This is another phone, though. This is This is another phone that I'm I started using because my other one that I had broke. >> It broke? >> Yes. >> What was the phone number for that one? >> For the one that broke? >> Yeah. What's up? [ __ ] it, man. >> All right, y'all. >> Okay, it was >> With the school, right? >> Four, yeah. >> When did that break down, yeah? >> Like about I would say about a month or something. Maybe less than a month. >> What's that phone number? Is it your new phone? >> This one? >> Yeah. >> Okay, this one is >> All right, give me 1 second, yeah? >> Okay. >> That's the phone that the school has. The one she's got right now. So, we'll take that from her. Unless she wants to give consent, but otherwise we're still going to take it. >> On February 5th, 2025, detectives with the Lake County Sheriff's Office in Illinois executed a pretextual traffic stop anchored by three legitimate traffic violations as the opening move of an active criminal investigation. The subject had no idea that what looked like a routine license plate stop was, in reality, a carefully timed intercept designed to secure digital evidence before it could be destroyed. >> Yeah. Hi. Is there anyone else in the car with you or you alone? >> No, it's just me. >> Okay. I'm Detective McCracken with the Lake County Sheriff's Office, okay? >> Yeah. >> The reason we stopped you, your tags are expired, no front license plate, and you didn't signal when you were trying to make a left turn into the bank, okay? >> Okay. So, I need a plate in front, too? >> You do need a plate in the state of Illinois. >> Oh my god. Oh my god. I'm going to go get my sticker right now. >> Can you do me a favor? I see you're on the phone. Do you mind hanging up for me? Yeah. >> I thought it was forbidden to speak with, but >> No, no, no. I don't I don't care about you being on the phone or nothing. Okay? Can you do me a favor, though? Can you bring your phone with you and then step out of the car for me? >> Yeah. >> Oh, no, your your check engine light's on. >> I know. I don't I don't know if it's going to pass the emissions test. >> Ah, yeah. Okay. Yeah, you want to you want to step >> I got to bring it to my mechanic first. >> I see. We'll come to the back here. I'll talk with you, okay? >> Okay. >> Um Actually, the reason why I'm pulling out your car and I want to talk to you, okay? We're actually coming right by your house to come talk to you. >> Okay. >> Okay? About the situation that's that's going on over at at Sudler School. >> Sandra has allegedly been seen kissing a 16-year-old boy several times at the high school. >> Did the school kind of call you and and tell you about that? >> No, they just sent me an email. >> They sent you an email? >> Yeah. >> What did they tell you? >> Um that they wanted to have a meeting with me like about like my um my actions and and I and I said like I don't know what I did bad. I didn't do anything bad, but I I just resigned to them. I said I'm just going to quit because I didn't I don't remember doing anything bad. >> Okay. >> So, I just I just left. >> So, here's >> looked at her and I dropped. >> I hear you. So, here's what I will explain to you. >> Okay. students at that school >> Mhm. >> that are making allegations that you have a relationship with one student for sure, two possibly. >> What? >> Those students being >> No way. >> who is >> Mhm. >> They have text messages from you and they have a Snapchat account from you saying it's you. Okay? Do you have any involvement seeing those kids or being out there and about with them? >> Nope. They wanted to date me and I could tell him that I'm not I'm not going to date somebody that's uh 16 years old. >> Okay. >> They kept asking me >> at school or >> At school. They they kept asking me out since I started working there. >> Okay. >> And I always said no. I kept rejecting them. And they got pissed off at me because because I kept telling them no. And they got mad at me for not letting them their phone inside and vaping, too. Smoking. >> too? >> Yeah, smoking weed and and more stuff, you know, and they and and >> I mean, like I said, I mean >> following the rules, they started hating me for trying to follow the rules. >> Like I said, I mean, it could it could be boys making up rumors, too. Um one thing one thing that'll help us kind of put an end to all this to say for sure like >> Yeah. >> oh, this is definitely not going on. >> Mhm. >> Um your cell phone. What we can do is call the forensic analysis of it. What that does is we can see if you were texting those numbers or Snapchatting or if they were trying to snap or text you. >> Okay. >> It'll show all of that. Is that something you'd want to do? Allow us to do? Give us consent to to dump your phone to download your phone? >> Like download it where? >> Over at our office in Waukegan. So, I would take it today. I would go have someone download it today. It's going to take a little bit of time, so I would say I'd probably give it back to you tomorrow. >> Well, the this is another phone, though. This is this is an another phone that I'm I started using because my other one that I had broke. >> It broke? >> Yes. >> What was the phone number for that one? >> For the one that broke? >> Yeah. What's up? I got one. >> Okay, it was >> With the school, right? >> Four, yeah. >> When did that break down, yeah? >> Like About I would say about a month or something. >> Whren versus United States, decided by the US Supreme Court in 1996, establishes the standard. A traffic stop is valid under the Fourth Amendment as long as officers have objective probable cause to believe a traffic violation occurred. The officer's subjective motivation is entirely irrelevant to that analysis. One violation was sufficient. Three violations made this stop legally untouchable. Pennsylvania versus Mims, 1977, authorized the detective to order the subject out of the