So, your co-workers have only had about $1,200 in canceled items. Yours are in $15,000. What's that explanation? How do you explain that? >> I need the lawyer. I don't I don't know. All right. On November 16th, 2024, in Los Angeles County, California, a detective with the sheriff's economic crimes unit confronted a restaurant employee over $57,000 in suspected embezzlement. She was arrested that morning on three separate charges: grand theft, driving on a suspended license, and possession of a controlled substance. What makes this encounter analytically significant is that the suspect invoked her right to counsel twice and questioning continued both times. This is that encounter That's okay. >> Morning. Hi. >> Hello. >> Yeah. Who just pull which employee just got here? Who just walked through the door? >> Ann, >> are you Ann? >> Yes. >> Come on outside. Thank you. Do you have your ID on you? >> And your driver's license? >> ID. >> Do you have a license? >> How did you get to work? >> I drove. >> All right, hold on. Don't go nowhere. Sorry, my people are talking on my radio. So, >> yeah. >> Yeah. >> No, we we saw only the >> 13. Can you put me on a 1050 at 234 Douglas has? >> Let's go to your car. You have any weapons on you or anything? >> No guns, knives, bombs, anything crazy. We're going to >> Yeah, it's going to be Florida tag alpha x-ray 4 3 uniform kilo uh white explorer. It even tells you. Why don't you have a license? >> Uh, it's been suspend uh suspended. >> I'll go look it up, but just tell me. >> Yeah, from Jersey. >> Your car secured? >> No, I'm going to go back. Can you trade with him? >> What happened? >> I'm uh I'm in work. He came in to get me at work. What? I don't I don't know. >> You got no license. >> Oh, is that why y'all stopping me? >> I was inside already. Please. >> Oh, watch you pull up driving. You know, it doesn't matter if >> Sir, we were evicted the other day. We're at an Airbnb. I need to work. >> You evicted from the storm? >> No, it's my own personal stuff. >> Okay. >> It was my job. >> Okay. Well, I mean, we can see. Have you had any uh tickets recently? >> Uh, no. >> How long's your license been? No good. >> Uh, >> have you ever had a license? >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> I mean, my daughter has her license. >> Yeah. >> Is that Is this her car? >> Yeah. >> Okay. What's your license suspended for? >> I don't even remember now. It's from Jersey. >> Okay. Is it like just like speeding tickets or is it DUI or? Uh, I can't even remember right now. No, no DUI. >> So, Florida won't give you a license cuz in New Jersey you're suspended. >> All right. Well, let my partner get back and he'll do some research and could just uh be a citation, but I can't promise anything. So, >> okay. I'll have my daughter come get the car, please. >> Yeah. I'm I'm not going to tow it or anything. Um, you're cooperative. So, >> you work here? >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Can I know what's going on? >> Yeah, we're just waiting for >> Can you take your bag off? Put your hands on your back. >> Why am I being arrested? >> You got no license. I'm driving. >> Please. I can't. >> Put your knuckles together. Oh my god. >> You said you have a family member that can come get the car? >> Yeah. >> Do you know their number or you need it out of your phone? >> Uh, I need uh >> no uh knives or weapons or anything, right? >> No. [snorts] >> I just use the back of my hand to pat your pockets down. Guess they don't flip. Definitely. >> Y. >> Okay. [snorts] >> She got another little uh purse on the passenger seat. It's got a lot of cash in it, too. So, but I left it there for now. >> Did you read her Hey, Ann. >> Hello. How are you? Good. >> Um, I'm Detective Ram [clears throat] with the P County Sheriff's Office. Um, I work in the economic crimes unit of the sheriff's office. Okay. Um, so I have some things that I need to talk to you about, but before I do that, I'm going to read you your rights. Okay. You ever been arrested before? >> Nothing. The major. >> Well, it's just like the movies. Um, you know, you're the Miranda rights, right? Okay. 16. >> All right. Do you understand that you have the right to remain silent? >> Yeah. Do you understand that anything you're saying canon will be used against you at court of laws? Do you understand that you have the right to speak to your lawyer and him or her present with you while you being president? Do you understand that if you cannot afford to hire a lawyer, one will be able to represent you before any questioning if you wish? >> Do you understand that you can decide at any time to exercise these rights and not answer any questions or make any statements? >> Yes. Do you understand each of these rights as I've explained them to you? >> Yes. >> And then having these rights in mind, you wish to speak with me? >> Yes. All right. So I am here to talk to you about your