[Moxley Confidential] Judge Declares Pregnant Woman Innocent of Shoplifting Anti-Aging Cream

Not Stealing Beauty
Dana Point cops charged an innocent pregnant woman with burglary and theft of a $100 jar of anti-aging cream

At any given time, how close are you to being arrested, charged and faced with possible incarceration for the first time in your life? About one misguided witness and one lazy police officer away.

Sound farfetched? Not if you ask Rancho Santa Margarita’s Alyssa L. Georgie. The 33-year-old landscape-architect office manager, wife and mom had never been in trouble. But after the events of July 1, she stood accused of commercial burglary and theft.

Georgie was absolutely, demonstrably innocent. But that pesky fact didn’t dissuade the Orange County Sheriff’s Department (OCSD) and local prosecutors from filing two criminal charges against her. For months—in the midst of the pregnancy of her second child—she had to fret about the predicament and spend money on a defense lawyer.

Georgie says she felt like she was living in a nightmare that began on that summer day. Taking an early lunch break from work, she drove to a Planet Beauty in Dana Point to buy some Mario Badescu enzymatic skin cleanser. When Georgie entered the store at precisely 11:20 a.m., she heard a buzzer, disregarded it and walked to a store shelf, but she didn’t find the product she wanted. Because sales clerks were busy helping other customers, she left two minutes later. As Georgie passed the store’s two anti-theft sensor posts at the front door, a buzzer sounded again. A clerk followed her outside but didn’t say anything. Georgie, who was four months pregnant, drove away in her SUV.

What Georgie didn’t know at the time was that the clerk, 25-year-old Jordan Woodworth, suspected her of shoplifting and recorded her vehicle’s license-plate number. The next day, Woodworth told the OCSD, which has jurisdiction in Dana Point, that Georgie had stolen a 1.7-ounce, $100 jar of Dr. Brandt’s anti-aging facial cream. To support her contention, the clerk told deputy Paul Martin that video-surveillance cameras captured the customer opening a product box, removing a small jar, placing it under her skirt’s waistband and putting an “empty box back on the shelf” before “running” out the door “without paying,” according to a sheriff’s report obtained by the Weekly.

Eight days later, an OCSD employee working with Martin called Georgie. She confirmed she’d been in the store but denied shoplifting and suggested her AT&T cell phone might have triggered the alarm. She added that in the past, she suspected her phone had sounded alarms in other stores such as Home Depot.

But Woodworth inexplicably assured Martin, “Her phone didn’t activate the alarm.” Just as inexplicably, the deputy accepted the assertion as truth.

“[Georgie] hid facial cream in her skirt,” Martin concluded in his crime report, which was approved as thorough by Sergeant John Carpenter. “The stolen item caused the store’s alarm to activate.”

Her motive? “Personal gain,” he speculated.

It looked like an airtight theft case. Martin sent his report and the surveillance video to the DA’s office so charges could be filed. But the video—the sole piece of real evidence in the case, given that Woodworth didn’t see any shoplifting with her own eyes—exonerated Georgie.

I’ve reviewed the footage. It doesn’t show Georgie taking any product from a box. It doesn’t show her hiding any product under her black skirt. It doesn’t show her putting an empty box back on the shelf. It doesn’t show her acting suspiciously. It doesn’t show her running from the store.

Indeed, Martin’s own description of what he saw on the video can be said about every shopper in the store: The camera showed a woman “browsing along a wall-mounted display shelf” and “looking at several items.”

“At one point, [Georgie] turns away from the display shelf; her arms appear to be near her waist,” the deputy recounted. “She then walks up the aisle, puts on a pair of sunglasses and walks out of the camera’s view.”

By Martin’s own description of the evidence, Georgie was guilty of shopping. But, amazingly, the video wasn’t what got the Orange County district attorney’s office to drop the charges three months into the ordeal. Relying on the word of the deputy that a crime had been committed, prosecutors apparently hadn’t even looked at the tape before filing charges. What undermined the government’s case was the work of Georgie’s Tustin-based defense lawyer, Brian N. Gurwitz, a former OC prosecutor.

Believing the veracity of his client but also that something had set off the store’s alarm, Gurwitz conducted his own investigation. He entered the shop on Street of the Golden Lantern with Georgie’s cell phone. The alarm remained silent. Gurwitz next walked in with his client’s keys. Nothing happened. Finally, he took in her wallet. The alarm sounded.

