completely, all five prongs. Right to silence, statements admissible, right to counsel during questioning, appointed counsel if indigent, right to stop at any time. North Carolina v. Butler, decided 1979, holds that a written waiver is not required. Verbal assent suffices if it is knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. The suspect's verbal assent locked in everything that followed. No suppression motion succeeds on this record. Target's pre-police investigation operated outside the Fourth Amendment entirely. Bradeau v. McDowell, 1921, establishes that constitutional search and seizure limits apply only to government actors. Private security may detain, interrogate, and obtain written admissions without Miranda warnings, without warrants, without constitutional probable cause. United States v. Jacobson, 1984, confirms that police repeating a private search does not transform it into a Fourth Amendment event. By the time the detective arrived, the case was complete. The detective's mid-search question about currency in the wallet used a constitutionally permissible technique. Frazier v. Cupp, 1969, holds that police may use deception and strategic framing so long as the resulting statement is not coerced from someone who would not otherwise speak. The suspect had already waived Miranda. Every subsequent disclosure is admissible against him. Sorry. Okay. And this is just your signature here on the statement. Okay. >> Okay. Let's go try to get a copy of that. I'm good with that one. Okay, looks good. >> All right, sir. Well, today you you are going to be placed under arrest. Okay, you'll be able to bond out of the jail and then from there it's with your attorney speaking with the state's attorney and Target on working out some type of agreement in order for paying back and you can go and see what the charges are going to be. >> Sure. >> Okay, they could reduce the charges, they can drop the charges as long as most likely the money is paid back to Target and Target agrees to accept the money before it goes to trial, then they can always drop the case with the state's attorney's office. >> Okay. >> Okay? So, that's something you can definitely work All right, do you have any questions for me? >> No, sir. No. >> Do you have any questions for Target? >> No, not that I'm aware of. >> Okay, so you are you do understand you are um fired from the store. >> Yep. >> Okay, so you're trespassed from the store. >> Yes. >> Okay, and you are being trespassed from the store as well. Okay, it means you cannot come back to the store property unless you actually speak with somebody from the store and then they lift it. But in order for them to lift it, they have to contact us because it's going to be documented that you are trespassed. Okay, so >> From just this location or everywhere? >> Yes, this location. >> Okay, yeah. >> So, if you'd like to come back to this Target, then you need to make sure you get in touch with management and management has to call us to cancel the trespass. >> You can take it out. >> No uh no knives or anything? >> No, nothing harmful. >> I'll take off this watch. Yeah, we're going to take off this watch, okay? So, that way we have some room and you're not getting cut off circulation, okay? >> Yeah, don't damage your watch. >> Thank you. You got it. Okay? >> Yeah. >> All right, you can place the back of your phone in your right pocket. Let me check his pockets. >> It was pockets. >> Yeah, I'll wait for gloves to do it. >> I'm going to wait. >> problem. I got nothing gross in there. >> No, you just Listen, in this line of work, you you've seen it all. I just don't put my hands in people's pockets till I get gloves on. >> Just walk by and then I'll hold the door open for >> Sounds good. >> I'll grab your property. >> Can you go grab that backpack under the thing? >> Where is it? >> Under the bench right there. >> Hey, is that your backpack? >> Yes. >> That's his backpack, too, he's saying. >> This is It's a go. I'm going to go off I got this one. >> No, no, no, no, you're good, man. >> Yeah. >> You're good now. >> Yeah. >> No, this ain't cold. >> It's cold enough. >> All right, we're going to go back to that second car back there, okay? >> I got 10-15. >> This one, it's that truck right there, it's the big one. >> Uh >> Technically, you can't come back after the truck leaves. >> Yeah. >> I'll let my fiance do it. >> Yeah, that's right. >> All right, here. >> Yep. >> Space this fly right in front of that. >> Sure. >> You got gloves? >> Yeah, grab some. >> Yeah, I got it. >> So I don't run away. >> No, not worried about the running. >> I am not a >> I'm not worried about the running part. >> I'm not worried about the running part either. >> I'm overweight. >> That is part of it. >> I know, we do a lot of scenarios with tasers and trust me, I'm pretty accurate. So, I doubt that you would run away from from me at least. I don't know about him. >> Did you guys get tased? >> I'm fairly fast. I'm fairly fast. >> Yeah. You know how to do it, right? You get tased. So, you know how it feels, but you don't want to tase somebody else yet. But, if we got to, we got to. >> Not that bad. >> All right, we'll try on you later. >> You guys need anything from me? >> Nope, we're good. Thank you. >> All right, well, I'll take this opportunity to let people know that we make decisions in life that are not great, and learn from them, and that's the important thing. And I hope that regardless of what happens, that you learn from this today and what you've done, and the consequences that come with doing what you did. >> Yeah, this one's going to [ __ ] me up though, cuz I want