you concealed all of those items that you offered to give back yes OK why oh because I don't wanna go to jail no I'm saying you concealed them in the store did you have any intention of paying for them I was at first but then I didn't cause I didn't have enough money for them okay on August 16th, 2023 loss prevention at a target store flagged a familiar face a woman their records showed had allegedly stolen from that same location at least eight times before that afternoon she was observed concealing merchandise in her bag including underwear and jewelry before heading toward the exit officers were already waiting what started as a routine shoplifting stop became a physical takedown a flight attempt and an assault on a peace officer charge but the most consequential moments would not happen at the exit they would happen at the patrol car after Miranda when she decided to talk and talk she did so you're identified as somebody from this store today you were observed for a while, possibly concealing items to include clothing jewelry and some other items stopped at self checkout and they wanted me to get you identified so that they can prosecute you for the other incidents and they wanted to know if you concealed any other items would you be willing to look to open up your purse just so I can see you didn't conceal anything so there's items with target tags on those I came in here with that what's that I came in here with that and just so our body cams are on so you're being recorded I'm not gonna I'm not gonna she has what looks like a underwear or some sort of yes I saw it's like an underwear jewelry and like a pair of shoes I don't have no shoes shoes about the jewelry this is jewelry I've been in here before so every single one of those things has tags on them and when they go back that's a lot of jewelry have it that's what I saw her so like that's alright when the officer asked her to open her purse he was initiating a consent search the first and most legally delicate procedure in this stop under Schneckloth versus Bustamonte 4 12 US 2 18 1973 consent to search is valid even without advising the subject of the right to refuse as long as the totality of circumstances shows it was voluntarily given the phrasing would you be willing to look frames this as a request not a command that distinction matters in any future suppression hearing everything inside that purse is now fully admissible so I'm not gonna go to jail please so right now you're under arrest for theft for what for theft I just stop get off of me no stop no get off stop no please get off of me get off me absolutely does not have to call you broke my watch oh my gosh please get off me hey put your hands behind your back you're under arrest please get off for what you're under arrest for theft just like I told you before okay let me get up let me get up no lay down let me get up put your hands behind your back can I get up please hands behind your back can I get up please hey stop pulling your hands hey resisting hey let me get up can I please get up no no why listen can I please get up listen the more you resist the more things I do that's gonna hurt stop stop stop resisting as soon as you stop resisting we can get you in handcuffs oh my God come and bring it to the boat back I'm not trying to go to jail I'm not trying to go to jail I'm not trying to go to jail well you just chose it today f*ck oh my leg when the officer declared you are under arrest for theft he formally crossed the line from an investigative stop into a full custodial arrest triggering the complete Fourth Amendment framework probable cause was already well established loss prevention had flagged her as a repeat offender and tagged merchandise was visible in the purse she had just voluntarily opened the physical resistance that followed created separate and independent criminal exposure when the officer added obstruction because she attempted to flee that was not escalation for its own sake it was a lawful response to conduct that went beyond the original arrest scenario sit up nope keep your feet out sir I'm not trying to go to jail I'm sorry I'm not trying to go to jail though you should have thought about that before you run I'm reasonable I could have cited you and released you please man you started this I'm so sorry now you're under arrest for obstruction as well for trying to run from us I'm so sorry take a step to your left separate your feet please I don't want you to kick my partner if you do you're gonna get an assault on officer charge too alright let's walk to the police car I apologize I'm so sorry oh my God I think the throwing of the Pepsi on me was not necessary I know I'm so sorry I really do apologize like can you please let me go no I just got out of jail oh my God oh my God just got out of jail go to your deal got out of jail all right step on your feet look at the car you wanna grab my AFIS scanner too are you gonna give us a good name no you sure alright so everything is being recorded on my body cam as well as my partner's body cam so what I'm gonna do is first we're gonna grab your index fingers just to make sure you provide us a real name okay what were you in jail for before because I had two old warrants that I just squashed and what were those for um a DUI and um a trespassing Motel 6 okay alright so this is gonna be the back of my hand I'm gonna pat you down make sure you have any weapons on you before I do that can you tell me if you have any sharp dangerous picture hazardous needles bazookas guns okay back of my hand please I'm not trying to go to jail yeah you you have tried to establish that oh my God okay this is that's my home here do you have anything else secreted on you what's your first name TWA TWA uh huh okay TWA two procedural steps before Miranda deserve close attention the officer deployed a fingerprint scanner to confirm identity that is permissible under Hiibel versus the Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada 5 42 U S 1 77 2004 which allows identity verification without Miranda advisement the pat down was a textbook search incident to lawful arrest authorized under Chimel versus