Can you tell me why I'm here today? >> I've been stealing from the Dollar Tree. >> Okay. What exactly have you been stealing? >> Merchandise and money. >> Merchandise and money? How much do you think you've taken in the last two months? How much in merchandise? $1,500 worth of merchandise? Just in merchandise alone? >> Maybe $700 in >> $700 in merchandise? What's the reason behind it? >> Um I was staying at this hotel and they were giving me pushback with needing stuff. And I felt like I had to. >> On May 7th, 2025, St. Johns County Sheriff's Office arrested an assistant manager at a Dollar Tree following a 2-month internal theft investigation. This case presents three distinct legal questions: whether dual felony charges survive a merger challenge, whether an oral Miranda waiver is enforceable without written documentation, and whether financial coercion qualifies as a duress defense under Florida law. The answer to all three is dispositive and goes against the defense. >> So, what's going on? >> It's a female ASL from the store. She was stealing cash and merchandise from the Dollar Tree as an assistant >> Okay. >> She was interviewed by loss prevention on my phone. She admitted to $1,500. >> Okay. Okay. >> And she's in the office right now. >> Does the Dollar Does the Dollar Tree want to press charges? >> Oh, really? >> And I I think the best thing for her is to go outside and let her talk to the loss prevention and say what she has to say. I think she can get the help outside. Okay. Got you. She's in the office right now? >> Just cut the water back and it turned out real good. >> Hello. I'm Detective Taboy with the Sheriff's Office. What's your name? >> Britney. >> Britney, Britney, tell me why I'm here today. >> I have been stealing from the Dollar Tree. >> Okay. What exactly have you been stealing? >> Merchandise >> Merchandise and money? Okay. You have to read this to you cuz you know I have to cuz I got to ask you some specific questions. Okay? You have the right to remain silent. Anything you you say can be used against you in court. Do you understand each of these rights that I've explained to you? With these rights in mind, do you still wish to talk to me? >> Yes. >> Miss Britney, you're advised you've been stealing money and merchandise. This have Has this been an over time process? >> I said the last 2 months. >> So for the past 2 weeks you've been 2 months. I'm sorry. I'm I'm hard of hearing with this radio in my ear. Um so for the past 2 months you've been taking money and merchandise. How would you go about taking the money? >> Um post voids >> Hm? >> post voids >> Post voids? Okay, can you explain post voids to me? I'm not entirely sure what that is. >> Where someone would check out and get all their stuff and then they would pay for it and I would just go back and void it. >> So you would void the transaction and take the cash amount that they gave to the register and take that money for yourself. And merchandise, what merchandise were you taking? >> I have taken food. >> Okay. >> And a fan. >> Okay. How much do you think you've taken in the last few months, value wise? $1,500 worth of merchandise? Just in merchandise alone? >> Maybe $700 >> $700 in merchandise. This is a rough estimate, so you don't have to give me an approximate. And you think you've taken $1,500 in cash? Or you've known you've taken $1,500 in cash? >> Um I think I've taken like I don't know how much in cash. >> If you had to rough guess, what do you >> Like $600. >> So, $600 in cash and about $700 in merchandise. So, about $1,300 total in worth of stuff. What's the reason behind it? >> Um I was staying at this hotel and they were giving me pressure with needing stuff. And I felt like I had to. >> What do you mean needing stuff? >> Like they needed cleaning stuff. The people next to us always needed it filled. And I didn't know what to do. They were just very aggressive. >> Was it the hot the hotel staff or the people that were living with you in the hotel? >> It was the hotel staff and the people in the room next to us. >> When you say us, who was someone else that was living with you at the time? Who was living with you at the time? >> My husband, Michael. >> Your husband. Are you still married to Michael? >> Yes. >> Okay. Okay. So, the stuff stealing stems upon the demand of the hotel staff one because of this. >> Yes, and we left the hotel and I'm willing to pay everything back. >> Okay. >> I don't want to go to jail. And I'm not that kind of person. >> Okay. You got your driver's license on you by chance? >> Yes. >> Is there anything else you'd like to add? Other than what you taken, stolen merchandise and cash? >> Oh, just I'm really sorry. >> Do you have all your transactions and all your transactions and everything or >> Well, I got all the stuff in it. >> Yeah. >> And um This is a small amount of merchandise. It's only a small amount of merchandise. So, I lose like a I guess in the long $1,100. >> Mr. Williams, hang tight. Mr. Williams, can you come up for a second? That's for y'all. I have everything I need on my body. So, So, Mr. Williams, thank you for your service, Mr. Williams. Just want to get your confirmation again. Just have that. You want to press charges against her? Can you please raise your hand so I can swear you in? Okay, do you swear or affirm that the statement you're about to give me is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? >> Yes, sir. >> You can put your hand down. Mr. Williams, can you explain why I'm here today? >> I am here because the associate Britney, assistant manager, they clothes voids, void, post voids and returns, plus take merchandise from the store. And it came out to an amount of 1,500. Uh, they did see and she admitted