On March 12th, 2024, an Illinois bank called police after the same subject returned the morning after a failed attempt to open a fraudulent account at a separate branch the day before. I'll be >> right with you. Okay. Hi there. Good morning. Come on in. How are you? Good. >> We will wait for you. >> Hi. How are you, officer? >> Hi. How's it going? Just so you know, I'm recording. Okay. >> Yeah. Okay. >> Can you hold on just a second? Is it okay? >> Yeah. Can you close? Yes. >> Is that across the way there? >> Yeah, we believe and and I was just told that I'm supposed to call my own fraud hotline first. Okay. >> So, that's who I'm on the phone with. >> Can you wait a minute? She's just going to collect IDs and then she's going to bring it in here, but we got a message that they tried to open this account yesterday. Um, and so, um, Hi, are you there? I'm so sorry. Could you mind if I call her and that way I can tell you right? >> Yeah, just at the same >> Hi, how are you? >> Okay, I'm just talking to my fraud hotline cuz I was told I'm really supposed to call them before I call you. So, so what happened um is that yesterday a customer who's in our branch right now um they went into another branch and tried to open an account under they said they were somebody who they were not. this person actually lives in Arizona. So they somehow she presented some fake IDs, whatever. She left and they the the person was not able to open it. And meanwhile, they restricted the real person's account who I just spoke to on the phone. She's in Arizona. Was not her. So I know for a fact it's not her. So they're in here. We got an email from the banker from yesterday that saw that there was an appointment here today. So we didn't think they were going to come, but they did come. And I think they're trying to do the same thing that they were trying to do yesterday. So I'm about to walk over and find out. But I think I I wasn't sure if I was supposed to let you guys know. Now the account who already restricted. Yes. But but I actually to tell you the truth I don't know cuz they're sitting with my banker right now. So, I don't know if she's using another person's ID or not, cuz should I put you on hold and go find out and come back? Okay, hold on, please. So, I'm so sorry. I don't want to waste your guys' time, too. And then my my coworker's like, "You're not really supposed to call the police unless there's threats." And I'm like, "Okay." But I really wanted your guys' presence out here. Do you mind like hanging out when the last see you? >> We can do what's called a standby. So, while you attend to your business, we're just standing by and make sure the situation stays >> I love it. >> Professional. >> Okay. I love it. Okay. Come on. Thanks, guys. >> Cuz I'm I guess I'm not supposed to accuse someone that hasn't done anything. >> Well, look, you I don't have any like inkling that you're doing this for some mal intention. You're just trying to do the best thing and detecting fraud. Obviously, you don't want to be condoning that, right? So, look, we're here if you need us and then just kind of let us know what's going on. [music] >> [music] >> We're code one now. Oh, are still [music] [music] [music] Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. [music] Okay. [music] Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. [music] >> [music] [music] >> West 531 traffic. [music] >> [music] >> Heat. [music] [music] Heat. I know [music] [music] heat. [music] [music] >> [music] >> Heat. Heat. [music] Heat. [music] [music] Heat. [music] Heat. Heat. [music] Heat. Heat. Heat. [music] [music] Now I [singing] know how [music] you [music] [music] want. >> [music] >> Um, I'm going to go to where my car is. I think that's [music] what you think. Yeah. I don't know. I mean, I don't know why police would be here, right? >> Well, that's wonderful. I And that's [music] great. >> ID for a while. >> They're new. >> It was new for about a few months ago >> as an update just because I was traveling, lost my wallet back. >> Okay. I come here every once a month to come see my family >> and it's something that's obviously going >> Yeah, it is. I would definitely recommend going [music] to your hotel. >> I'm going to go make a police report there because I go to the same hotel every month. Okay. Thank you. No, you you have nothing to apologize for. Um yeah, I need to go call my lawyer. I need to go call this bank information situation clearly. Sorry. I'm sorry. >> [music] >> Thank you. >> for a second. Walk with us for a second. OKAY. >> OKAY. SO, we're here because of the concern with the fraud. So they they called us cuz there's some concern with fraud. So can I see your ID really quick? >> They had the ID. They never gave it back to me. >> Okay. Where's your regular ID? >> That is my regular ID. I just got done explaining this. >> Okay. So what's your name? >> Misty. >> No, she cuz that's apparently what she said about what banks do. There's a thing about fraud. They're going to record it, I guess. And then I have to go now go figure