A Hotel Guest Checked Out. Days Later, Her Credit Card Paid for Someone Else’s Pizza.

When Samantha Warner checked her credit card statement, one charge immediately caught her attention.

She had never ordered pizza from Domino’s.

She had not purchased movie tickets at the Majestic Theater either.

At first, the transactions seemed like the kind of fraud many people experience every year.

But as she began making phone calls, the suspicious purchases appeared to point toward someone she had recently encountered.

The front desk employee at the hotel where she had stayed.

That discovery launched a police investigation in Ellensburg, Washington, that eventually led detectives to arrest a 24-year-old hotel worker accused of using guests’ credit card information for her own purchases.

Alexis King has been charged in connection with the alleged thefts, and the allegations remain pending before the court.

The investigation began on the evening of February 7, 2026.

Around 8:30 p.m., Warner contacted the Ellensburg Police Department after noticing another unauthorized transaction on her Capital One credit card.

Only days earlier, she had already spotted an unexpected charge from the Majestic Theater.

Now another purchase had appeared.

This time it was from Domino’s Pizza.

Rather than immediately assuming the charges had come from an anonymous online thief, Warner decided to investigate.

She contacted Domino’s and asked whether employees could tell her where the pizza had been ordered.

The information surprised her.

According to the employee, the order had been placed for someone named Alexis King at the Red Lion Hotel.

Warner immediately recognized the name.

Alexis was also the name of the woman who had worked at the front desk during Warner’s recent stay at the hotel.

Although she could not be certain it was the same person, the coincidence was troubling enough that she called police before the pizza could even be delivered.

Officers responded quickly.

After documenting Warner’s report, Sergeant Potter drove to the local Domino’s restaurant to verify the details.

Employees confirmed that an online order had been placed under the name Alexis King and that the delivery address was the Red Lion Hotel.

Investigators now had something much more concrete than a suspicious credit card charge.

They had a name.

While checking King’s information, officers made another discovery.

She already had an outstanding misdemeanor warrant for failing to appear in court.

Even more importantly, Sergeant Potter remembered another complaint reported only a short time earlier.

A different hotel guest had also reported unauthorized purchases after staying at the same Red Lion property.

That victim believed someone connected to the hotel had stolen his credit card information, but investigators had been unable to prove it.

The new complaint suddenly made the earlier report seem far more significant.

According to court records, the previous victim reported approximately $300 in fraudulent purchases at Walmart and other businesses after checking out of the hotel.

The similarities were difficult to ignore.

Both victims had recently stayed at the same hotel.

Both experienced unauthorized online purchases shortly afterward.

And now one of those purchases appeared connected to a hotel employee.

Armed with that information, officers went directly to the Red Lion Hotel.

Alexis King was still working behind the front desk.

Police approached calmly and asked her to step outside.

After confirming her identity, officers informed her that she was under arrest.

Initially, King appeared confused.

Police explained that she was being arrested not only on the outstanding warrant related to a suspended driver’s license but also on suspicion of second-degree theft connected to the fraudulent credit card activity.

She was transported to the police station for questioning.

During the interview, detectives first asked simple questions.

Did she know why she had been arrested?

King said she did not.

Investigators then asked whether she had ordered pizza that evening.

She admitted she had.

According to King, she believed she had paid using her own credit card, which she claimed had automatically filled into her phone during checkout.

Detectives quickly challenged that explanation.

The card used for the Domino’s order did not belong to King.

It belonged to Samantha Warner.

King seemed surprised.

She repeatedly asked how that could have happened.

Investigators responded with a straightforward question.

If King’s personal phone was never used for hotel business, how could a guest’s complete credit card information—including the card number, expiration date and security code—possibly have appeared automatically on her device?

King replied that she did not know.

Detectives then turned to another purchase.

Several days earlier, King had bought three tickets to Zootopia 2 at the Majestic Theater.

Again, investigators alleged the payment had been made using another hotel guest’s credit card.

King admitted purchasing the tickets and taking her child to the movie.

She insisted, however, that she believed she had used her own payment information.

Investigators told her this was not the first incident.

