In Elizondo v. State, 382 S.W.3d 389 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012), the Court of Criminal Appeals applied the test that it had adopted in Wilkerson and addressed the question of whether a retail store's loss-prevention officer was required to give Miranda warnings. Elizondo, 382 S.W.3d at 394-95. The court began its analysis by noting that the law does not presume an agency relationship and that the party alleging such a relationship has the burden of proving that it exists. Id. at 395. The court then applied the three Wilkerson factors (Wilkerson v. State, 173 S.W.3d 521 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005)) to the facts of the case. Id. Elizondo involved a loss-prevention officer employed by Old Navy. Id. at 391. After observing the defendant leave the store without paying for items, the loss-prevention officer intercepted her outside the store and asked her to return to the store with him. Id. The loss-prevention officer and a manager of the store took the defendant to a manager's office and retrieved the stolen items from her purse. Id. at 391-92. The loss-prevention officer then presented the defendant with a document entitled "GAP INC. CIVIL DEMAND NOTICE." Id. at 391. The document contained an admission of theft, wherein the defendant "admitted to the theft of" items from the store, admitted the value of the stolen items, and declared that her detention was reasonable. Id. The defendant signed the document and a store receipt reflecting the value of the items taken. Id. The loss-prevention officer testified that these events were the "typical protocol" for theft at Old Navy. Id. He then called the Lubbock Police Department, after which officers arrived and arrested the defendant for theft. Id. The district attorney's office subsequently obtained a copy of Old Navy's records pertaining to the theft, including the civil demand notice signed by the defendant. Id. The defendant moved to suppress the civil demand notice on the ground that the loss-prevention officer did not give Miranda warnings to her prior to obtaining the statement. Id. The loss-prevention officer in Elizondo testified that he had worked for Old Navy for three years and that he had never worked in law enforcement. Id. He obtained written confessions in "99%" of his encounters with accused shoplifters, and those confessions were kept for the store's records. Id. However, the store would give a copy to the police or a prosecutor upon request. Id. He also testified that the store's primary purpose for obtaining written confessions from accused shoplifters was for "punitive or monetary damages" associated with the shoplifting. Id. at 391-92. With respect to the first Wilkerson factor of examining the relationship between the police and the potential police agent, the court in Elizondo determined that there was no indication of a calculated practice between the police and the store's loss-prevention staff even though the police may have been aware of the store's practice of obtaining signed statements from accused shoplifters. Id. at 395. In reaching this determination, the court noted that the police had not been contacted when the loss-prevention officer obtained the statement, "so they clearly did not instruct the loss-prevention officer to get specific information or give him questions to ask the defendant." Id. . The second Wilkerson factor focuses on the interviewer's actions and perceptions. Id. The court in Elizondo determined that the purpose of the loss-prevention officer's interview was to adhere to the store's policies rather than acting as a police agent. Id. The third Wilkerson factor focuses on the defendant's perception of the encounter. The court in Elizondo noted that, if there is nothing in the record regarding the defendant's perception, the court is required to consider whether a reasonable person in the defendant's position would believe that the loss-prevention officer was a law enforcement agent. Id. at 396. The court concluded that a reasonable person in the defendant's position would not have believed that the loss-prevention officer was a law enforcement agent because he was not wearing a uniform and he identified himself as a loss-prevention officer for Old Navy. Id. "There was nothing in the record indicating that the loss-prevention officer appeared to the defendant to be cloaked with the actual or apparent authority of the police." Id.