out the situation. What's going on with my real ID? She said those are fake and there's no way it could be fake. >> Illinois or some >> Arizona. Arizona. >> Yeah, just we just got to get some information down. Missy, what is your middle initial? >> Let's see. >> Hey, what's your last name? >> Curry. And how can every Friday concerned about that? >> They called us cuz they determined there might be some fraud going on. So we just stood by miss. What's your name? >> GABRIELLE. >> So what was happening uh at Chase Bank yesterday? >> We had an appointment yesterday and we missed it and we missed it. Which branch? >> You guys were at a different branch yesterday. >> We know that. We know that. >> What was going on there? >> We missed. >> I'm not familiar with it out here. I'm sorry. >> Familiar with what? >> Yeah, just the street. >> Okay. Do you know what town you were in? But you were at Chase Bank yesterday. You didn't miss that appointment. You were physically inside. So >> we were inside and we were late. They said that we had to reschedu. >> Okay. So what? >> And I didn't like the attitude that the guy had. >> We gave them the name yesterday. >> Yeah, we both gave our names yesterday. >> Why didn't you go back to the same bank? >> Because she was rude. I didn't have her card. Yeah, she didn't say anything about there. I would have known something was something wrong yesterday. I would have heard this yesterday. So if I run your fingerprints, it's going to come back to that. >> Why would you run my finger if there's nothing done? That doesn't make any sense to me, sir. So that's not what we've been informed about. So that's part of the issue here. And I don't think that you guys are being truthful. I don't believe for one second that you're 61 years old. >> So why don't we >> maybe speed this process up and just kind of >> tell me what your actual name and date of birth are. >> Am I being arrested though? >> Right now you're being detained pursuant to our investigation. But right now, things aren't adding up, right? So, usually when things don't add up, it's cuz somebody's not telling the truth. I can tell by your response that there's probably going to be an issue. No, I just don't understand the situation anymore. We've done nothing wrong. We haven't hurt anybody. >> We didn't make >> No one's accusing you of any sort of crime or violence. But so here's the thing. In Illinois, there's a law called forgery. If you have an altered document that is capable of defrauding and you present that in an attempt to defraud, that's going to be a violation of that that section. Okay. >> So that would be that would be something that would be a crime. That's something that we have to investigate. Here's the other thing. Maybe the age wrong. You're not 60 yet by that date of birth that you gave. I feel like someone who made it to a substantial. It's >> funny how you have to take the work to figure that one out and I didn't even do it on purpose. >> Well, here's the thing. I don't know that that's something that we want to be funny about, but >> No, it's actually >> Here's the thing. It's a It's a pretty important hole. That's why that's why I'm telling you that isn't adding up, right? >> There's a short way, there's a long way. I understand that, officer. I do. Well, that's what we're investing in. So, >> I have Lucas. Is there anybody in the shade somewhere? HEAT. HEAT. HEAT. HEAT. YEAH. SO, she's not 16 years old. So, I asked her how old she was. She said 60. Yeah, I have a photo and that's what she presented to them. What does it is it just her? The other girl didn't present anything. She just wanted her to be there. So for her, they actually know that they got >> Yeah, it's really Yeah, it's class. So at the end with the girl the breakthrough I have my double thing to hold with my daughter. >> Yeah. She gave me a number that it's not a 99. So she told me this was her info, which probably sound that. Yeah. Heat. Heat. driver. >> Yeah. >> So, who are you guys? too close. >> Are you guys arranging for a ride? >> Yeah, but I'm going to go use the restroom if I can now and I'll >> Yeah. Okay. So, if she needs a ride, you're going to come pick her up or whatever. >> I could call her. >> Okay. You take your side. >> Okay. All right. Take care. She's going to go use the restroom. She's going to get her. Okay. Cuz you were having Okay. The Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable seizures, not all seizures. Under Terry versus Ohio, officers may detain a person without probable cause if they can point to specific articulable facts suggesting criminal activity as a foot. The bank manager gave officers exactly that. She had spoken by phone with the real account holder who confirmed she was in Arizona and had never visited the branch. Specific, corroborated, firsthand information, not a hunch. Officers initially held a standby position presence without contact. The moment they said, "Walk with us for a second," the encounter changed. Under Florida versus Bostic, a person is seized when a reasonable