The November 2004 killing of armored car guard Robert Keith Palomares outside a Phoenix movie theater prompted murder and robbery charges against Jason Derek Brown, whose later removal from the FBI’s Ten Most Wanted list did not end his wanted status.
WASHINGTON, DC, September 15, 2026 — Robert Keith Palomares was collecting money from a Phoenix movie theater when he was fatally shot on November 29, 2004, beginning a homicide investigation that eventually placed suspect Jason Derek Brown among the country’s most widely publicized fugitives.
Palomares, 24, was working as an armored car guard when the attack occurred in the Ahwatukee area, where authorities allege Brown killed him, took a bag containing approximately $56,000, and fled before investigators identified him as their suspect.
More than two decades later, the FBI continues to publish a wanted notice for Brown, identifying the murder and armed robbery allegations and requesting information that could help authorities locate him and bring the outstanding case before a court.
Brown joined the FBI’s Ten Most Wanted Fugitives list in December 2007 and was removed in September 2022, but that change concerned the publicity program rather than an announcement that he had been arrested or cleared.
The distinction matters to the case’s current status, because older accounts still describe him as a current Top Ten fugitive. At the same time, the FBI now maintains his public profile within its broader collection of wanted murder suspects.
A Cash Collection Became a Fatal Attack
The killing occurred outside an AMC theater in Phoenix on the morning of November 29, 2004, as Palomares transported the business’s cash toward an armored vehicle during an assignment that placed him at the scene for work.
Investigators allege the gunman approached Palomares, fired at close range, and took the money bag, leaving the young guard fatally wounded and turning a commercial cash collection into a murder and armed robbery investigation.
The amount associated with the robbery is generally reported as about $56,000. However, the FBI’s original announcement described more than that, making a rounded figure more appropriate than implying an exact accounting unsupported by the public summary.
The money explains the robbery allegation, but the central consequence was Palomares’ death, which cannot be reduced to the value of the stolen deposit or the later attention given to the person authorities accused of taking it.
The FBI described Palomares as a young father doing his job, placing a human reality behind a case that would increasingly be discussed through Brown’s photographs, reported movements, and years beyond investigators’ reach.
Physical Evidence Helped Identify a Suspect
Investigators recovered a bicycle associated with the gunman’s departure, and reporting on the investigation described fingerprints that linked Brown to that evidence, helping move the inquiry from witness descriptions toward a specifically identified suspect.
Other reported leads concerned a vehicle and a nearby hotel, giving investigators additional information to examine as they reconstructed events surrounding the robbery rather than relying solely on an initial description of the person seen leaving.
Those developments belonged to the investigative stage of the case, establishing grounds for authorities to pursue Brown while leaving the ultimate questions of admissibility, evidentiary weight, and guilt for judicial proceedings that have not produced a conviction.
That distinction remains necessary even when an official account states the allegations forcefully, because identifying a suspect and issuing an arrest warrant do not substitute for a trial or a guilty plea.
The public record supports describing Brown as wanted in connection with Palomares’ killing. At the same time, statements that he has been convicted, sentenced, or judicially found responsible would go beyond the status reflected in the FBI’s continuing appeal.
State and Federal Warrants Followed Within Days
An Arizona state arrest warrant was issued on December 4, 2004, charging Brown with first-degree murder and armed robbery, according to the FBI’s original announcement describing the case and his later addition to the national fugitive list.
Two days later, a federal warrant charged him with unlawful flight to avoid prosecution, adding a federal fugitive component to the underlying Arizona case without converting the state murder allegation into a completed federal homicide prosecution.
The dates show that the criminal process began shortly after the killing. At the same time, the later Top Ten designation represented an additional effort to generate attention and useful information about a person who was already wanted.
For readers following the chronology, the warrants and the publicity campaign therefore serve different purposes: the former establishes the legal proceedings against Brown, and the latter seeks assistance in locating him so those proceedings could advance.
The involvement of the FBI also illustrates how federal agents can assist with the pursuit of a person wanted in a state case, while the allegations arising from the Phoenix killing retain their connection to Arizona.
Brown Joined the Ten Most Wanted List in 2007
The FBI announced Brown’s addition to the Ten Most Wanted Fugitives list on December 8, 2007, slightly more than three years after Palomares’ death, identifying him as the 489th person placed in the program since its creation.
At the time, the agency offered a reward of up to $100,000 for information leading directly to his arrest, using the listing to increase public recognition and encourage people with relevant information to contact authorities.
That figure belongs to the historical announcement and should not automatically be presented as a current offer, because reward amounts and public appeal terms can change independently of the underlying warrants or the investigation’s continued existence.
The national designation raised the case’s visibility. Still, it did not establish Brown’s location, and the years that followed demonstrated the difference between widespread familiarity with a wanted photograph and verified information identifying where a person could be found.
Public attention therefore became a way to seek investigative help. At the same time, the unresolved task remained locating Brown and bringing him before the court responsible for addressing the allegations connected to the robbery and killing.
The Investigation Included Connections Beyond Arizona
The FBI’s current profile identifies Brown’s ties to California, Arizona, and Utah and notes previous travel to France and Mexico, providing Background that may assist recognition without establishing that he presently lives in any of those places.
