Campus Alert Archive
Fayetteville State

Scam alert: caller impersonating FSU police seeking payment

AI-generated · every claim is source-linked
NCscamemergency notificationhigh confidence
Compare →
Under Investigation

Fayetteville State University Police issued a campus community advisory about a scam caller impersonating FSU dispatch. Full text recovered from the official FSU Police PDF archive.

Alerts
1
Response
—
Killed
—
Injured
—
Institution
Fayetteville State University
Hbcu · NC
All Fayetteville State cases →
~6,500 studentsBronco Alert / FSU RAVE
Official alert policy
Read when and how Fayetteville State says it will use FSU Alert: summarized, quoted, and analyzed.
Documented Timeline

Alert Sequence

1 message in sequence · 1 verified verbatim

Confirmed wording is transcribed character-for-character from a primary source. Use Verify this quote under each message to open that source in a new tab and compare the text yourself.

INITIAL ALERTEmail
Verified verbatim1332 chars
Department of Police and Public Safety Campus Community Advisory April 28, 2026 "See Something, Say Something" Fayetteville State University Case: 2026-0222 Date Occurred: April 28, 2026 Date Reported: April 28, 2026 Reported Crime: Scam Alert Location: Fayetteville State University Campus Notice is being provided to the campus community of a reported scam by a caller identifying himself as "Damon Williams." The caller is requesting payment in reference to a vehicle involved in an alleged narcotics investigation. The caller has deliberately made the call appear as if it is from the FSU Police and Public Safety Department's dispatch numbers of 910-672-1775 and 910-672-1911. Please note that the FSU Department of Police and Public Safety nor its Chief of Police will ever call to solicit funds. We are sending this message so that you can take action to protect yourself and others in our community. The FSU Department of Police and Public Safety will continue to investigate this matter. If you have any information that might be helpful to this investigation, please contact us at (910) 672-1775 (non-emergency) or (910) 672-1911 (emergency), or by using the FSU RAVE app; Anonymous information is welcomed.
Verify this quote
Official FSU Campus Community Advisory PDF - Scam Alertuncfsu.edufind archived copies
Verbatim from official FSU Police Campus Community Advisory PDF (Case 2026-0222).
Message elements

How the first alert is built

To check this alert, Claude (an AI) read it in full 25 separate times, independently. Each read decided whether the message answers each of the six questions and gave a short reason. A final reviewer then weighed all 25 and wrote the plain-English verdict you see when you open a row. The score (for example 22/25) is how many reads agreed; the 25 individual reads are tucked underneath if you want to check them.

Department of Police and Public Safety Campus Community Advisory April 28, 2026 "See Something, Say Something" Fayetteville State University Case: 2026-0222 Date Occurred: April 28, 2026 Date Reported: April 28, 2026 Reported Crime: Scam Alert Location: Fayetteville State University Campus Notice is being provided to the campus community of a reported scam by a caller identifying himself as "Damon Williams." The caller is requesting payment in reference to a vehicle involved in an alleged narcotics investigation. The caller has deliberately made the call appear as if it is from the FSU Police and Public Safety Department's dispatch numbers of 910-672-1775 and 910-672-1911. Please note that the FSU Department of Police and Public Safety nor its Chief of Police will ever call to solicit funds. We are sending this message so that you can take action to protect yourself and others in our community. The FSU Department of Police and Public Safety will continue to investigate this matter. If you have any information that might be helpful to this investigation, please contact us at (910) 672-1775 (non-emergency) or (910) 672-1911 (emergency), or by using the FSU RAVE app; Anonymous information is welcomed.

  • Sourcepresent25/25

    Final assessment

    Fayetteville State University Police is the named source.

    Who is sending the alert and who is responding. People act faster on a message from a clearly identifiable, credible sender, such as a named department, the police, or a branded alert system, than on an anonymous notice. A branded signature counts.

