That's her. >> Yeah, she knows. And this is the ID. Um, we are ready for today customer and she's in PA. So, what she trying to do? She's trying to >> She's trying to withdraw $4,000 out of her account. So, how she trying to do that? She hasn't been >> October 17th, 2022. CM, Florida. Officers responded to a TD Bank branch at 2:15 in the afternoon. The encounter raised serious questions about Miranda custody and what the fifth amendment actually protects. >> Ma'am, no. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. You're not going to do that. You're not stand over there, please. >> I really I literally ride. >> Stand over there. I'm not going to take it in. Please stand over there. What's the matter? Cheryl. >> Yeah. Let's go inside. >> Where's your ride? Oh, I've been I've been trying to have them hold my They literally It was my Uber. >> All right, let's stand under the tree over there. >> What? >> Let's stand under that tree over there >> where there's shade. Yeah, where there's shade. >> Okay, >> let's stay before. >> All right, it's fine. It's fine. All right. So, pretty much we're over here with someone that's claiming to be you and trying to pull out funds. >> So, withdraw. >> All right. Uh, well, they have your number. If anything, I'll give you back a call. Okay. CMI Police Department. [music] CMI Police Department. Yep. >> Okay. No problem. Let me give it back to the gentleman over here. Okay. >> Thank you. Dang it. These doors always clos [laughter] >> Well, I don't know. I just got here, so I guess he called supervisor. I don't know if she requested it. Did you request a supervisor? >> Did I request? >> No. >> Okay. Miss Cheryl Maurice Miranda. Okay. >> You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to talk to a lawyer and have him present with you while you are being questioned. Why am I being >> Hold on. If you cannot afford to hire a lawyer, one will be appointed to represent you before enduring any questions. Do you understand each's rights? I explained to you. >> Yes. >> Having these rights in mind, you want to talk to me while we're here today? >> I'm sorry. What now? >> Do you want to talk to me about why we're here today? >> Um, I'm not really sure. Questioning I guess my ID. >> Okay. >> This is where the legal side of the encounter becomes especially important. The officer has just read Cheryl her Miranda rights, including her right to remain silent and her right to an attorney. She acknowledges that she understands those rights, but almost immediately starts questioning why she is being investigated. Then, as the questions continue, she says she wants to speak with an attorney because she doesn't understand what is happening. That is a major moment because once someone clearly invokes the right to counsel during custodial interrogation, officers have to be extremely careful about continuing questioning. And notice the tension here. The officers are trying to establish whether the identity presented at the bank is legitimate while she is increasingly focused on protecting herself legally. Would you have answered the officer's questions or stop talking immediately? >> What's your real name? My real name is >> Okay. Where'd you get your ID? >> Back home. >> Where? >> I mean, I don't understand why this is even like a >> issue. Yeah. The issue. >> So, I just spoke to the individual that goes by the same name as you that has the account on the phone, the TD Bank, and then your information is correct. Are you saying that's a lie? That you are who you say you are and then that is you. >> I feel like something's definitely wrong right now and I just don't I need to talk to an attorney evidently because I don't understand. >> Simple question. >> I understand the question, but I also know that anything I say can be used against me and I want to make sure. >> What's your social? How about that? >> We'll go back. What's your social? So, right now we have problem. Okay. So, are you saying you are you are the individual that gave me that ID and that is exactly who you are? That's who you were born with that information. >> Um, I've already explained that. I I do want to speak to an attorney though if that's if you're really arresting me right now for >> Are you detained right now? Are you under arrest? Well, no, I'm not detained, but you just read me my Miranda rights. You said >> because we're trying to determine if the crime was committed. So, now you're telling me you are that person or you're not that person. >> I've been telling you I'm that person, but I'm just trying to figure out why. >> So, the ID she's giving me, she's claiming that's who she is from, Pennsylvania. I spoke to the person that has the same information as her on the phone with TD Bank that their records have and that person has had um the identity stolen in three different locations and this is the newest one. One's in New York, one's in Florida. Okay. So, she's saying she wish to speak to attorney and that she doesn't want to say anything. >> The girl said there was multiple Cheryl Wongs whenever she tried to look me up. So she had an issue even finding me in the beginning like you know what I mean? So so she gave a cell phone number. I don't know what if that's it. >> See if they send a picture >> trying. >> That's what they're doing. Oh Gomez is doing right now. Now the investigation takes a dramatic turn. Up to this point, the suspect has repeatedly maintained that the identification belongs to her. But officers run the information through the DMV system and discover something extremely significant. The photograph associated with a Pennsylvania identification does not match the woman standing in front of him. That's not a minor discrepancy. The officers are now dealing with evidence suggesting that the identity document itself belongs to another person. They also explain that the document appears