It's okay. >> We'll we'll have that >> have you turn around. I'm just going to take your watch off you. I don't want it to get broken. >> Cuz they want the slide off ones. >> Oh, no. I got it. >> Okay. I don't want to break it. Okay. >> Inside his gloves were two brand new iPhones. They looked for some packages. >> You said you sell them. So, about how much you sell them for? Um, he gives us >> about 10. >> I found him on Facebook. >> On Facebook. >> But before you guys >> on October 8th, meet me all 2024 at a United Parcel Service facility on Dallas Fort Worth airport property. A workplace theft investigation ended in a felony arrest. A UPS employee was taken into custody after admitting on camera to stealing approximately 10 iPhone 16 units and selling them through a coordinated network. This is that encounter. What makes this stop analytically significant is that the suspect handed officers four distinct grounds for prosecution before >> one of the security surprises. So what's been going on here is we had a bunch of glasses and cell phones going to be. So we set up cameras and we were able to identify people taken. Uh today we were going to speak to this young man. As he was walking out uh he wanted to clock out and leave. So I followed him to the restroom. He went into the store for a little while and when he came out he left his glove plus his personal phones. Inside his gloves were two brand new iPhones and he look for some packages. So he's in the office right now. >> Okay. Do we have uh like the paperwork for the phones and stuff? We we don't have it because he poured the hands over here, but we didn't get it to. Do you guys have the phone? >> Whoa. You're good. >> I'm good. >> Oh, you good. >> Are these these the pumps? three of them. >> So, is it just you? >> Um, one person that wasn't with me and as far as I know. >> Yes. You said there was another person. >> Yeah, the person that works with me. And as far as I know, >> the person got fired before us, he uh he brought us in. >> What's his name? >> Uh, as far as you know, it was >> Ding. >> Yeah. I don't I don't think that's his real name though. >> Okay. But at each other, >> Yeah. But he already >> Okay. So, he started it and he brought you online. He like forced you. >> No, he didn't force us. >> How? It was just like a casual conversation. >> You guys just usually take phones. Do you guys know when the phones are or just >> Do we know it? >> Do you guys usually know it's a phone or >> Yeah. >> I mean, we know there's a phone. We just know what bosses they come in. >> Uhhuh. >> So, you said there's somebody else named I think. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. So, that's who else. Do you know about how much do you got? What do you got to do with the phones? >> We sell them. >> We sell them. Are they >> I'm not a good Are those 16s or 15s? >> Uh 16s. >> 16s of the new ones. All right. How or how many of the 16s have you taken? >> I think they've all been 16s. >> They all been 16. Do you know roughly how many exactly? >> How many I've taken? >> Yeah. >> No, I don't know exactly. >> No, about 10. About 10. >> About 10. Yeah. >> Okay. >> You guys said you said you sell them. So, but how much have you sold them for? >> Um, he gives us 800. >> 800. Is it to just a person or to like a pawn shop or >> um a person? >> A person? >> Is that the person that got fired? >> No, it's someone else. >> Someone else. >> Just someone else. You know who that person is? >> I don't know his name. I really don't. >> Do you mean your other friends? my friends. >> Yeah, like the other people that you've been getting phones with now. >> No, I just I found him on Facebook. >> On Facebook? >> You know what his Facebook name is? >> Um, >> as far as I know, he's just by Sai SCY. >> FC Y. >> No, C. Just C Y. >> C Y. >> Would you be able to pull up his Facebook if you look at it? >> Uh, let me see. I mean, maybe Texas. >> I'm sorry. It wasn't Facebook. >> Out of Texas. >> Facebook. >> It was It was Offer Up. >> Offer up. >> Offer up. Yeah. >> No, our messages aren't there anymore. Uh, do you know what his his screen name is? >> His screen name? I'm >> uh is it the same place you take him every time? >> Uh, no. It's different places. >> Different places. Um, like what cities are you taking them to? >> We really just be all over. >> All over. Mainly >> Arlington, Grand. >> Arlington, Grand. >> Any specific like addresses or like >> I mean it's usually like at a store like Tom or something like that. Oh, so y'all just be up there. So you said the working with your friend D or your coworker D. >> Uh coworker D. >> D E >> D E. Okay. >> And then in between the two of y'all, y'all working with someone else that just recently got fired. >> Yes. And y'all would know specifically if the phones are coming this way and then open the box. >> So just be like empty box right back. Okay. And then from there you take the phone. That's all you know. >> And then we just need everybody. And you said you personally >> get one right now. >> Nobody not trying to. >> Before the officer arrived, UPS security had already done the critical work. Cameras were installed after a pattern of phone losses was identified. The suspect was captured on footage removing packages. When he attempted to leave the facility, the supervisor followed without confrontation. In the restroom, the suspect abandoned a glove containing two brand new iPhone 16s and his personal phones. Under Berdau versus McDow and United States versus Jacobson, the Fourth Amendment does not restrict private parties. A private employer may observe, investigate, and secure evidence without constitutional limitation. The moment a government officer arrives and views what the private party has already exposed, no search has occurred within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. The iPhones are in evidence and that part of the case is legally clean. What happens next is where the legal exposure shifts entirely to the officer's side. The suspect is seated in a closed office. A uniformed officer is asking questions. No Miranda warning has been given under Miranda versus Arizona 384U S436 1966. Warnings are required before custodial interrogation. Both