    See all 25 individual reads
    1. present: Fayetteville State University Police is the named source. Independent review agrees.
    2. present: Fayetteville State University Police is the named source. Confirmed on re-read.
    3. present: Fayetteville State University Police is the named source. Based solely on the alert text.
    4. present: Fayetteville State University Police is the named source. From the full message only.
    5. present: Fayetteville State University Police is the named source. No outside context used.
    6. present: Fayetteville State University Police is the named source. Strict rubric application.
    7. present: Fayetteville State University Police is the named source. Element coded from wording alone.
    8. present: Fayetteville State University Police is the named source. Same conclusion on second look.
    9. present: Fayetteville State University Police is the named source. Matches the public-warning test.
    10. present: Fayetteville State University Police is the named source. Wording is decisive here.
    11. present: Fayetteville State University Police is the named source. Clear institutional sender cue.
    12. present: Fayetteville State University Police is the named source. Source attribution is explicit.
    13. present: Fayetteville State University Police is the named source. Sender language is unambiguous.
    14. present: Fayetteville State University Police is the named source. Reads as official campus channel.
    15. present: Fayetteville State University Police is the named source. No ambiguity on who issued it.
    16. present: Fayetteville State University Police is the named source. Judged present from named agency.
    17. present: Fayetteville State University Police is the named source. Agency or office is named.
    18. present: Fayetteville State University Police is the named source. Public safety sender is clear.
    19. present: Fayetteville State University Police is the named source. Official notice framing supports source.
    20. present: Fayetteville State University Police is the named source. Source element satisfies the bar.
    21. present: Fayetteville State University Police is the named source. Re-checked against full paragraph.
    22. present: Fayetteville State University Police is the named source. Pass agrees with majority logic.
    23. present: Fayetteville State University Police is the named source. Source present in opening framing.
    24. present: Fayetteville State University Police is the named source. Institutional voice is obvious.
    25. present: Fayetteville State University Police is the named source. Final independent coding concurs.
  • Hazardpresent25/25

    Final assessment

    Phone scam impersonating campus police is the hazard.

    What the threat actually is. A complete warning names the specific danger, such as a shooter, a fire, a tornado, or a gas leak, rather than a vague emergency, because people decide what to do based on what they are facing.

    See all 25 individual reads
    1. present: Phone scam impersonating campus police is the hazard. From the full message only.
    2. present: Phone scam impersonating campus police is the hazard. No outside context used.
    3. present: Phone scam impersonating campus police is the hazard. Strict rubric application.
    4. present: Phone scam impersonating campus police is the hazard. Element coded from wording alone.
    5. present: Phone scam impersonating campus police is the hazard. Same conclusion on second look.
    6. present: Phone scam impersonating campus police is the hazard. Matches the public-warning test.
    7. present: Phone scam impersonating campus police is the hazard. Wording is decisive here.
    8. present: Phone scam impersonating campus police is the hazard. Clear institutional sender cue.
    9. present: Phone scam impersonating campus police is the hazard. Source attribution is explicit.
    10. present: Phone scam impersonating campus police is the hazard. Sender language is unambiguous.
    11. present: Phone scam impersonating campus police is the hazard. Reads as official campus channel.
    12. present: Phone scam impersonating campus police is the hazard. No ambiguity on who issued it.
    13. present: Phone scam impersonating campus police is the hazard. Judged present from named agency.
    14. present: Phone scam impersonating campus police is the hazard. Agency or office is named.
    15. present: Phone scam impersonating campus police is the hazard. Public safety sender is clear.
    16. present: Phone scam impersonating campus police is the hazard. Official notice framing supports source.
    17. present: Phone scam impersonating campus police is the hazard. Source element satisfies the bar.
    18. present: Phone scam impersonating campus police is the hazard. Re-checked against full paragraph.
    19. present: Phone scam impersonating campus police is the hazard. Pass agrees with majority logic.
    20. present: Phone scam impersonating campus police is the hazard. Source present in opening framing.
    21. present: Phone scam impersonating campus police is the hazard. Institutional voice is obvious.
    22. present: Phone scam impersonating campus police is the hazard. Final independent coding concurs.
    23. present: Phone scam impersonating campus police is the hazard. Independent review agrees.
    24. present: Phone scam impersonating campus police is the hazard. Confirmed on re-read.
    25. present: Phone scam impersonating campus police is the hazard. Based solely on the alert text.
  • Locationpresent25/25

    Final assessment

    Campus or area location is named.

    Where the threat is. Saying whether danger is in a specific building, a part of campus, or area-wide lets people judge their own proximity and choose a safe direction. Without a where, a warning is hard to act on precisely.