The profile also includes identifying information and age-enhanced photographs, acknowledging the practical difficulty of seeking someone whose best-known images date from around the time of a crime committed more than two decades ago.
Past travel, language ability, and personal connections can explain why investigators consider different locations. Still, those details should not be treated as evidence of a confirmed international departure or a current residence outside the United States.
The same caution applies to reports suggesting that Brown might have relied on acquaintances or community connections, because a possibility discussed during a search is different from assistance established through evidence or a later criminal conviction.
The official wanted notice does not announce a verified current location, leaving the central question unresolved even as it preserves information intended to help someone recognize Brown and provide a lead that investigators can assess.
Removal From the Top Ten List Did Not Resolve the Case
Brown was removed from the FBI’s Ten Most Wanted Fugitives list on September 7, 2022, after the agency determined that he no longer met the criteria for inclusion, according to its historical material documenting the change.
His removal did not come with an announcement of capture, and the FBI’s continuing murder-fugitive profile makes clear that authorities still seek him in connection with the Phoenix case despite the end of his Top Ten designation.
A publicity program and an outstanding criminal case operate on different foundations, so a change in the former cannot be read as proof that charges were dismissed, a warrant expired, or the suspect was found innocent.
Nor does removal establish that authorities know Brown is dead or have confirmed he is permanently beyond their reach, conclusions that would require separate evidence rather than an inference drawn from a change in list membership.
For accurate reporting, the appropriate description is that Brown is a former Ten Most Wanted fugitive who remains wanted, preserving both the historical prominence of the search and the distinction between that former status and the current appeal.
Older Reports Need to Be Read in Their Original Context
A story published while Brown occupied a Top Ten position can accurately describe his status then, but repeating the same language today without qualification would give readers an outdated account of the agency’s current list.
Likewise, an old reward announcement or statement about a possible sighting should retain its date and context, rather than becoming a present-tense claim simply because the underlying investigation has remained unresolved for many years.
That approach keeps historical reporting useful while preventing separate developments from collapsing into a single account that incorrectly suggests authorities have announced more recent information than the public record contains.
Palomares’ Family Faced Years Without a Trial
The search has meant years without a courtroom resolution for Palomares’ family, whose experience extends beyond the periodic headlines generated by wanted posters, television coverage, or changes in Brown’s publicity status.
In a 2011 KSL report on the continuing search, Palomares’ brother Derak described the importance of an arrest to the family. He said their mother had died in 2007 without seeing that development occur.
That account places the passage of time in personal terms, showing that an unresolved investigation can span additional family losses. At the same time, the original death continues to shape the lives of those waiting for the case to progress.
It also provides a necessary counterweight to profiles that concentrate on the suspect’s personality or lifestyle, because the case began with a working guard’s killing rather than with the later public fascination surrounding Brown’s disappearance.
The family’s desire for accountability and Brown’s right to have the allegations adjudicated are both part of the unfinished legal picture, with an arrest providing the opportunity for proceedings rather than independently establishing the prosecution’s outcome.
A Reported Sighting Would Still Require Verification
The continued appeal depends on information investigators can evaluate, and photographs or descriptive details are meant to encourage recognition rather than invite the public to treat resemblance as a conclusive identification.
Age-enhanced images can assist that process, but they remain representations of how someone might look after many years, making corroboration essential before authorities can determine whether a person encountered is actually the individual named in the warrant.
The FBI classifies Brown as armed and dangerous and directs information to law enforcement, reinforcing that the public role is to report relevant observations rather than attempt a confrontation with someone believed to resemble him.
A useful report would still be the start of investigative work, since officers must establish identity and assess the information before a possible sighting becomes a confirmed development in the outstanding murder and robbery case.
The Case Remains an Allegation Awaiting Adjudication
Unlike a fugitive who disappears after sentencing, Brown remains wanted in a case that has not resulted in a publicly documented conviction, making the distinction between accusation and established guilt especially important throughout the reporting.
The length of the investigation does not change that legal status, and repeated publication of the allegations cannot replace evidence examined through the court process, with the defendant able to answer the charges.
At the same time, the absence of a conviction does not mean the warrants have been resolved, as demonstrated by the FBI’s continuing public request for information and its identification of the offenses underlying the search.
The current position is therefore specific: Palomares was killed during a robbery, authorities accuse Brown of responsibility, warrants were issued, and the official search remains publicly active without a confirmed arrest or completed prosecution against him.
Lawful Mobility Planning Is a Separate Subject
For readers considering legitimate citizenship matters, Amicus International Consulting’s second-passport information addresses an administrative topic separate from the Brown investigation, and the available official record does not establish that a citizenship change explains his disappearance or current whereabouts.
The company’s tax identification information similarly concerns documentation rather than evidence in this criminal case, whose verified history centers on Palomares’ killing, the allegations against Brown, the warrants and the continuing effort to locate him.
The Unfinished Case Still Begins With Robert Keith Palomares
Nearly 22 years after the Phoenix shooting, Brown’s changing publicity status remains secondary to the central unresolved issue: authorities still seek the person they accuse of killing Palomares while taking the money he was transporting for work.
The FBI’s wanted notice keeps that request in the public eye. At the same time, the case’s history requires a clear distinction between allegations, confirmed developments, and speculation, preserving the victim’s place in proceedings that remain unfinished.