They explained that another hotel guest had already reported fraudulent purchases after staying at the Red Lion, including transactions at Walmart, KFC and other businesses.

The detective then asked what he considered the central question.

How could multiple hotel guests have their credit cards used by the same employee purely by accident?

King had no answer.

The interview gradually shifted away from individual transactions and toward King’s personal circumstances.

Detectives asked about her finances, her family and her daily life.

King explained that she was raising a young child, living with a roommate and struggling financially.

She earned approximately $17 per hour at the hotel and described herself as barely getting by.

Rather than accusing her aggressively, the detective adopted a different approach.

He acknowledged that many people experience financial hardship.

He pointed out that the alleged purchases were not luxury goods, expensive jewelry or designer handbags.

Instead, investigators had seen purchases involving groceries, food, movie tickets and other relatively ordinary expenses.

The detective suggested that good people sometimes make serious mistakes when they become desperate.

King did not disagree.

When asked whether that assessment sounded fair, she quietly answered yes.

The detective then asked how long she had allegedly been using guests’ credit cards.

King initially hesitated.

Eventually, she connected the timing to problems at work.

According to King, she had spent months receiving only two eight-hour shifts each week.

She claimed a former manager repeatedly told her there were no additional hours available, while other employees later informed her he had actually prevented her from working more.

Only after that manager left did King begin receiving full-time hours.

Investigators asked whether the alleged thefts had begun during the period when she was struggling financially.

King acknowledged that they had.

Detectives then tried to understand how the alleged scheme actually worked.

Did she photograph guests’ credit cards?

Did she copy the numbers from hotel computers?

Did she manually enter them into her phone?

King repeatedly refused to explain.

She admitted that the information did not simply “autofill” by itself but would not describe how she obtained or stored the credit card details.

The detective warned that the unanswered questions created additional concerns.

Without an explanation, investigators had to consider whether King might be working with others or participating in a larger identity theft operation.

He explained that hotel employees routinely have access to highly sensitive personal information, including names, driver’s licenses and payment cards.

If someone abused that access, the consequences for victims could extend far beyond a few fraudulent purchases.

Canceled credit cards, interrupted automatic payments and damaged financial records could all follow.

Throughout the interview, the detective encouraged King to explain everything while emphasizing that prosecutors—not police—would ultimately decide how to handle the case.

He suggested that honesty and cooperation could help provide context for her actions.

King remained reluctant.

Finally, she made a statement that changed the direction of the investigation.

She said she did not want to involve anyone else.

The detective immediately focused on that comment.

He suggested she must have learned the method from someone because it was not something she had done throughout her life.

Although King still avoided naming another person during the interview, investigators later documented additional information in their report.

According to the incident report, King eventually described learning to store guests’ credit card information inside the comments section of the hotel’s computer system.

The report stated that she told investigators she learned this practice from a previous manager and had been doing it for several months, though not with every guest.

Investigators also asked whether she photographed guests’ credit cards using her phone or copied the information directly from hotel records.

King declined to answer those questions.

With no further explanation forthcoming, detectives ended the interview.

Authorities ultimately booked Alexis King on two counts of second-degree identity theft, two counts of second-degree theft and the outstanding bench warrant that had existed before the investigation began.

According to online court records, King was released from jail the following day after posting a $5,000 bond.

Her next court appearance was scheduled for September 24.

The criminal case remains pending, and King is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty in court.

For many travelers, the allegations serve as an unsettling reminder of how much personal information is routinely shared during an ordinary hotel check-in.

Guests hand over identification, payment cards, addresses, phone numbers and other sensitive details, trusting that businesses will protect them.

According to investigators, that trust may have been exploited in this case.

Whether prosecutors ultimately prove every allegation remains for the court to decide.

But the investigation began with something remarkably ordinary.

A woman noticed a pizza she never ordered.

She looked a little closer.

Then she made one phone call.

That simple decision uncovered a chain of transactions investigators believe stretched back months and transformed what first appeared to be a minor case of credit card fraud into a much larger criminal investigation centered on the very place where victims expected their information to be safe.