vehicle with no additional justification required. That order was constitutionally sound from the moment the stop began. The subject was not yet under formal arrest at the roadside. Under Berkemer versus McCarty, 1984, Miranda warnings are not required during a roadside investigative detention. Every voluntary statement she made was legally obtained and fully admissible. No denial, however emphatic, constitutes an invocation of the Fifth Amendment. Without an explicit invocation, any statement made at that roadside was legally voluntary, fully admissible, and available to the prosecution at trial. When the detective offered a forensic phone download, he applied Schneckloth versus Bustamonte, 1973. Voluntary consent eliminates the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement. He framed it as a chance to clear her name while making clear the phone would be secured regardless. Investigators verified the phone number in real time. The claim that the device was new did not survive that check. A statement that collapses under immediate verification does not simply vanish. It compounds the subject's exposure at every stage that follows. Illinois Compiled Statutes 720 ILCS 5 11 1.50 prohibits sexual conduct between an adult and a minor aged 13 to 17 where the adult holds a position of trust or authority over that minor. A paraprofessional working one-on-one with students satisfies the position of trust element without ambiguity. The alleged physical contact, including kissing on school grounds, falls squarely within the scope of that statute. Electronic communications fall under 720 ILCS 51125, Illinois's grooming statute. This prohibits any communication with a minor intended to facilitate unlawful sexual conduct. Text messages and Snapchat both qualify. Child endangerment under 720 ILCS 512C5 applies when someone knowingly permits a child to be placed in circumstances that endanger that child's life or health. Allowing an unlicensed minor to drive on a public roadway satisfies that standard. >> Maybe less than a month. >> What's that phone number? So, your new phone? >> This one? >> Yeah. >> Okay, this one is >> All right. Give me 1 second, yeah? >> Okay. >> That's the phone that the school has. >> Which one? >> The one she's got right now. So, we'll take that from her. Unless she wants to give consent, otherwise we're still going to take it. And then uh What do you think about the car? Tow it still? In relation to the investigation? >> I just I don't know what it's going to do. >> I'll call Lana real quick. No, it's got to be him cuz it's his car. If you get hurt on it, he'll get in a lot of trouble. The white The white phone charger? Is it in the back? >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Can you check the back because it's like just lying in the back. Yeah, it's >> Oh, that one. >> The white one. Can I get the thing? Oh, yeah, thank you. >> All right, thank you, sir. >> What's that? >> Tell me. Tattoo. >> Oh, okay. >> Uh she had some guy come in here named Ernesto, her boyfriend, but we're actually going to cart her back to CID now. So, you should be able to clear it. >> Oh, you didn't suspect anything? All right. >> With all the evidence they need, the false phone statement carries independent legal weight. A material misstatement during an active criminal investigation can expose a subject to obstruction charges under Illinois law. More importantly, it establishes what courts call consciousness of guilt, an inference prosecutors can introduce at trial. Detective McRacken receives an A minus. The stop had three legally independent grounds. The interview was conducted without constitutional error. The phone was secured correctly. The one deduction reflects portions of the private officer conversation being audible to the subject. Sandra Pardo receives a D. If the underlying allegations are proven, they represent a serious breach of professional trust involving a minor under her direct supervisory care. She made the situation significantly worse during the encounter. She spoke without invoking her Fifth Amendment right, made voluntary statements that may be used against her, and provided a false account of the phone that investigators disproved in minutes. This case offers concrete takeaways that extend beyond Lake County. Whether you work in a role involving authority over minors, or you simply want to understand how law enforcement encounters work legally, here are five lessons this footage teaches. First, any observable traffic violation gives officers a constitutionally valid basis to stop your vehicle, regardless of their underlying investigative purpose. Wren versus United States settled that in 1996, and it remains controlling law. Second, a roadside detention short of formal arrest does not trigger Miranda. Identify yourself as required by state law, and say nothing further without legal counsel. Voluntary roadside statements are fully admissible in court. Third, lying to investigators about physical evidence does not help. It adds exposure for obstruction. It signals to the court that you knew you had something to hide, and investigators frequently already know the answer before they ask the question. Fourth, Illinois law treats position of trust as a statutory element of criminal sexual abuse, not simply a moral factor. For anyone working in a supervisory role with minors, that element is in play from the moment the professional relationship begins. Fifth, allowing an unlicensed minor to operate a motor vehicle on a public roadway is a direct violation of Illinois child endangerment law. The minor's willingness to drive is not a defense. Their apparent capability is not a defense. If there is a body cam interaction or a legal issue you would like us to break down, drop it in the comments below. If this analysis was useful, a thumbs up and a subscription to our channel help us keep making this content.