to have a problem with its hologram, describing it as printed rather than functioning like the genuine security feature. At that moment, the officer stops asking general questions and starts demanding the woman's real identity. This is where the investigation shifts from suspicion about a bank transaction to potential identity and document offenses. If the DMV photograph clearly doesn't match, what explanation could possibly overcome that evidence? >> So, you're saying that ID belongs to you? >> Yes, sir. >> So, when we run it and that's the picture that comes up >> from the state of Pennsylvania. That's not you. That is 1,000% not you. >> Okay. >> You don't have a line. >> I don't I don't understand. I really don't understand. >> We run the ID. That's the picture that comes up. the DMV through the DMV. State to state. So, we're going to try this again. What's your name? I'm going to let you know if we don't get your name, you're going to go to jail. Cuz it's false information to a law enforcement officer, an arrestable crowd. It's also presenting a false ID to a long to a bank. >> I can tell you this is a fake ID. I'll show you how. See, you thought you printed a good ID except for the hologram showed up as a real print on your picture. It's not a hologram. The hologram showed up. >> I didn't. >> So, who are you? You're not You're not from Pennsylvania and that's not your ID. So, let's try this again. Who are you? I need to understand exactly what's happened right now because you just said that if I >> No, no, I'm not I'm not >> I'm not trying to be registered right now. I'm not That's not >> So if I didn't drop this I'm not done talking. >> We're done. >> We are done. We're done. >> Turn off. Turn off. Give me your other hand. >> Ow. Ow. My wrist is already messed up. >> Can you give me off? >> This part of the encounter is where the pressure really escalates. The officers tell her that continuing to provide false information could result in an additional charge and they repeatedly ask her to positively identify herself. She says she doesn't want any charges, but she still doesn't immediately provide the information officers are requesting. There is an important distinction here. The officer's statements about possible charges are part of the encounter, but the transcript itself does not establish that every legal consequence described to her would automatically occur exactly as stated. What we can clearly see is that the officers believe they have enough information to continue the detention and move toward booking while they establish her identity. And eventually, she begins reconsidering her position. Was the pressure from the officers justified or do you think she should have been given more time to consult an attorney? >> Can I hold on one second? >> I'm just putting my phone. >> I know. >> I'm just trying to make it easier so I can put my arm back. >> Yes. >> So, I don't know if you understand what he's trying to tell you. Right. So presenting false information, that's another charge separate from what happened in there. So you having another charge added. So you're not trying to have anything. >> So we we can go back and forth with this all day, but that's going to be an extra charge and it's a felony. So I'm letting you know right now. So whatever game is you want to play is, it is what it is. So So if you want to add an extra charge to what you already have in there, that's up to you. All right? We could be here all day. So I don't want an extra charge of any kind. I don't want any charge. >> Okay. So, are you ready to identify yourself? Positively identify yourself >> or you want to want us to keep on because we're going to take you to county jail. >> Okay. >> This will happen. When you get there, we're going to book you as a jendo. >> We book you in Jendo. You're going to be there until they identify you. If it takes one year, two years by law, that's how long they're going to keep you there until you get identified. So, either way, you're going to get identified. >> So, okay. This is the point where the bank's information becomes especially powerful. Officers explained that the actual account holder had already dealt with fraud and that the account information involved in this incident had previously been flagged. The woman at the bank apparently had some of the old account information, including the last four digits, and presented identification that officers later determined did not match the actual owner. That creates a much stronger factual picture than a simple misunderstanding at a bank counter. The investigation now has multiple pieces. The real customer was contacted. The account had fraud concerns. The identification was checked against DMV records. And the photograph reportedly belonged to someone else. The officers are also discussing surveillance footage and other branches showing that the investigation may extend beyond this single location. If you were investigating this case, would the bank records and DMV comparison be enough to convince you that this was intentional? >> Associated. >> We couldn't we couldn't match it against anything. >> Okay. >> Cuz nothing came back when we ran it with that. >> Did you try calling your David and see if she >> No, my D. >> Yeah. >> Hold that. You got my water? >> All right. >> I'll take something on this other pocket, too. >> Oh, it's a lighter. I think 102 bank. >> There's no caller ID. It's on the phone. >> I was letting a friend know that I was getting detained. >> She was on the phone. Not the whole time. Just literally 30 minutes. >> Oh, for the last 30 minutes. >> Yeah, that's a long time. Mhm. >> Okay. >> I mean, she made that call while I was standing over my head. >> He said he said that. >> My literally my my person. >> Your person? >> Yeah. >> Doesn't make any sense. Start walking over there. >> That's what I say for my