employment here with uh how long have you been working here? >> Uh 5 years. >> 5 years. Was it something else before? Was it a different restaurant before >> the name? Uh I don't know. >> Okay. Do you have any idea why I would be speaking with you? No. >> Okay. What what days do you typically work? >> Uh Tuesday, Wednesday, Friday, Saturday, Sunday. >> Tuesday, Wednesday, Friday, Saturday, Sunday. >> Yep. >> Are those full 8 hour shifts? >> And what is your are you a waitress or part of? And how much do you make being a waitress here? Uh, it depends. Okay. Uh, between one 150. Is that including tips and stuff? Um, now Ann, I I I want you to be completely honest with me, okay? It's it's certainly not the end of the world. Um, but there's obviously some serious stuff that we got to talk about. Um, but I'll be honest with you if you're honest with me, okay, which will go a long way and help you out a lot further. Okay. >> Um, now when you have you ever taken any cash out of the event? No longer your own bank. >> Okay. Have you ever changed any orders and canceled any out? Take cash out of the register. No. >> Okay. So, remember when I said be honest with me, okay? That's that's what we need here is honesty. Okay? Cuz there's going to be some things that you're going to have to explain. And if you're not going to be honest with me, it's not going to. So my next question, how do you explain the number of cancelled items that you have just in the last year compared to your co-workers? >> Which are very significant. So your co-workers have only had about $1,200 in canceled items. Yours are in $15,000. What's that explanation? How do you explain that? >> Uh, >> honesty is important here. Okay. >> Yeah, I know. I I >> I've already I already talked to everyone I need to. >> I know the answers to a lot of the questions I'm asking, which is why I'm asking you to be honest. Okay. There's documentation. Okay. There's there's evidence that supports what we're seeing. Okay. So explain to me that difference. >> I know I can't [ __ ] right now. >> Is it a financial crunch? Is it something that can be exciting? I mean, are you just I know I put mine in and that you know cancel and stuff but over past year and if it's listen just just be honest with me and and explo if it's wrong. You're in a financial crash and you saw am. But >> but listen, but you saw an opportunity, thought maybe, okay, this will this will help. I'll just do it once. >> Okay. And then you know what? It did help, but now I have this going on. Let me do it twice. And then it just gets out of hand and gets away from us. We all make mistakes like that. Okay. The big part is owning up to it so that we can move beyond it and move past it. explain it now. >> We'll try. Give it a shot. If I'm totally on base and that's not what it is, I' i'd rather know the truth. I'd rather know what's really going on. I certainly don't think you're a bad person. I think times are tough for a lot of people right now and sometimes opportunities present themselves and when we're desperate, you know, we we do what we have what we think we have to do. Especially now times, I don't know if we were affected by the storm storms. I don't know. I don't know if there's other stuff going on yet. >> I don't know. I don't know what to say. So, is that kind of what's been happening now? cuz it sounds like it is. I don't know. I uh sounds like happening. Uh um where's going? >> Like I said, I I just wanted to start. >> So if that's what's happening, then we can move to the next step and move forward and move past it. >> Yeah. for his home. >> So, is that what's is that what's happening? >> Um, I need a lawyer. I don't know. >> Under Edwards versus Arizona, >> at the time of this analysis, the outcome of any criminal charges or civil proceedings in this case remains unknown. Charges likely include grand theft and embezzlement under California Penal Code sections 503 and 487, both felonies at the $57,000 threshold along with driving on a suspended license and unlawful possession of a schedule 2 controlled substance. The detective receives a C plus. The Miranda adisement was complete and timely. The interrogation technique confronting the suspect with point of sale statistics alongside minimization was lawful and effectively executed. The critical failure is unambiguous. At 13 minutes and 17 seconds, the suspect invoked her right to counsel under Edwards versus Arizona 451US 477 1981. That invocation is an absolute bar on further questioning by law enforcement on any topic. The immediate pivot to questions about the suspended license does not constitute a separate investigation. Edwards contains no topic change exception. That pivot is interrogation following invocation. Statements made after that moment are subject to suppression. The suspect receives a B minus. She remained cooperative, complied with every command, did not resist, and ultimately