1 | 2 | Next Page >>
 
  • 04/22/2011 5:14:00 PM

    It is a good decision by Judge to declare pregnant woman innocent of shoplifting anti-aging cream. I think no one can do fraud innocently. fraxel tustin

  • CHS 01/14/2010 8:49:00 PM

    Let's get this straight...the only "eye-witness" (the video) screams "reasonable doubt" yet the DA's office continued to prosecute the case. Probably just laziness.

  • Gay8 01/11/2010 9:37:00 PM

    What an utterly stupid story which happens routinely in the shoplifting world! Stick to juicy stories like murder and violence please if you are not hard up.

  • david 01/10/2010 9:15:00 PM

    everyone needs to call planet beauty and tell them what you think of them. They suck. 949-493-7111. don't ever do business with them...their clerks steal and then set up customers. fact. close you doors planet beauty. i am pacing a full page ad in the dana point paper asking for a boycott. YOU SUCK!!

  • 12/29/2009 1:57:00 PM

    Oh one item I forgot to mention, perhaps the store should be charged for rape, I mean $100 for an anti aging cream that probably does not work anyway?

  • 12/29/2009 1:55:00 PM

    Imagine had it been a less fortunate person that had to rely on the lack of experience of an overworked Public Defender? They would be doing time for a plea bargain that was made as all the evidence pointed towards her guilt. Justice prevails for those that can afford to buy it!

  • Duke 12/23/2009 10:20:00 AM

    I suspect the stupid deputy needed the anti-aging facial cream.

  • Kat 12/22/2009 11:28:00 AM

    So then, who DID take the 1.7-ounce, $100 jar of Dr. Brandt�s anti-aging facial cream? hmmm.....

  • Brian Gurwitz Fan 12/20/2009 8:24:00 PM

    Glad to see Mr. Gurwitz back in town! He has my vote for Judge, or one day, District Attorney!

  • Ltpar 12/20/2009 3:49:00 AM

    Very interesting sscenario of how the wheels of Justice sometimes become stuck in the mud. This story suggests very poor training of the employee by the store. Her actions alone, could cost them big money should the innocent shoplifter get an attorney and sue civilly. If one clerk knew about the wallet setting off the alarm, so should all the rest. Additonally, if there was reason to believe the alarm had been activated, the issue should have been courteously investigated by store staff, as soon as the customer left the store. Had that been done, the matter most likely would have been resolved and involvement of the Sheriff's Department would have been avoided. Lastly, was the very poor investigation of the case by the Sheriff's Deputy. Perhaps, all his work was of that quality and may be why he no longer works there. The hero of the case was clearly the Defense Attorney, who knows his stuff. If I ever need an attorney, I will keep this guy in mind. In the end, the twin sisters, "Truth and Justice" showed up and saved the day, but not without some tramatic experiences for the innocent mom to be. Good story.

  • Paul 12/19/2009 11:20:00 PM

    We had a girl! Thanks Planet Beauty for being responsible for the draining of our savings account at such an ideal time.

  • American in Greece 12/19/2009 2:02:00 PM

    Sad indeed that this happened. I often get frustrated that American victims of the US Justice system have no recourse to hold rougue officers/DA accountable. Is there any remedy for her to sue the officer or the store clerk for their accusations. In Greece, for example, if this happened, you are allowed to sue the store clerk for a false accusation and this store clerk would have to go to court to defend himself against this false accusation. It really helps to level out the false accusations. Maybe if we had this system in the US, less "false crimes" would be reported. Would you report somthing false if you knew the person you accused can also accuse you of false reporting and you then have to defend yourself and spend money in court??

  • Scott 12/19/2009 10:06:00 AM

    Great job, Mr Gurwitz. Also props to Deputy DA Rick Zimmer -- sounds like a stand up guy.

 

Most Popular Stories

Browse Voice Nation
  • Voice Places

    Voice Places

    Discover restaurants, nightlife, travel, shopping...

  • VOICE Daily Deals

    VOICE Daily Deals

    Get 50 to 90% off every day on restaurants, movies, massages...

  • Best Of

    Best Of...

    More than 10,000 of the BEST things to eat, drink, and experience

  • My Voice Nation

    My Voice Nation

    Join the Village Voice community and get exclusive deals and info

  • Happy Hour

    Happy Hour

    Your local Happy Hour guide at your fingertips

or

Log in or Sign up

Social Connect:

Use your favorite account to access My Voice Nation.


Use your My Voice Nation account to log in:





Forgot password?
or

Sign Up or Log in

Social Connect:

Sign up for My Voice Nation with your preferred network.


Sign up for a My Voice Nation account:



Privacy policy