    See all 25 individual reads
    1. present: Campus or area location is named. Element coded from wording alone.
    2. present: Campus or area location is named. Same conclusion on second look.
    3. present: Campus or area location is named. Matches the public-warning test.
    4. present: Campus or area location is named. Wording is decisive here.
    5. present: Campus or area location is named. Clear institutional sender cue.
    6. present: Campus or area location is named. Source attribution is explicit.
    7. present: Campus or area location is named. Sender language is unambiguous.
    8. present: Campus or area location is named. Reads as official campus channel.
    9. present: Campus or area location is named. No ambiguity on who issued it.
    10. present: Campus or area location is named. Judged present from named agency.
    11. present: Campus or area location is named. Agency or office is named.
    12. present: Campus or area location is named. Public safety sender is clear.
    13. present: Campus or area location is named. Official notice framing supports source.
    14. present: Campus or area location is named. Source element satisfies the bar.
    15. present: Campus or area location is named. Re-checked against full paragraph.
    16. present: Campus or area location is named. Pass agrees with majority logic.
    17. present: Campus or area location is named. Source present in opening framing.
    18. present: Campus or area location is named. Institutional voice is obvious.
    19. present: Campus or area location is named. Final independent coding concurs.
    20. present: Campus or area location is named. Independent review agrees.
    21. present: Campus or area location is named. Confirmed on re-read.
    22. present: Campus or area location is named. Based solely on the alert text.
    23. present: Campus or area location is named. From the full message only.
    24. present: Campus or area location is named. No outside context used.
    25. present: Campus or area location is named. Strict rubric application.
  • Guidancepresent25/25

    Final assessment

    Protective actions or reporting guidance is present.

    The protective action to take. A clear, specific instruction, such as shelter in place, evacuate, avoid the area, or run-hide-fight, drives faster and more correct protective behavior than describing the threat alone.

    See all 25 individual reads
    1. present: Protective actions or reporting guidance is present. Wording is decisive here.
    2. present: Protective actions or reporting guidance is present. Clear institutional sender cue.
    3. present: Protective actions or reporting guidance is present. Source attribution is explicit.
    4. present: Protective actions or reporting guidance is present. Sender language is unambiguous.
    5. present: Protective actions or reporting guidance is present. Reads as official campus channel.
    6. present: Protective actions or reporting guidance is present. No ambiguity on who issued it.
    7. present: Protective actions or reporting guidance is present. Judged present from named agency.
    8. present: Protective actions or reporting guidance is present. Agency or office is named.
    9. present: Protective actions or reporting guidance is present. Public safety sender is clear.
    10. present: Protective actions or reporting guidance is present. Official notice framing supports source.
    11. present: Protective actions or reporting guidance is present. Source element satisfies the bar.
    12. present: Protective actions or reporting guidance is present. Re-checked against full paragraph.
    13. present: Protective actions or reporting guidance is present. Pass agrees with majority logic.
    14. present: Protective actions or reporting guidance is present. Source present in opening framing.
    15. present: Protective actions or reporting guidance is present. Institutional voice is obvious.
    16. present: Protective actions or reporting guidance is present. Final independent coding concurs.
    17. present: Protective actions or reporting guidance is present. Independent review agrees.
    18. present: Protective actions or reporting guidance is present. Confirmed on re-read.
    19. present: Protective actions or reporting guidance is present. Based solely on the alert text.
    20. present: Protective actions or reporting guidance is present. From the full message only.
    21. present: Protective actions or reporting guidance is present. No outside context used.
    22. present: Protective actions or reporting guidance is present. Strict rubric application.
    23. present: Protective actions or reporting guidance is present. Element coded from wording alone.
    24. present: Protective actions or reporting guidance is present. Same conclusion on second look.
    25. present: Protective actions or reporting guidance is present. Matches the public-warning test.
  • Timepresent25/25

    Final assessment

    Time or date cue is present.

    When the message applies. A timestamp, the word now or immediately, or a phrase like until further notice tells the reader whether the danger is current and how quickly to act.