California 3 95 US 7 52 1969 no warrant required the prior jail history questions fall within the booking exception established in Pennsylvania versus Muniz 4 96 US 5 82 1990 routine background collected during processing not custodial interrogation about the current crime you have the right to remain silent anything you say can be used against you in a court of law you have the right at this time to talk to a lawyer have him present with you while you're being questioned if you cannot afford to hire a lawyer one will be appointed to represent you before questioning if you wish you can decide at any time to exercise these rights not answer any questions or make any statements do you understand each of the rights I've explained to you can you say it louder please yes I understand having your rights in mind do you want to talk to me now yes I don't want to go to jail what just happened is a textbook Miranda waiver clean on both prongs required by Miranda versus Arizona 3 84 US 4 36 1966 the officer delivered all required advisements she verbally confirmed understanding she then explicitly waived with the words yes I do not want to go to jail a valid waiver requires both a knowing and a voluntary relinquishment of the right to silence and to counsel she satisfied both in her own words on camera every statement she makes in the next several minutes carries maximum evidentiary weight what was going on inside you concealed all of those items that you offered to give back yes OK why oh because I don't want to go to jail no I'm saying you concealed them in the store did you have any intention of paying for them I was at first but then I didn't cause I didn't have enough money for them OK so when you when you put all of those items in the bag you were knowingly concealing them and when you walked out the door with those items in your bag you knew you didn't pay for them you knew you stole it is that about right yes okay so why come in here to steal cause I don't have the money for it I don't know I don't have the money for it do you have a job no can you get a job yes okay why don't you do that instead of coming into target trying to steal one coming to target after work I know it's not always that easy but sometimes it is all these businesses around here are trying to recover from Covid so everybody's got a hiring sign up do you have a drug problem you may be paying for with these drugs or with these with these stolen items yes okay what's the going rate now for like underwear and jewelry and stuff or was that for your own personal use the underwear was my own personal use and then what are you getting for jewelry these days the jewelry I was gonna sell it to somebody to for them to buy it for my drug habits how many blues are you getting for like a piece of jewelry like one just one yeah where you getting that at from somebody that I know what just happened is as complete an on camera confession as law enforcement could legally hope for she confirmed concealment she admitted she had no intention of paying she acknowledged knowing she was stealing confirmed a drug habit and disclosed the jewelry was intended for resale to fund narcotics five separate admission layers each building the prosecution's case across multiple charges under Colorado versus Spring 4 79 US 5 64 1987 a post waiver admission is fully admissible even if the suspect did not anticipate every topic the officer would raise the waiver covered the entire interrogation she has just provided the prosecution with its complete case narrative in her own voice on body cam please I just got out of jail I'm not trying to go back to jail you guys can check so when I was standing there talking to you about it and you're like I don't wanna go back to jail and I say yeah you're you are under arrest I can always arrest you and then you and I have this conversation and then I say hey I'm gonna let you go since you were cooperative in the snap but you showed you weren't gonna be cooperative when you ran and then you threw a soda at me I'm sorry I apologize now I have I literally washed my uniform last night now I have soda all over me I'm so sorry I'm not trying to go to jail please you guys can trespass me for here I won't come back well here I'm like yeah well so you're getting that too you're trespassed from target for life can never come back okay they also have eight other cases that I'm gonna look at the footage of so far what they said was the total that you have stolen from this store is between 15 and two thousand dollars so if that's the case then we're looking at possible felony charges for organized retail theft depending on how the prosecutor wants to handle it or each one of those days is a separate theft charge okay go through her bag and see what other stuff is in there for a receipt I have a dollar amount for everything else that she concealed so far yeah so far can somebody pull video to show that whole incident plus us taking her down yep I'll be able to have all of that this case just formally expanded beyond a single shoplifting stop the officer disclosed that Target's records show between 1,500 and 2,000 dollars in cumulative losses across eight prior incidents at the same location he named the specific potential charge organized retail theft many states allow prosecutors to aggregate repeated retail theft incidents into a single course of conduct felony when they target the same retailer a charge that carries substantially higher sentencing exposure than nine separate misdemeanors a single afternoon's arrest may now open a file on nine incidents please I'm not trying to go to jail OK OK slide your foot in there for me OK please I'm not trying to go to jail please I gotta talk to my partner my sergeant all the way over OK then give me a second I'll just here here lean back and I'm gonna make sure I got some AC blowing back here okay please if it had been coke I'd have been really mad cause you don't waste your coke I know you're a coke addict got it now let us break down the full legal picture from this stop count 1 theft by shoplifting three elements must be proven first the taking of property belonging