Police Find Multiple IDs During Walmart Theft Arrest — Then the Explanations Start

A Walmart theft investigation turned into something more complicated when police tried to answer a basic question: Who had they arrested?

Bodycam footage posted to YouTube shows store loss-prevention workers stopping a customer after monitoring what they described as fraudulent returns. Police soon became less concerned with whether an arrest would happen than with determining whose name should go on the paperwork.

The customer repeatedly gave officers the name Tessa, but searches under the information she provided apparently returned records that did not match the person standing in front of them. The problem grew when officers found several identification documents while searching her belongings.

By the end of the encounter, an officer decided the jail could use fingerprints to establish her identity. The footage does not provide enough independently verifiable information to establish the customer’s true name, the police agency involved, the original incident date, or the final disposition of the case.

An Arrest Unfolds

Embedded media follows; please allow a moment to load.

Loss-prevention employees tell police in the footage that they had been watching the customer inside Walmart and recognized her from an encounter the previous day.

Employees accused her of selecting merchandise inside the store and using receipts to obtain refunds for items she had not purchased. During the stop, they tell officers she completed multiple returns before leaving the store.

The customer disputed parts of that account. At different points, she said she had paid for some merchandise and described a previous transaction in which her card had declined.

Police eventually calculated $649 connected to the incident and prepared a citation for third-degree theft.

That amount matters under Washington law. RCW 9A.56.050 classifies theft of property or services worth no more than $750 as theft in the third degree, a gross misdemeanor.

The video does not establish whether prosecutors ultimately filed that charge or whether the $649 figure was accepted in court.

Whose Name?

Identifying the customer quickly became the larger problem.

After officers asked for her information, a records search appeared to return a person with different identifying characteristics. Police questioned why information supplied by the customer was apparently associated with a man.

The officers then examined the identification documents in her possession.

The customer maintained that one belonged to her and attempted to explain differences involving her name and middle initial. Officers remained unconvinced. At one point, an officer also questioned what appeared to be an altered identification document.

The conversation went in circles.

Rather than risk booking the arrest under the wrong person’s information, an officer told the customer she would be taken to jail, where fingerprints could be used to establish her identity.

That decision also left open the possibility of another charge.

One Legal Problem

During the encounter, an officer tells the customer that providing false information to police is a Class C felony.

That statement does not accurately describe Washington’s general false-statement statute.

Under RCW 9A.76.175, knowingly making a materially false or misleading statement to a public servant is a gross misdemeanor.

Washington does have a separate Class C felony involving false identities. First-degree criminal impersonation applies when someone assumes a false identity and acts under that identity with an intent to defraud another person or for another unlawful purpose.

The distinction is important because finding multiple identification documents does not, by itself, establish which crime occurred. Prosecutors would still have to establish the elements of whatever charge they elected to file.

The footage does not show a subsequent charging document, so it remains unclear whether either offense was ultimately pursued.

Another Discovery

The encounter took another turn when officers discussed what they believed could be methamphetamine among the customer’s belongings.

An officer told her the substance could be tested and could result in an additional charge.

Current Washington law makes knowing possession of a controlled substance a gross misdemeanor in most simple-possession cases. The statute also encourages diversion or referral to assessment and services in qualifying cases.

The video alone cannot establish what the substance was, whether laboratory testing confirmed it contained methamphetamine, or whether prosecutors filed a possession charge.

Headed To Jail

The customer’s pleas did not change the outcome.

She told officers she understood what she had done was wrong, promised not to return to Walmart, and repeatedly asked for another chance. Police told her the store was issuing a trespass notice and that she was still being booked.

One officer emphasized that the unresolved identity problem was part of the reason.

The customer continued to insist that the name she had provided was hers, while officers pointed to inconsistencies in the documents and answers they had received.

Eventually, the officer ended the discussion and prepared to transport her.

Public searches did not turn up an agency release, booking record, or court case that could be conclusively matched to the footage. References during the encounter to Tacoma, Federal Way, and King County point toward Washington’s Puget Sound region, but they are not enough to establish where the arrest occurred.

Without an original police report or court record, the customer’s identity, the charges ultimately filed against her, and the outcome of the case remain unconfirmed.