conditions custody and interrogation must be present simultaneously under Stansbury versus California 511US 318194. Custody is determined by an objective standard whether a reasonable person in the suspect's position would have felt free to terminate the encounter and leave. A closed office, a unformed officer, and an explicit prior attempt by the suspect to leave that was interrupted. That is precisely the fact pattern courts examine when measuring custody. The answer here is not obvious. Under Rhode Island versus Inennis, 446 US 291, 1980. Interrogation includes any words or actions officers should know are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response. Direct questions about quantity, price, and co-conspirators satisfy that standard. A defense attorney will argue the confession must be suppressed. The state will call this a non-custodial workplace interview. That single ambiguity was entirely avoidable with one paragraph of Miranda warnings before the first question. >> See if they have serial numbers to sign >> because they don't have any other boxes and stuff. >> I can give all that stuff to you. I just need the case report. >> Okay. >> Cuz we'll have stuff that we'll add. You got a bunch of stuff from the past. It's just this is what we caught him with today. >> But you guys like serial numbers for these ones here and stuff. >> Yeah, I get it. >> Okay. >> You got cuz we're we're keeping [clears throat] those to get them to the customer. >> Yeah. We just need the serial numbers and stuff. I got photo but >> for them to be able to >> Do you know the customer's name of these also by >> if you were leaving today? >> Um, why'd you leave the phones and the gloves in the bathroom? >> I'm sorry. >> If you if you were trying to leave, why'd you leave the phone and the gloves in the bathroom? >> I already know what it was for. So, >> you knew you knew you're coming in here for that. >> Okay. Um All right. So, pretty much you were taking them and selling them. Um, [clears throat] you say only for a month you've been doing this? No. >> Okay. Now, how long your other partners have been doing it for? >> No. Okay. All right. Well, we got those. We got photos [clears throat] of those. We got that. All right, man. >> With that doctrine in place, the arrest. >> The confession is now on record. Whether it survived suppression is a separate question. On the merits, the suspect's own numbers define his legal exposure. Under Texas Penal Code section 31.03, theft is graded by the aggregate value of property taken. Under section 31.09, amounts taken in a continuing scheme combined into a single offense. 10 iPhone 16 devices at approximately $800 each places this case in the state jail felony range between $2,500 and $30,000 in aggregate value because the suspect identified a coworker and a buyer operating through offerup. Texas Penal Code section 71.02 applies. Engaging in organized criminal activity elevates the charge grade whenever three or more participants act in concert. Federal jurisdiction here is independent of state law and considerably more severe. Packages moving through the Dallas Fort Worth hub cross state lines during interstate transit. Title 18, United States Code. Section 659 punishes theft from interstate shipment by up to 10 years. One final issue. The suspect's personal cell phone was lawfully seized incident to arrest under Camil versus California. 395U SS 752 1969. Its contents, however, are a separate matter entirely. Under Riley versus California 573U, S 373 2014, a search warrant is required before officers may access the digital contents of a seized phone. Physical seizure is lawful. Digital search without a warrant is not >> We'll have that. >> Have you turn around? >> I'm just going to take your watch off you. I don't want it to get broken. >> Is there one slide off one? >> Oh, no. It's I got it. >> I don't want to break it. Okay. Sorry. All right. Come back the same way. >> Yeah. This is kind of >> making All right. Can you separate your feet a little bit more? Let's step in. I'm just going to let you know now. All right. Um Oh, you want to go to the jail? You'll be able to have access to a phone at the jail, but your cell phone. >> We're going to be seizing that. Okay. >> Good job. Take these off. >> Take it off. >> The cuffs. You have to leave them on. >> I have to leave them on. It's only >> two It's literally 3 4 minutes away, so it won't be far. >> I know it's not the most comfortable, but we'll be there in a in a second. We have a bag here on throw everything in there. Yeah. >> Every party in that footage made >> at the time of this analysis. The outcome of any criminal or civil proceedings in this case was not publicly available. The officer receives a B+. He maintained a measured non-coercive demeanor throughout the interview, handled the arrest with professionalism, and demonstrated clear tactical control. The one deduction no Miranda adisement before questioning in a setting where custody was genuinely ambiguous. The UPS security supervisor receives an A minus for a model private sector investigation documented the loss pattern, identified the suspect on camera, secured evidence before officers arrived, and briefed law enforcement with precision. The suspect receives a D+ non-violent and cooperative, which matters. But he answered every question without invoking the right to silence. He named his co-worker, his buyer, the platform, the quantity, and the price. Every element of the organized criminal activity charge came from his own words. Lesson one, the fifth amendment protects those who invoke it. Under Bergis versus Tomkins 560US 370 2010, silence must be invoked affirmatively and unambiguously. Cooperation without council is not leniency. It is evidence. Lesson two, private sector evidence sits outside the fourth amendment. But the doctrinal boundary shifts the moment officers arrive. What a private party discovers independently is admissible. What officers compel after arrival may not be. Lesson three. A prophylactic Miranda warning costs an officer nothing and eliminates suppression risk in nearly every ambiguous custody scenario. One paragraph every time. 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