to another second intent to permanently deprive the owner of that property third the taking must occur without the owner's consent all three were established on camera in the suspect's own post Miranda words tagged merchandise was found in her bag still bearing target price tags for intent she confirmed on camera that she was at first going to pay but then did not because she did not have enough money that is a first person admission of a deliberate decision to steal for the final element she acknowledged the officer's closing statement you knew you did not pay for them you knew you stole it and she responded yes OK all three elements admitted voluntarily sequentially on camera after a valid Miranda waiver this is as clean a prosecution package as the charge allows count 2 resisting arrest and obstruction the subject's physical resistance was continuous and captured on body cam the officer separately added an obstruction charge because she attempted to flee in most jurisdictions resisting a lawful arrest and attempting to flee are distinct offenses from the underlying crime not the same act charged twice the predicate for both the lawfulness of the original arrest well established on probable cause count 3 assault on a peace officer the charge appears tied to the soda throwing incident during active arrest the officer had warned explicitly that throwing anything at his partner would result in an assault on officer charge the required elements are an act likely to produce offensive contact knowledge the target was a peace officer and the officer was performing official duties the soda throw during active arrest with the officer in uniform satisfies all three verify specific statute and element language for applicable jurisdiction before publishing count 4 potential felony organized retail theft the most legally significant development in this footage Target's records document eight prior theft incidents at the same location with cumulative losses between 1,500 and 2,000 dollars many states have enacted organized retail theft statutes that allow prosecutors to aggregate those incidents into a single felony course of conduct charge rather than treating each as an isolated misdemeanor if charged under an aggregation theory the eight prior incidents plus this arrest become overt acts in a single scheme the sentencing exposure far exceeds what any single count would carry verify applicable state statute and current felony dollar threshold before publishing Count 5 drug possession on camera she confirmed an active drug habit and disclosed the jewelry was intended for resale to acquire narcotics the post Miranda drug disclosures are relevant beyond the possession charge itself they constitute powerful motive evidence for the theft counts and may trigger substance abuse programming as a condition of any plea or probation now for the grades the lead officer receives an a minus from the moment tagged merchandise appeared in the open purse this officer built a methodical constitutionally sound case he framed the consent search as a request not a command he completed Miranda before any interrogation began he walked the subject through all elements of the theft charge without leading extracting a complete layered on camera admission that required no coercion under United States versus Watson 4 23 U S 4 11 1976 a warrantless public arrest supported by probable cause is fully valid and this officer had that probable cause well before declaring the arrest however the comment captured near the end of the footage I know you are a coke addict was unnecessary and unprofessional body cam is always on overall a textbook retail theft apprehension and post Miranda interrogation with one avoidable lapse at the very end the suspect receives a d minus her single most consequential decision was waiving Miranda and then providing sequentially voluntarily and on camera every element the prosecution needs to build its case under Moran versus Burbine 4 75 US 4 12 1986 a Miranda waiver is valid if voluntary knowing and intelligent when made hers was she confirmed concealment she admitted intentional theft she disclosed a drug habit and revealed the jewelry was intended for narcotics resale that sequence converted what might have been a defensible misdemeanor into a multi count case with felony exposure and a documented criminal motive in addition the physical resistance the flight attempt and the soda throw converted what the officer said could have been a citation and release into a five count arrest with assault charges attached consequences entirely within her control to avoid three practical lessons emerged directly from this footage first the consent search moment is the most important 10 seconds in this stop you are under no legal obligation to open your bag at a law enforcement request absent a warrant or a lawful arrest politely declining is a constitutional right under the Fourth Amendment the moment she said yes the evidentiary outcome of this stop was largely set second Miranda is not a formality I do not want to go to jail is not a legal strategy she acknowledged her rights waived them and then provided the prosecution's entire case narrative voluntarily in her own words on camera the right to remain silent exists precisely for moments like this even a brief I would like to speak to a lawyer would have fundamentally changed what the prosecution has to work with third repeated shoplifting at the same retailer is not simply a pattern of misdemeanors it is a course of conduct that in most jurisdictions can be charged as a unified organized retail theft scheme each individual incident in isolation might resolve as a minor charge across eight prior incidents plus this arrest the aggregate exposure is potentially felony level that is the full breakdown of this one a case assembled almost entirely by the suspect herself one admission at a time after being given every right the Constitution provides if this kind of real footage legal analysis is useful to you subscribe and ring the notification bell so you catch the next one new breakdowns every week real encounters real law explained in plain English