Florida Woman Asks Why She’s Going Back to Jail, Then Detective Offers Her a Choice

Image Credit: Police Encounters TV / YouTube. A Florida woman’s second arrest in less than 24 hours is attracting fresh attention after bodycam footage captured her repeatedly questioning why she was going back to jail and a detective offering her a choice between questioning and immediate booking.

The video, published October 8 by Police Encounters TV, has already drawn more than 85,000 views. It shows Anabarbara Adams Pedrosa confronting another arrest just hours after bonding out of the Charlotte County Jail.

Punta Gorda police had arrested her over suspected fraudulent returns at Bealls Outlet, where investigators alleged she took merchandise from store shelves and returned it for cash or credit. A broader investigation eventually identified 65 suspicious returns across several locations.

But the exchange that raised a separate legal question came when Pedrosa requested an attorney. Detective Mason Savic told her she could go to his office to answer questions or head directly to jail. Court records establish what happened afterward.

Embedded media follows; please allow a moment for it to load.

Pedrosa had been released on bond at 11:16 p.m. on April 24, 2024. Roughly 15 hours later, Savic arrived at her family’s Port Charlotte home, explaining that the Charlotte County Sheriff’s Office was investigating additional suspected thefts outside Punta Gorda’s jurisdiction.

She questioned the new arrest as he placed her in handcuffs, repeatedly asking what she had done and why the allegations had not been handled the previous day.

Pedrosa initially agreed to accompany Savic to the district office because she wanted to understand the charges. But she subsequently mentioned having spoken with an attorney.

“So I don’t wanna talk to anyone without an attorney,” she told him.

Savic read her Miranda rights, including the right to remain silent and have counsel present during questioning. Pedrosa continued asking whether she was going to the office or back to jail.

When she asked whether she would ultimately be jailed, Savic answered, “So ultimately yeah, I’m not gonna lie to you.”

He then explained the immediate choice: “If you wanna talk with me, we’ll go to the office. If you don’t wanna talk with me, you’ll just go straight down to the jail.”

Pedrosa asked whether an attorney would be available at the office. Savic replied that requesting counsel meant going directly to jail without further questioning. She agreed to go to the office.

Under the Supreme Court’s ruling in Edwards v. Arizona, officers generally cannot initiate further custodial interrogation after a suspect clearly requests counsel unless an attorney is present or the suspect initiates further discussion and validly waives that right.

Savic had already confirmed that Pedrosa would ultimately go to jail regardless of her decision. His arrest affidavit also documents what happened after she reached the district office: she declined to give detectives a statement and was transported to jail.

The bodycam recording also captures Savic interviewing Pedrosa’s relatives about merchandise appearing at their home.

Her uncle described clothing and toys she brought home for her young son, sometimes disappearing after the child had played with them. He doubted she was reselling merchandise.

“I think it’s more she wants to give him something, but she doesn’t have the money to do it,” he explained.

Another relative described what she believed was a shopping addiction. The uncle also revealed that Pedrosa’s cousin, a corrections officer, had helped book her into jail the previous night.

The sheriff’s arrest affidavit describes the suspected scheme in greater detail. During one April 19 transaction, investigators alleged Pedrosa obtained a $53.48 cash refund for a bed-cover set and closet hangers she had selected from the store’s own shelves.

Bealls corporate identified 65 suspected fraudulent refunds across multiple jurisdictions, including 19 transactions totaling $1,296.86 over approximately 30 days. Investigations also extended to Sarasota and Lee counties.

Charlotte County court records show Pedrosa entered no-contest pleas to two misdemeanor petit-theft charges on May 22, 2024, and was adjudicated guilty. She received concurrent one-year probation terms, 100 hours of community service, and $190.41 in restitution to Bealls. She successfully completed probation in May 2025.

Prosecutors declined to file the original scheme-to-defraud and associated petit-theft charges in one felony case, identifying related proceedings as the reason.

The separate sheriff’s investigation resulted in a July 31, 2024, no-contest plea to third-degree felony retail theft involving $300 or more across multiple locations. The court withheld adjudication of guilt.

The reviewed records do not establish that a judge ruled on Savic’s handling of Pedrosa’s request for an attorney.

All parties are presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty in a court of law.

Olivia Richman has been a journalist for 10 years, specializing in esports, games, cars, and all things tech. When she isn’t writing nerdy stuff, Olivia is taking her cars to the track, eating pho, and playing the Pokemon TCG.

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.