Private Investigator Public Records Internet Search Privacy Reporting – PI Buzz

Next week the U. S. District Court of California will issue the sentence for Lori Drew, the MySpace “cyberbully” who was convicted of violating the MySpace terms of service when she created a false profile. [See my article, Think Twice Before Going Undercover.] In that piece I talk about some of the considerations for the investigator who is tempted to fabricate an identity on a social networking site in order to gain access to a user’s otherwise private profile.

Here’s a legal issue to mull over. Perhaps this applies in other states, but in California, in criminal cases, the criminal defense investigator or prosecution investigator can’t interview a potential witness without first “clearly identifying himself or herself.” This is found in California Penal Code 1054.8:

1054.8. (a) No prosecuting attorney, attorney for the defendant, or investigator for either the prosecution or the defendant shall interview, question, or speak to a victim or witness whose name has been disclosed by the opposing party pursuant to Section 1054.1 or 1054.3 without first clearly identifying himself or herself, identifying the full name of the agency by whom he or she is employed, and identifying whether he or she represents, or has been retained by, the prosecution or the defendant. If the interview takes place in person, the party shall also show the victim or witness a business card, official badge, or other form of official identification before commencing the interview or questioning.
(b) Upon a showing that a person has failed to comply with this section, a court may issue any order authorized by Section 1054.5.

A violation could lead to the exclusion of the evidence obtained from that interview. Isn’t the investigator attempting to “interview, question, or speak” to a witness when the investigator accesses the witness’s non-public social network profile? The private profile requires the participants be accepted as “friends” and is a mouthpiece for the account holder to speak to her selected audience. The investigator who disguises his identity to pry open that witness’s cyber door could risk the exclusion of any evidence gathered through that pretext, as well as picking up a misdemeanor.

Anthony Pellicano may have supplanted Sam Spade as the most widely recognized private investigator, albeit Sam was fictional, although Pellicano seems so. The National Law Journal hyperbolic headline, Christensen Case a ‘Wake-Up’ Call for Lawyers on Use of Private Eyes, suggests that the Pellicano/Christensen matter is stirring an otherwise somnolent crowd, causing attorneys to be more attentive to their relationship with investigators (perhaps more so due to the criminal charge against one of their own). But, really people, other private investigators are not conducting illegal wiretaps or audio recordings, making threats to opposing parties in litigation or conspiring with their attorneys to do any of the above. This is truly an anomaly.

Still, attorneys and investigators in many cases don’t clarify the investigative approaches that may be employed. This could be essential as a matter of law, regulation, ethics or just good sense for the case at hand. For example, an attorney may ask her investigator to locate assets on an opposing party. Is the other party a judgment debtor or is the request a pre-litigation check? Does it matter?

One attorney in the story says, referring to the Pellicano/Christensen (and Hewlett Packard case) prosecution, that it has “woken up some lawyers as to what their liability, criminal or civil, may be with regard to private investigators they’ve hired.” And another: “you can’t just let your investigator go out there and investigate and take the fruits of what he provides and use it”. Those are sound conclusions.

Assume we all agree that wiretapping and conspiring to commit felonies is a very bad notion. What does Christensen Case a ‘Wake-Up’ Call suggest attorneys and their investigators should talk about to be sure that the investigator doesn’t just “go out there “? Well…nothing! There were no specifics included in the story. Here are a few of my own:

* What can, should or shouldn’t be stated to witnesses about the case?
* Are there involved parties who shouldn’t be contacted?
* Which information gathering methods mustn’t be used? Name them.
* Are there categories of records that the investigator should not obtain?

Have you talked with your attorney or investigator on ethical investigative methods?

Here we go again, another incident involving a private investigator that tarnishes the reputation of an entire profession all in the name of making a quick buck.

A local Ohio newspaper is now reporting that a worker at the Ohio Bureau of Workers’ Compensation has allegedly admitted to selling the Social Security numbers and other non-public personal information of injured workers’ to a private investigator.

The private investigator has not been identified, but the case has been referred to the Cuyahoga County prosecutor’s office for possible criminal prosecution.

While it doesn’t appear that the information provided was being used for identity theft, the bureau is still notifying 49 injured workers whose personal information appears to have been was compromised.

These incidents only provide legislators with more ammunition to exclude licensed private investigators from legitimate access to valuable personal information.

One can only hope that those PIs who are willing to break the law, or forget about professional ethics, are caught and punished.

What do you think about this incident?