boyfriend. That's not >> Your boyfriend's your person. >> Yeah, my person. Keep going straight. Turn right. Go straight. None of these in my cars. >> Listen, I don't want to be putting as a dang go, obviously. So, I can give you my name. >> So, you want to give me your real name now? >> I did. Listen, you don't understand. You don't know. >> I'm trying to identify who you are, but you're over here. You're lying to me the whole time. So, how can I give you information if you want to lie? It's >> okay. No, I got you. I got you. I got you. Where are we going to that car over there? Now we reach the legal analysis and this is where viewers need to separate what the transcript says happened from what would ultimately have to be proven in court. The commentary in the recording discusses reasonable suspicion, Miranda, the right to counsel, the scope of questioning, and the DMV evidence. One especially important issue is the timing of the attorney request and the questioning that followed. Whether a constitutional violation occurred would depend on the precise circumstances, including whether the person was in custody and whether the questioning continued after an unequivocal invocation of counsel. At the same time, the identification evidence is a separate issue. The DMV comparison, the alleged mismatch, the bank's contact with the actual customer, and the physical characteristics of the document are evidence that can potentially exist independently of any statement made by the suspect. So, here's the key question. If the suspect stops talking, can the evidence itself still build the case? All right. What's your real name? >> You guys, you guys will have to write a statement. Okay. >> Okay. >> So now the actual owner the actual owner of that account that account that account is still active, right? >> Yeah. >> Just that. >> So the that she this lady had the last four numbers of an old account. >> Okay. They got well it wasn't an active account but the the second time right. >> Okay. >> And then the actual customer had to go to the branch and open a new account and create a fraud case with the bank. >> Okay. >> This lady had the last four numbers of that account that was flagged already. She didn't have the information for the new account. >> Oh. So when she came she she said >> she just said I don't know my account number. I just know the last four numbers. Um and here is my ID. That's all she said. number. >> Okay. And when you guys open it, they happen the account was flagged. >> All right. So, yeah, we checked the >> she has all the information of the actual account number, but when we run the the driver license from the DMV, >> it has the actual face of the owner. >> So, you don't see that it wasn't even totally two two different people. So, >> and that's why we called just to make sure. Um, and when we >> So, she's going to go to jail >> and so you got to consequences for what? >> Yeah. You have your ID or I I'll do I'll do this part with you. Just start from there. Put your name and just write, you know, everything that happened all the stuff. Then I'll feed this one together with you with your ID. Okay. >> And um anything. So, the have to be a blue pen, please. >> Blue. >> A blue pen. >> Yes. So another thing is um uh you guys surveillance video you know >> so for the video cuz we don't have access you guys will have to do a subpoena. >> No we not because yeah you guys are the ones to >> Okay. So all right leave me a business card. I'll set I'll talk to Jim who's in charge of the security. >> We will give you um a report number with the card. But as soon as you get it, you call, anybody can come and get it and get the video and do what what we call it a supplement to it. Yeah. But >> we going to need and also check the other banks, the other branches is the same TD branches, right? >> In other states. >> Yeah. So you guys could still check over there and let them know if they could check the video if it's her, they as well because now we are able to >> Did do you identify her yet? So now now we identified her who she is. So they they can still file file those charges as well. >> Okay. >> So it's it's across straight line. So it's >> Yeah. The security guy probably with the account number and the case will be able to look at the case when it happened, the date, the time >> and he might be able to put the video for that as well. >> So I'll come back and grab this. I don't want to disturb you. Okay. >> Thank you. >> All right. So >> So looking at the encounter from beginning to end, the case develops through several major stages. Police are initially called to a bank after a woman allegedly attempts to withdraw $4,000 using another person's account information. Officers then contact the actual customer, investigate the identification being presented, and compare that information against DMV records. The transcript later states that the identification photograph belonged to someone else and describes additional evidence involving the document itself. The encounter also raises an important constitutional question about Miranda rights and the timing of the request for an attorney. However, the transcript does not give us a final court judgment confirming every legal conclusion stated during the later analysis. So those conclusions should be treated as commentary rather than an established ruling. The broader lesson is simple. The right to remain silent is fundamental, but it does not automatically erase independent evidence such as bank records, identity records, surveillance, or document comparisons. What do you think? Did the evidence speak for itself, or should the officers have handled the questioning differently? If you found this case as shocking as we did, make sure to hit that like button, share your thoughts in the comments, and don't forget to subscribe for more jaw-dropping courtroom breakdowns.