to. Um, I know that there's more, but we can't have another about that. >> Okay. Um, and now explain post voids to me. >> Post void is a system that we have through the register that uh, if the customer do not want it, or the customer says, "I need to go to the car and get the money." Or >> Mhm. >> it stays there, they can cancel the transaction. And the merchandise will stay in the building. >> Okay. >> And viewing that we have done, we can see that the post voids are being done with the customer leaving with the merchandise. >> Okay. So, a customer's paying paying the Even though it's paying, it's voided, and then somehow the cash disappears. >> That's correct. >> Okay. So, and Brittany it was an assistant manager here, and she was committing these post voids. Besides her admittance, is there any identification number, employee number that links her to these post voids? >> Only her ID number. >> Her ID number, which is associated with Dollar Store. >> Yes. >> That is given to her when she gets hired. >> That's correct. >> Okay. All right. Um, when did you first start noticing that this was happening? >> call from loss prevention to investigate it on Sunday. On Sunday. >> On Sunday. Okay. >> And on Sunday I told her that she was a AP regional AP, asset protection, that I was going to come over here today to investigate it. >> Okay. >> And I went through the system and I saw it. >> Okay. And when you pulled her in, she just openly admitted to everything? >> Yeah. Open up to AP. She was the one that uh, interviewed through the phone. >> Got you. Okay. And she gave you all this sworn affidavit? >> Yeah. Here. >> Two felony charges arise from the same course of conduct. Florida statute section 812.014 reaches the cash and merchandise whose aggregate value the subject herself estimated at $1,300, placing it between the $750 floor and $20,000 ceiling that defines grand theft in the third degree, a felony carrying up to 5 years imprisonment. Florida statute section 817.034, the Florida Communications Fraud Act reaches something different, not the value, but the structure. It criminalizes any systematic ongoing course of conduct with intent to defraud, and it authorizes aggregation of every individual act into a single offense. The post-void scheme executed repeatedly over 2 months is the paradigm case this statute was designed to capture. The Florida Supreme Court resolved the tension between these charges in Pizzo versus State, decided in 2006. Grand theft, the court held, is a lesser included offense of organized fraud. Both charges may be filed at arrest, and both were filed here, but double jeopardy principles bar separate convictions at sentencing. The prosecution will move on the organized scheme charge. It carries identical sentencing exposure, and forecloses any argument that the thefts were isolated independent acts. Aggregation is the mechanism. Merger is the safeguard for the defendant, not a way out. The back office interview was a custodial interrogation. Location is not determinative. What matters under Miranda versus Arizona is whether a reasonable person in the subject's position would have felt free to terminate the encounter and leave. With a detective present, questions framed around criminal conduct and loss prevention having already obtained an admission, the answer is no. Custody existed regardless of the familiar workplace setting. The detective administered the warning before any substantive question. The subject verbally confirmed understanding and chose to continue speaking. Under Berghuis versus Tompkins, decided in 2010, that is a legally sufficient waiver. The court explicitly rejected the argument that an implicit waiver is invalid absent an express, written, or verbal invocation of the right to proceed. Speaking voluntarily after advisement is the waiver. That confession now anchors the prosecution's case and is exceptionally resistant to suppression. One additional point on evidentiary structure. Before police arrived, loss prevention conducted its own interview and obtained a prior admission. That statement is not protected by Miranda. Miranda applies only to state actors. However, it also cannot be used to argue that the subsequent police confession was tainted or coerced. The Garrity doctrine protects public employees from self-incrimination in compelled internal investigations, but this was a private employer. No Garrity protection applies. Both admissions, internal and custodial, are usable. The subject's legal position was fully exposed before Detective Williams entered the room. The subject raised financial hardship and social coercion as context for her conduct. Under Florida law, duress has two mandatory elements. The threat must be imminent and unavoidable, and it must involve death or serious bodily harm. Neither element is satisfied here. The pressure described, demands from hotel staff and neighboring residents for food and cleaning supplies, was ongoing, not imminent. It was social and financial, not physical. Critically, the duress doctrine also requires that the defendant had no reasonable legal alternative. Two months of repeated theft across multiple transactions is incompatible with imminence by definition. The narrative is factually credible. It is legally insufficient. It will function as mitigation at sentencing, not as a defense at trial. >> She's being arrested. Okay. Um she's going to jail. Um she was like her trespassing in the dollar store after this. I'm sorry. So, I'll get that done. Give you a case card. Has my email and stuff. Just when you get the video loaded email it email. go over that right now. Perfect. All right, cool. >> All right, it is 2:32. This concludes this statement. Mr. Williams, do you have anything