Police Sought Ring Footage at 3 a.m., Entered Neighbor’s Home, and Allegedly Forced a Face Unlock

At 3:20 a.m. on August 18, Greenville police responded to shots fired into an apartment on Moseley Drive where two young children were present. Officers then knocked on neighbor Uniquea Teel’s door. She was not a suspect. They wanted her Ring doorbell footage. When she told them the camera was dead and not recording, the encounter escalated. Ring video of the interaction, published by local station WITN, records an officer stating: “You pull it up and show me that it’s not working, and I’ll leave you alone. Otherwise, I’m ripping it off the wall, writing a search warrant, and I’m gonna keep you up all night.” Officers entered her apartment.

Teel, who said she and her one-year-old had been asleep, was detained and handcuffed inside her own home. She alleges that while she was restrained, an officer retrieved her phone from the bedroom and held it to her face to unlock it, then searched the device for Ring footage. Greenville Police Department has not publicly addressed the biometric-unlock allegation in its statements. According to WITN, officers ultimately found no video of the shooting on her phone.

The primary officer involved—identified in the footage and local reporting as Sergeant Jennifer Umphlett, though the department has not formally confirmed the identity in every statement—was placed on administrative leave. GPD opened an internal affairs review after receiving a formal complaint. Two individuals were later charged with attempted murder in the underlying shooting. Teel was never treated as a suspect.

A criminal defense attorney who reviewed the footage told local media the encounter likely raises Fourth Amendment search-and-seizure concerns, while noting that additional facts are required. Whether officers obtained a warrant before entering remains unconfirmed in published official records. The alleged use of Teel’s face to unlock her phone adds a further unresolved layer. Courts have not fully settled the constitutional limits on compelling biometric access to unlock a device—particularly when the owner is not suspected of any crime and the target is cloud-stored or app-based footage from a consumer security camera.

Most Ring owners assume they control who sees their recordings. The device, the subscription, and the decision to share clips are treated as private. That assumption collides with the reality of a 3 a.m. knock that does not end when the owner states the camera is not functioning. After the video circulated, disabled veteran Preston Joyner publicly alleged prior misconduct by the same officer, expanding scrutiny beyond the single incident.

Police were investigating a legitimate, serious crime. They sought potential witness footage from a nearby doorbell camera. The owner declined and stated the device was inoperative. Officers entered the home, detained the resident, and—according to her account—used her face to unlock her phone in search of the recordings. No useful video was recovered. An internal review is underway. The shooting case proceeded without Teel’s footage.

The presence of a consumer security camera on a private residence can turn a non-suspect into the focus of an early-morning demand for access. The legal boundaries of that demand, especially when it involves entry into the home and alleged compelled biometric unlock, remain contested.