A withdrawal of charges was agreed on this file with further evidence provided that confirmed a miscommunication. The code was provided to the "accused" by the manager who you see in the video with yellow nails. The code was not on the office wall and it was provided to allow the new employee to obtain the employee discount. She used the code as told and paid. The auditor was not advised of this; although he asked why or what the employee was doing. He was given an honest answer; that the employee used the code, took a discount and made a purchase. That should have been sufficient when it is understood that the code was provided and the employee was directed by the manager to proceed; a case of something lost in translation as to the current policy at that location while he is a regional auditor and was unaware of the manager's policy but came to his "own conclusion" based on what he watched on the system and called the authorities accordingly but in a mistaken apprehension as to the real motivation and facts. The only issue here is what the employee was told and her honest belief when she proceeded. As she proceeded with the manager's instructions she had no intention to commit a crime; no mens rea. The auditor does not have a green card and is also dating the manager with the yellow nails and drank the "grow" drink in her fridge. He should not have called the police; therefore. The manager is entitled to set the policies on this issue. The manager said when the police were in the story that the employee did not do anything wrong; an unfortunate misunderstanding that could have been cleared up if it was thoroughly resolved as to why she had the code. Key Issue: When arrested, the accused was not read her rights and nor was she told clearly in plain language told the reason for their attendance involving the Dollar General. This was a grievous failure in procedure. The process is tainted. She is entitled to compensation. These officers are agents of the Constitution; doing their best. Thank them.

  

 A withdrawal of charges was agreed on this file with further evidence provided that confirmed a miscommunication.  The code was provided to the "accused" by the manager who you see in the video with yellow nails. The code was not on the office wall and it was provided to allow the new employee to obtain the employee discount. She used the code as told and paid.  The auditor was not advised of  this; although  he asked why or what the employee was doing. He was given an honest answer; that the employee  used the code, took a discount and made a purchase.  That should have been sufficient when it is understood that the code was provided and the employee was directed by the manager to proceed; a case of something lost in translation as to the current policy at that location while he is a regional auditor and was unaware of the manager's policy but came to his "own conclusion" based on what he watched on the system and called the authorities accordingly but in a mistaken apprehension as to the real motivation and facts.  The only issue here is what the employee was told and her honest belief when she proceeded.  As she proceeded with the manager's instructions she had no intention to commit a crime; no mens rea.  The auditor does not have a green card and is also dating the manager with the yellow nails and drank the "grow" drink in her fridge.  He should not have called the police; therefore.  The manager is entitled to set the policies on this issue.  The manager said when the police were in the story that the employee did not do anything wrong; an unfortunate misunderstanding that could have been cleared up if it was thoroughly resolved as to why she had the code.

Key Issue: When arrested, the accused was not read her rights and nor was she told clearly in plain language told the reason for their attendance involving the Dollar General. This was a grievous failure in procedure. The process is tainted.  

She is entitled to compensation.  These officers are agents of the Constitution; doing their best.  Thank them.