A few months ago I wrote about the California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control maintains License Query System. An added feature to the ABC site is daily, weekly and annual reports of new licenses, license status changes and actions taken against licenses including, revocations, suspensions, fines, and issuance or denial of licenses. The database of reports cannot be searched at the site. Search the archived reports from September 16, 2006 to the present by using this advanced search at Google. Replace “Safeway” with your company name, address or other key words.

safeway site:www.abc.ca.gov/reports/

Reporters and anyone compiling statistical data will be able to make use of the reports menu at the ABC site. Query the reports by location and license type to get a detail of all that meet that criteria. For example, find all the caterer licensees in Azusa.

Washington State law now bans employer access to the credit reports of employees or potential employees unless such information is substantially related to the individual’s current or potential job responsibilities. An exception is made if the employer has a “reasonable cause to believe” that the employee “has engaged in specific activity that constitutes a violation of law.”

Missouri private investigators are poised to receive the stamp of legitimacy with the establishment of the Board of Private Investigator Examiners, which will license and regulate private investigators. The bill is awaiting the governor’s signature, which is expected this summer. The Missouri Association of Private Investigators has worked diligently to secure state level licensing and soon they’ll be able to join the majority of states that license PIs.

New regulations for Indiana private investigators will go into effect July 1, including the replacement of the term “private detective” with “private investigator”.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court will decide whether property assessment databases created on behalf of municipalities by private companies are a public records.

Legislation introduced in Pennsylvania would make it a crime to obtain, sell or receive phone records of state residents without their authorization.

Its not everyday that the New York Times features a very nice positive article on a couple of New York City private investigators.

There are renting laws in New York City that affect half of the approximate two million rental apartments. Those tenants who are fortunate enough to live in these rent controlled apartments are required to live in their apartment at for least six months per year. They also can’t sublet it without the owner’s permission or charge more than the regulated rent. The landlord can take back the apartment if the primary tenant violates these rules, moves out, or dies unless a family member has already been living in the apartment for at least two years.

Bill Golodner and his partner, Bruce Frankel, both former New York City police detectives, say their firm has handled close to 500 of these real estate type cases in the past year.

News 14 Carolina recently aired a story about Karin Goin who uses regular dogs that she trains rigorously to find missing pets.

“(The dogs) are at least 85 percent of the investigation,” she said. “We are on the dumb end of the leash. We basically follow behind.”
Karin Goin

You can see the newsclip by clicking here.

The term “private investigator” may not be the most common search phrase on the Internet, but many of the terms we use in our work, such as, “people search” and “people finders” are among the Hitwise top legal industry search queries. The most popular Google search terms probably aren’t recognizable by most of us.

It may soon become a federal crime to obtain a person’s telephone records. The Senate made that possible Friday night when they approved legislation similar to a bill passed by the House.

The Senate bill increases the proposed fine to $500,000 and includes imprisonment up to 10 years in cases involving domestic abuse. The penalties can even be greater if classified as a special circumstance. The bill also details penalties and prison time for anyone who buys or sells the deceptively acquired phone records. The caveat is that those involved must know the records were obtained deceptively.

This legislation specifically addresses the act of ‘pretexting’ to obtain a person’s telephone records without permission.

“My main concern is that it is still not clear how the term ‘telephone records’ will be defined. Will this term mean toll records, name and address, or any other information maintained by the phone company?” Jimmie Mesis, PI Magazine Editor-in-Chief

This definition will certainly become much clearer before it heads to the Oval Office for the President’s signature.

As expected, there is an exemption for law enforcement. However, there is also an exemption for private detectives, but only if they are hired to acquire the confidential records by law enforcement.

More information on this topic will be featured in the upcoming issue of PI Magazine You can find more details on this bill by clicking here.

Do you and your company want to be featured on primetime television? Then COURT TV wants to hear from you!

COURT TV profiles individuals who are passionate about their work, personable, outgoing, and comfortable in front of the camera. They are currently seeking PRIVATE INVESTIGATORS who are actively working on cases and conducting fieldwork. If you are interested, please send in the following materials:

Biography, curriculum vitae, or summary of experience
Photograph of yourself
Videotape (any format) of you describing what you do and one of your most fascinating cases
Do not miss this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to gain exposure as an authority in your field!

Please send your materials to:
Eric Neuhaus
Director, Talent Development Primetime Entertainment
Court TV
600 Third Avenue, 10th Floor
New York, NY 10016

Please, NO phone calls or emails. A Court TV representative will contact you directly if interested. Materials cannot be returned.

To learn more about Court TV, visit www.courttv.com.