person in their position would not feel free to walk away. The Illinois Supreme Court confirmed in People versus Stout, that a citizen informant with detailed, firsthand knowledge, especially one in an institutional position like a bank manager, sits among the most reliable categories of informance courts recognize. The stop was lawful at inception. The officer named the right statute on camera. Under Illinois law 720 517-3, forgery requires three elements. The person possessed or delivered a document. The document was capable of defrauding another. And the person acted with intent to defraud. Two of those elements were established before the officer ever spoke to the subject. The prior branch had flagged the document. The real account holder denied involvement. The second visit to a second branch the following morning supplied the intent. Returning is not a coincidence. It is conduct. Forgery under that section is a class 3 felony in Illinois. 2 to 5 years in the Illinois Department of Corrections, not county jail, state prison. With a felony conviction come permanent record, loss of firearm rights, and disqualification from most financial employment. Under Illinois law 720516-30. Identity theft is committed when a person uses another's identifying information with fraudulent intent to access financial accounts. The Arizona account holder's identity was used documented by the bank's own records. Identity theft tied to a financial institution starts at class 3 felony when gain falls below $500, escalating to class 2 3 to 7 years above that. The actual gain was not established in the footage, setting the floor at class 3. Officers also confirmed the identification document was a class 4 fraudulent license, a separate felony under Illinois law 62556-101. three independent statutes, each one supported by evidence gathered before the questioning even started. The most consequential legal question is not about the charges. It is what happened after the officer said, "Right now, you're being detained pursuant to our investigation." The subject [clears throat] asked directly whether she was under arrest. She was told she was detained. That is a formal seizure declaration on camera. Under Burkimer versus McCarti, a Terry stop does not automatically require Miranda warnings. But when questioning becomes focused and accusatory fingerprints, real name conduct at a prior branch while the person cannot leave, the custodial interrogation analysis shifts. No Miranda adisement appears in this footage. Whether that omission suppresses the subject's statements depends on whether a judge finds the detention had crossed into custodial interrogation. Every statement made after the formal detention declaration is potentially contestable at a suppression hearing. The officers earn a B standby posture before contact was correct. The transition to detention used verbal commands only. The on camera statutory citation showed real legal knowledge. The Miranda gap is the deduction, the procedural step that a suppression motion will target. The primary subject receives a C+. No resistance, no threats. She announced her recording and officers did not object the correct outcome under seventh circuit precedent on the right to record public officials. The problem is what she did after detention was declared. She kept talking. The age discrepancy the officer caught on camera was not discovered through independent investigation. She provided the date of birth voluntarily during post- detention questioning and the stated age did not match. That inconsistency became additional probable cause in real time produced entirely by the subject herself. The companion was released. Officers correctly recognized that presence at a location does not establish criminal liability. No evidence connected her to the prior day's conduct. She answered what was asked, nothing more and was let go. That is what invoking silence looks like in practice. Once an officer formally declares a detention, the fifth amendment is immediately available. I would like to speak with an attorney before answering questions ends the interrogation lawfully. Nothing said after the detention declaration improved the subject's position. Every answer narrowed the room her attorney would later need. A vague concern does not authorize a detention. Confirmation from a manager who spoke with the real account holder by phone backed by records from the prior branch does. That difference is what separates a lawful Terry seizure from a Fourth Amendment violation. Returning to a second location the day after a failed attempt is not a protected act. Under Illinois forgery law, presenting a document capable of defrauding repeated across two branches on consecutive days closes the intent element that might otherwise be contested. The second visit was the case. Let us know if there is an interaction or legal topic that you would like us to discuss in the comments below. Thank you for watching and don't forget to check out our channel for even more police interaction and courtroom content.