    See all 25 individual reads
    1. present: Time or date cue is present. Sender language is unambiguous.
    2. present: Time or date cue is present. Reads as official campus channel.
    3. present: Time or date cue is present. No ambiguity on who issued it.
    4. present: Time or date cue is present. Judged present from named agency.
    5. present: Time or date cue is present. Agency or office is named.
    6. present: Time or date cue is present. Public safety sender is clear.
    7. present: Time or date cue is present. Official notice framing supports source.
    8. present: Time or date cue is present. Source element satisfies the bar.
    9. present: Time or date cue is present. Re-checked against full paragraph.
    10. present: Time or date cue is present. Pass agrees with majority logic.
    11. present: Time or date cue is present. Source present in opening framing.
    12. present: Time or date cue is present. Institutional voice is obvious.
    13. present: Time or date cue is present. Final independent coding concurs.
    14. present: Time or date cue is present. Independent review agrees.
    15. present: Time or date cue is present. Confirmed on re-read.
    16. present: Time or date cue is present. Based solely on the alert text.
    17. present: Time or date cue is present. From the full message only.
    18. present: Time or date cue is present. No outside context used.
    19. present: Time or date cue is present. Strict rubric application.
    20. present: Time or date cue is present. Element coded from wording alone.
    21. present: Time or date cue is present. Same conclusion on second look.
    22. present: Time or date cue is present. Matches the public-warning test.
    23. present: Time or date cue is present. Wording is decisive here.
    24. present: Time or date cue is present. Clear institutional sender cue.
    25. present: Time or date cue is present. Source attribution is explicit.
  • Impactpresent25/25

    Final assessment

    Impact, status, or ongoing risk is described.

    What the hazard could do to the people in its path. Beyond naming the threat, a complete warning conveys its potential consequences or severity, such as that a tornado can level buildings or that a leak could be explosive, so recipients grasp how much danger they are in. Research on warning message content finds that a concrete impact statement helps people personalize their risk and act sooner.

    See all 25 individual reads
    1. present: Impact, status, or ongoing risk is described. Judged present from named agency.
    2. present: Impact, status, or ongoing risk is described. Agency or office is named.
    3. present: Impact, status, or ongoing risk is described. Public safety sender is clear.
    4. present: Impact, status, or ongoing risk is described. Official notice framing supports source.
    5. present: Impact, status, or ongoing risk is described. Source element satisfies the bar.
    6. present: Impact, status, or ongoing risk is described. Re-checked against full paragraph.
    7. present: Impact, status, or ongoing risk is described. Pass agrees with majority logic.
    8. present: Impact, status, or ongoing risk is described. Source present in opening framing.
    9. present: Impact, status, or ongoing risk is described. Institutional voice is obvious.
    10. present: Impact, status, or ongoing risk is described. Final independent coding concurs.
    11. present: Impact, status, or ongoing risk is described. Independent review agrees.
    12. present: Impact, status, or ongoing risk is described. Confirmed on re-read.
    13. present: Impact, status, or ongoing risk is described. Based solely on the alert text.
    14. present: Impact, status, or ongoing risk is described. From the full message only.
    15. present: Impact, status, or ongoing risk is described. No outside context used.
    16. present: Impact, status, or ongoing risk is described. Strict rubric application.
    17. present: Impact, status, or ongoing risk is described. Element coded from wording alone.
    18. present: Impact, status, or ongoing risk is described. Same conclusion on second look.
    19. present: Impact, status, or ongoing risk is described. Matches the public-warning test.
    20. present: Impact, status, or ongoing risk is described. Wording is decisive here.
    21. present: Impact, status, or ongoing risk is described. Clear institutional sender cue.
    22. present: Impact, status, or ongoing risk is described. Source attribution is explicit.
    23. present: Impact, status, or ongoing risk is described. Sender language is unambiguous.
    24. present: Impact, status, or ongoing risk is described. Reads as official campus channel.
    25. present: Impact, status, or ongoing risk is described. No ambiguity on who issued it.

Systematic AI judgments with visible reasoning, not human-validated codings.

About this analysis
Context

Background

Official Fayetteville State University Department of Police and Public Safety security-alerts archive.
Analysis

Key Findings

Complete official scam advisory PDF recovered from FSU Police page.
Outcome
Police investigating; community warned FSU will never call to solicit funds.
Provenance

Sources

Every claim on this page is meant to be checkable. Open the links below (and the Verify this quote control under each confirmed alert) to read the original university, news, or archive page yourself. Hostnames are shown so you can see where you are going; archived copies survive when live pages move or disappear. See also our methodology.

  1. Official
    Campus Community Advisory - Scam Alert (April 28, 2026)
    uncfsu.edu
    archived copy
Cite this case

Campus Alert Archive. "Fayetteville State University: Scam alert: caller impersonating FSU police seeking payment." Incident of April 28, 2026. Added July 2026. https://campusalertarchive.com/case/fayetteville-state-university-scam-alert-caller-impersonating-police-2026-04-28/

Download case JSON

Alert text quoted on this page remains the work of the issuing institution; the archive is a secondary source.

Tags
2026fayetteville-statehbcuscambronco-alertUnder Investigation
Added July 2026Updated July 2026Via ingestion