Facebook, MySpace, Linked In and even Yahoo! Groups are part of the booming social networking sites on the Internet that are a hot source of untapped background material. You probably check public records and personal information databases for background screening on a pre employment matter. Surveillance is a standard investigative tool on domestic and insurance claim cases. You may even do a cursory Google search on a company or business executive name. But here are two questions that should be answered in the affirmative –if you want to impress your client and give her more of the available information on your subject– but will likely respond with a unanimous “no”. Do you look behind the major search engines –to the invisible Internet– to gather background on your target? And, are you promoting Internet research, as a specific category of services, to your clients? Your clients are primed for you to offer this service to them because they already know it’s a rich trove of personal information!

Read the rest of this entry »

A private security company operating in North Dakota may review a videotape to detect theft but only a licensed private investigator “may investigate to determine a
person’s conduct”, according to a recent opinion issued by the North Dakota attorney general.

Therefore, it is my opinion that a private security service may not review videotapes after the fact to determine what activity took place because that activity constitutes “investigating,” which requires a private investigative service license. Whether any particular activity is “investigating” rather than providing “security service” is usually a question of fact on which this office will not opine.12 However, since the information on the gaming reports at issue generally does not involve theft or the detection of theft, it is my opinion that the review of videotapes after the fact in order to ascertain sufficient information to complete those gaming reports clearly falls outside providing a “security service” and is an investigative activity which requires a private investigative service license.

Auto theft continues to decline but California regions top the list for the highest vehicle theft rates, according to the NAMIC article, Nationally, Auto Theft on Pace for Second Straight Year of Decline.

Pre-acceptance investigations are a potentially money saving investment for attorneys, mentioned by this personal injury lawyer, and could be a life-saver in complex cases. I’ve done these sort of stealth investigations, which gave the lawyer leverage in her negotiations, and sometimes settled matters for sizable amounts before a case was filed.

California PI Eric Mason, who worked on Michael Jackson’s defense, was profiled for his work on behalf of a local politician – investigating the government’s investigation.

Mason’s newest client is Perata, the unquestioned head of the East Bay political machine and target of a federal public corruption probe. Perata has racked up at least $39,000 in bills from Mason’s firm so far this year. Mason specializes in “pre-indictment investigations,” which basically are defense-team probes into what the government is investigating.

The national advocacy organization for private investigators, NCISS, has issued a position statement that argues for restrictions on the sale of telephone subscriber records, while pressing for the cool headed recognition that PIs provide a public benefit in accessing this information for legal purposes.

Historically, the lawful, legitimate acquisition and use of telephone records – both cellular and land line – have proven to be an invaluable and cost effective asset in the processing of many types of investigations. Investigators from both the public and private sectors have used phone records as a tool to assist in investigating allegations of ID theft, fraud, abuse, parental and stranger abductions, to trace connections in drug transactions and follow stolen goods, to locate witnesses, runaways and debtors, as well as an aid in collecting judgments and for many other critical purposes. The legitimate and lawful use of phone records as an investigative tool provides the investigator with a cost effective, accurate and expedient method of confirming or denying critical thinking in many areas, and offers a focus for further investigative methods. For these reasons, NCISS supports the commercial provision of these records to licensed, fully vetted investigators who establish permissible purpose and are held accountable for the lawful and ethical use of such records.

Private investigators and law firms are stirring over the recent Law.com article, Private Investigators Go In-House At Law Firms, a discussion of the practice of some law offices hiring staff investigators, mostly former federal government law enforcement agents. The attorneys interviewed site cost savings to their clients as a motivation, but also the increased quality of the overall product “because they will work closely with the firm’s attorneys on litigation and have a better handle on the information that’s needed.” That’s a key tip for all investigators, whether we’re working in-house or on a contract. There are a few thoughts I try to keep in mind.

- Often the attorney doesn’t know that there’s a unmined wealth of information in their own files, which should be culled before launching your investigation.

- Communicate frequently and in detail with your client. A regular exchange of findings can advance the case. Verbal discussions are essential because many times the attorney doesn’t thoroughly read our written reports; she may have breaking news that needs to be conveyed. Make it convenient for her by calling often.

Don’t paper your attorney to cover shortfalls in your findings. Explain the work you did and the obstacles -including legal barriers to obtaining some types of data. You might also consider marketing a more specific investigative specialty rather than presenting a list of a dozen types of work you can do. Investigators take pride in our talents as generalists but you may get more of the type of work you want if you define it more particularly. Various clients will speak of me as the “Internet researcher” or “the PI who can find anyone.” These tags are more tailored to the client’s immediate need.

Nader Anise, an attorney marketer has some other suggestions of ways the private investigator can work with law firms that are employing PIs.