invoked her right to counsel. In the post invocation window, she made no additional substantive admissions on the embezzlement. The problem is timing. For more than six minutes after Miranda, the suspect answered substantive questions before invoking. Under Berg House versus Tomkins 560US 370 20110, answering questions after Miranda is an implied waiver. Every pre-invocation answer is part of the evidentiary record, including the partial admission about cancelling transactions and cannot be walked back. The first issue is the post invocation questioning under Edwards versus Arizona 451US 477 1981. A custodial invocation of the right to council is categorical. All interrogation must cease until council is present or the suspect independently reinitiates communication. In this encounter, the suspect invoked at the initial confrontation and again at 1317. Both times questioning continued. The McNeel versus Wisconsin distinction 501US1 17191 separates a fifth amendment Miranda invocation from the sixth amendment right that attaches at formal charging. This was a fifth amendment invocation. It applied to all further questioning on all subjects. Where this holds statements made after the second invocation are suppressible. Pre-invocation statements are fully admissible under the implied waiver doctrine. The point of sale statistical evidence is independent of any statement and remains unaffected. The second issue is the suspended license. Under California Vehicle Code section 14601.1 subdivision A, driving with a suspended license is a misdemeanor. The driver license compact covers 45 states and treats any member state suspension as operative in all others. There is no geographic reset. In this encounter, the suspect admitted her New Jersey license had been suspended for missing a court date. She had not resolved it. The officer personally observed her driving. The arrest was legally sound. The third issue is controlled substance possession. Under California Health and Safety Code section 11377, possession of a schedule 2 substance without a prescription is a criminal offense. The statute contains no good faith exception and draws no distinction between personal use, shared medication, or a mistaken belief about the drug. In this encounter, an Adderall tablet was found in the suspect's personal effects during a search incident to arrest. She had no prescription and stated a friend had given it to her for knee pain. Possession without prescription is the completed offense the moment the drug is on the person. The fourth issue is the vehicle search under Arizona versus Gant 556US 332 2009. A search incident to arrest is permitted when officers have reason to believe the vehicle contains evidence of the arrest offense. An active embezzlement investigation tracking $57,000 in suspected stolen cash satisfies that nexus. The search that produced the pill was lawfully predicated. Lesson one. Underber house versus Tomkins 560 US 370 2010. Speaking after Miranda is a waiver. The right to counsel must be invoked before any substantive answer is given, not after a record has already been created. In this encounter, 6 minutes of answers entered the record before the invocation. Invoking immediately is the only protection that works. Lesson two. Under Edwards versus Arizona 451US 477 1981 law enforcement may not reinitiate questioning on any topic after a custodial council invocation. The rule is absolute and contains no topic change exception. In this encounter, the pivot to the license question after invocation placed all post invocation statements in legal jeopardy. Lesson three. Under the Driver License Compact, a suspension in any member state is enforcable in all 45 others. California Vehicle Code section 14601.1 does not require a Californiaisssued suspension. In this encounter, an unresolved New Jersey suspension produced a criminal driving charge in California with no geographic workaround available. Lesson four. Under California Health and Safety Code section 11377, possessing a schedule 2 substance without a prescription is a completed offense the moment the drug is on your person. Belief about the drug's identity or how it was obtained provides no legal defense. In this encounter, an Adderall tablet received from a friend produced a criminal possession charge regardless of intent. Lesson five. Under Colorado versus Connelly 479US 157 1986, minimization does not constitute coercion as long as the resulting statement is voluntary. Phrases like owning up moves us past this or we all make mistakes are recognized and lawful interrogation techniques. In this encounter, the minimization was effective and entirely permissible. The near admission was not coerced. Let us know if there is an interaction or legal topic you would like us to discuss in the comments below. We read all of them. If there is a body cam interaction or legal question you want covered, let us know.