I was going in the fire service, so I don't I don't know if that's going to work out. >> Yeah. >> You got to figure it out. Maybe you can work it out Maybe you can work it out with talking to the cops and get three miles or something. >> I hope so, but cuz that's what I've been the job that I wanted to do, man. >> It's over. >> Yeah, bro. >> But, but regardless, if if it works out, if it doesn't work out, you'll have a story to tell, and you got to make better decisions than you've already made. >> What's in this pocket? Is it just like keys? And probably some AirPods. >> Search of the wallet and pockets required no separate justification. United States v. Robinson 1973 authorizes a full search of any arrestee's person incident to lawful arrest. California 1969 extends this to the area within immediate control. Both apply automatically the moment custodial arrest occurs. Edwards v. Arizona 1981 would have ended the interrogation immediately. The rule is absolute. Once a suspect unambiguously requests counsel, all questioning must cease until counsel is present. Any subsequent waiver is presumed invalid unless the suspect reinitiates contact. Davis v. United States 1994 requires that the invocation be unambiguous. "I want a lawyer" works. "Maybe I should talk to a lawyer" does not. The suspect made no invocation at all. He had the most powerful asymmetric tool in American criminal procedure available and did not use it. On a $10,000 grand theft, sentencing's exposure varies sharply by jurisdiction. Florida classifies this as third-degree grand theft under section 812.14, up to 5 years in prison. Illinois treats it as a class 2 felony under 720 ILCS, 3 to 7 years. The probation-only outcome reflects complete confession, complete cooperation, and willingness to make full restitution. Borden Kircher v. Hayes 1978 confirms broad prosecutorial discretion in plea bargaining. >> I'm trying to find Keys and AirPods you said? >> Yeah. The gym membership I don't go to. >> Yeah, we all have those. They might not be >> 908302, where are you at? >> Yeah, they're They're just not wanting to come out there, you know. I don't want to go drop them all over the place. Thanks, man. All right, man. Nothing up here, right? No pockets or Good. Yeah, give me just a second. All right, go ahead and take a seat. >> Thank you. >> Hey, Cameron, you've You've so honest with us. Is there any money in your wallet that belongs to Target? >> Uh just the big bills, I think. >> Okay. One second. Just one second. 3738840 It's warm in here, man. >> No, I am. I don't like being cold. I don't like being really hot or really cold, so. >> I can turn it up. If it's too hot, just let me know. >> All right. >> Cuz you're honest with us, and hold on. Is the backpack good to go in? >> No, I haven't checked that. >> This is everything that doesn't need to be searched? >> Wallet and backpack doesn't need to get searched. You got an extra pair of gloves? >> I'll stand right here while you get your stuff. Of course I have gloves. I need to go back to the FD and get some more. >> You don't like the FD ones? >> No. >> I know you like how they go all the way up to your elbow, but I like the black ones. They look better. >> They also don't show blood very well. >> So, I told him that he's been so honest with us, >> Right. >> and that I was going to search his wallet. I asked him was there any money in here that belonged to Target. He said just the big bills. >> Okay. >> So, if you want to continue with that line, I can pull out whatever >> You're free to Yeah, 50s, 100s. >> When is this from, this money? >> I don't know. It's It's um >> Is this from It's not from today. It's from previous days? Okay. So, how much money is supposed to be in here? >> I don't I don't count my wallet. >> Okay. Is it safe to say that most of money is from Target? >> Most of >> or change from Five $100 bills. So, six. Seven. Eight. Nine. I'm just separating it by 1,000. 1,029. >> I can't take that. >> [laughter] >> Okay. What What are you thinking with this? >> Uh >> Let me repeat. You admitted that most of this money is either change or money from Target. >> Unfortunately, I have to do a currency form. >> Do you give it back to him? >> No, cuz it if it's going to go into property, I have to do a currency form, so it needs the currency form, and it has to be signed off by a sergeant. >> Yeah. >> Little off topic. >> I have to do more forms. >> Grades. The detective, B+. Textbook Miranda administration, disciplined evidence handling, two professionalism lapses on a recorded line. The suspect, C-. Legally catastrophic decisions, partially redeemed by a lenient sentencing outcome. Target loss prevention, A-. Patient investigation, clean handover, no visible constitutional infirmities. Three lessons emerge from this footage. First, the right to remain silent only protects those who use it. Waiving Miranda is the single most consequential decision a suspect makes, and it is almost always made within 90 seconds of police contact. Second, written admissions to private parties, including corporate loss prevention, are not protected by the Fifth Amendment. Constitutional protection attaches to government action, not to accusation itself. Third, full cooperation reduces sentencing exposure, but eliminates legal defenses. These are not the same thing. Whether the trade is worth making depends entirely on whether any defense was available in the first place. On this evidence, the answer was no. Let us know your thoughts on this case in the comments below. If you found this analysis useful, consider subscribing for more legal breakdowns. Thank you for watching.