else for me? >> No, sir. I'm sorry, Rick. >> No, I'm good. I appreciate it. >> It is hot as hell. I appreciate it. Thank you. Ms. Brandy, can you go ahead and grab your belongings and put in my car, please? >> This is the next one. >> Okay, I'll come back to that. Go to the passenger side of my car. You go ahead and take your personal belongings. Okay, cool. All All the change was mine. Go ahead and sit down for me. Ms. Brandy, do you have anything on your person that's illegal contraband or anything that if you go into the jail you will be arrested on additional charges? Okay. Here's your citation today. You're being under arrest for obtaining services by fraud, which is a systematic process of obtaining property from a victim over a period of time. And if you don't want to go to jail for that, okay? I was going to arrest you in the store. You didn't do anything. You come out here and sit in the car before I do anything. Take off your sweatshirt. So, you have nothing on your person or anything like that? Okay. Can you do me a favor? Just pick your feet up. Let me show you how. Pick your bra up. Shake it out. Go ahead and pick up your shirt. Shake that. Nothing? No bra? All right, just go ahead and stand up for me real quick right here. Face away from the car, put your hands behind your back. Do you have anything on your person I need to worry about? Go ahead and put your hands back on your back like your palms together like you're praying. Push your hands away from your back. Where is your cell phone at? And that's your husband that's calling? >> Yes. >> What's his name? >> Michael. >> Michael, okay. Hey, is this Michael? I've got to swing your people in here. Hey, this is Deputy Taboso. I was going to share this with him, but I don't know. Hey, so here's what's going on with your wife. She is going to jail because she's being arrested for two felonies, which is one of scheme to defraud and grand theft due to the fact that over a systematic period of time over the course of a month, she has accumulated over a thousand dollars worth of money and merchandise. So, and the Dollar Tree, which is the business part. So, she is going to jail today. Um I'll get you there in a second. I just wanted to explain everything to you. She'll see a judge at 9:00 a.m. in the morning and she'll have a first appearance and they'll set up one from there, okay? All right, now I'll let you talk to her for a second. >> Hello. >> Yes. >> So, >> I'm going to jail. They're going to arrest >> Okay. >> I'm just staying here. I'm going to take you in. >> Okay. >> You can get in there out of this. You can get in there for 24 hours. I'm good. I'll take it over here. >> Can I do that? >> What is it? >> Leave my phone here. >> pick it up. >> I mean, you can bring it with you and get phone numbers out of it so you can call people. >> no interest in actually >> Okay. I'll tell the other manager about my baby phone. >> That's totally up to you. I mean, he can come to the jail and get your property. You just got to let the booking deputy know, or you can leave it here. It's up to Dollar Store if they want to keep it. You know what I'm saying? >> Um I'll leave it >> You can come You can come to the jail and grab her phone if you have to. Okay. >> Okay. Okay. I'll be over there. >> Anything you first want to worry about? Any contraband, drugs, narcotics, anything like that? >> Deputy Toby receives a grade of A- minus. Miranda administered correctly. Sworn affidavit obtained from the loss prevention witness, creating corroborated evidence independent of the confession. A critical redundancy that protects against any future suppression motion. The deduction, no written waiver documentation. Under Berghuis, oral waiver is sufficient, but written documentation eliminates ambiguity at the suppression hearing and is the professional standard in felony interrogations. Brittany Zalanka receives a grade of D plus. Every element of both charges is established by her own words on camera post-Miranda. Cooperation and remorse are genuine and will matter at sentencing. They do not constitute a defense and they do not affect the confession's admissibility. Waiving counsel before a felony interrogation in a case where the employer had already documented the evidence was the single decision that foreclosed all other options. Dollar Tree management receives a grade of A- minus. Detection documentation and escalation were handled correctly. The structural deduction post void authority granted to assistant managers without a secondary approval requirement created the internal control gap this scheme exploited for 2 months. That gap is both an operational failure and a potential civil liability exposure if similar conduct recurs at other locations. Three lessons this case makes concrete. First, a Miranda waiver does not require a signature. Answering voluntarily is the waiver. The practical consequence is that any suspect who speaks after advisement has almost certainly waived, regardless of what they believed at the time. Second, private employer interviews carry no Fifth Amendment protection. An employee questioned by HR or loss prevention has no right to remain silent and no Miranda shield. Requesting to stop and consult counsel is the only available protection, and it must be invoked before speaking. Third, systematic small thefts are not small crimes. The aggregation mechanism under organized scheme to defraud converts a pattern of minor acts into a single felony with the same sentencing ceiling as a single large theft. Repetition is not mitigation. Under Section 817.034, it is the offense itself. Let us know if there is an interaction or legal topic you would like us to discuss in the comments below. Thank you for watching.