A Florida woman who denied being at Walmart found herself at the center of a police investigation after surveillance footage allegedly showed her SUV striking another vehicle in the parking lot and leaving the scene.
The May 26, 2025 encounter was featured by the bodycam channel Trace to Capture, whose narrator said officers followed the evidence from Walmart to the home of Tequila Nelson, where questions about who had been driving the SUV quickly turned into a lengthy and increasingly tense investigation.
Nelson repeatedly denied going to the store, while family members initially said the vehicle had remained at the house. Police, however, said surveillance footage showed the SUV at Walmart and additional video later appeared to show it returning to Nelson’s driveway.
Police Follow The SUV Back To Nelson’s Home
The investigation began after another driver reported that a black SUV had struck a vehicle in the Walmart parking lot.
An officer went inside the store to obtain surveillance footage and narrow down the time of the collision.
According to police in the bodycam footage, the video showed the SUV backing out of a parking space, hitting another vehicle and driving away.
Officers also said the footage captured the license plate clearly enough to trace the SUV back to Nelson’s home.
When police arrived, Nelson’s husband appeared frustrated by the number of officers present and repeatedly asked what had happened.
The officers said they were simply trying to figure out who had been driving.
When Nelson came outside, police asked whether she owned the SUV and whether she had been at Walmart earlier that day.
She said she had not.
Nelson Says She Had Been Home The Entire Time
Nelson told officers she had been home during the period they were investigating.
When police asked whether anyone else could have taken the SUV, she initially said no.
Her husband also indicated that the vehicle had been at the house.
The officers then explained why they were there.
“Your vehicle is video recorded at Walmart hitting another vehicle and fleeing the scene,” one officer told her.
Police pointed to damage on the rear portion of the SUV and said pieces from the damaged taillight or body panel were still at Walmart.
They also said the damage on Nelson’s vehicle appeared consistent with the collision captured on surveillance footage.
At that point, the question was no longer whether the SUV had been involved, at least from the officers’ perspective.
The problem was identifying who had been behind the wheel.
Family Says Other People Had Access To The Vehicle
As questioning continued, the family’s account began to expand.
Nelson and her husband said several people had been at the home that day for a Memorial Day gathering and that others could have had access to the vehicle.
Her husband explained that the keys were kept in a place where multiple people could get to them.
He also said both he and Nelson regularly drove the SUV.
Later, he mentioned that a teenage stepdaughter with a permit also drove it and that neighbors or guests may have had permission to move the vehicle or take it somewhere for food, drinks or other supplies.
Police told the couple that if they genuinely did not know who had used the SUV, officers would continue investigating.
The husband remained skeptical of the officers’ approach and repeatedly challenged whether police had evidence tying either of them personally to the crash.
The officers responded that they were not yet accusing either person of driving; they were trying to determine who had.
That distinction became harder to maintain as the family continued giving different explanations about whether the SUV had left at all.
Surveillance Footage Raises More Questions
Officers eventually checked other surveillance video in the neighborhood.
One officer said footage from across the street showed the SUV returning to the driveway at approximately 5:46 p.m., while Nelson’s husband and stepson were outside.
That conflicted with earlier statements suggesting the vehicle had remained home.
The husband then clarified that he had not actually seen the SUV leave and did not remember seeing it return, rather than definitively knowing it had been there the entire time.
Police said the difference mattered.
An officer told the family that what initially looked like a simple traffic crash had become more complicated because someone appeared to be giving inaccurate information.
Walmart security was also reviewing footage to determine whether Nelson had been inside the store.
When an officer asked whether store video might show her shopping there, Nelson again denied having gone.
“No, I did not go to Walmart,” she said.
At that stage, the investigation had moved well beyond examining the damage to the SUV.
Police were now trying to compare multiple video sources with statements from everyone at the house.
Officers Examine Damage On The SUV
The family maintained that much of the visible damage on the SUV was old.
Nelson’s husband said some of it had been present for at least six months and that pieces had gradually fallen away over time.
Officers disagreed with parts of that explanation.
One pointed to small fragments around the damaged area and said they appeared fresh.
Another said there were signs that someone had recently wiped part of the vehicle.
The husband pushed back and noted that the SUV regularly went through a car wash, which he suggested could explain the appearance of the damaged area.
He also said the family avoided opening the rear of the vehicle because loose sections could move around and make the damage worse.
This part of the encounter became especially argumentative, with family members accusing police of interpreting every scratch or broken piece as evidence from the Walmart collision.
The officers said they were focused only on the damage that appeared to match what had happened in the surveillance footage.
What Began As A Crash Report Turns Criminal
Police repeatedly explained that a normal parking lot collision would ordinarily be handled largely through insurance.
If the driver stayed, exchanged information and completed the crash report, the incident itself could remain a relatively routine civil matter.
Leaving the scene changed that.
Officers said they needed to determine who had been driving because leaving after striking another vehicle could carry criminal consequences.
The husband questioned why police were reading Miranda rights if they were not already planning an arrest.
An officer explained that Miranda warnings do not automatically mean someone is going to jail; they are meant to make a person aware that answers to investigative questions could be incriminating.
The discussion turned into a long argument about police procedure, with the husband repeatedly challenging how and when rights are read.
Through it all, officers continued returning to the same point: they had video of the SUV at Walmart, video suggesting it later returned home, and a family that had initially said the vehicle had not gone anywhere.
Nelson Is Taken Into Custody
Near the end of the encounter, the tone abruptly changed.
An officer directed Nelson’s husband to step away before Nelson was told to put her hands behind her back.
She was placed under arrest.
Trace to Capture’s narrator said Nelson was arrested on charges connected to the parking lot collision and alleged evidence tampering.
The channel did not provide extensive detail in the video about the final court outcome, only saying that the case was later handled through the courts.
What had started as a relatively minor parking lot crash had by then developed into a much broader investigation because officers believed the statements they were hearing did not match the physical and video evidence.
The most striking part of the encounter was how avoidable the escalation appeared.
Police repeatedly said they were initially trying to complete a crash investigation and identify the driver.
Instead, the case became focused on conflicting stories about where the SUV had been, who had access to it and whether the visible damage was recent.
By the end, Nelson was in handcuffs, and a collision that might otherwise have ended with paperwork and an insurance claim had turned into a criminal case.
Ed spent his childhood in the backwoods of Maine, where harsh winters taught him the value of survival skills. With a background in bushcraft and off-grid living, Ed has honed his expertise in fire-making, hunting, and wild foraging. He writes from personal experience, sharing practical tips and hands-on techniques to thrive in any outdoor environment. Whether it’s primitive camping or full-scale survival, Ed’s advice is grounded in real-life challenges.
