A Concord Monitor online article is reporting that the New Hampshire State Supreme Court has upheld a Concord woman’s stalking petition against Brian Blackden, a local private investigator, partly because he refused to tell the court why he’d been hired to follow the woman.
In an unanimous decision, the justices ruled that the private investigator’s unwillingness to reveal his reasons for following the woman last year made it impossible for the trial judge, or them, to determine whether Blackden had a legitimate purpose to surveil the woman.
This ruling is very important to private investigators through out the United States. While other states do exempt private investigators, New Hampshire does not, the court ruled. To be exempt, Blackden needed to show his purpose in following the woman was lawful and legitimate.
“(Blackden) contends that he met this burden of proof by testifying that he secretly followed (Miller) in his capacity as a licensed private detective,” the court wrote. “We disagree.”
I also agree, investigators who display a positive attitude, don’t find themselves in this situation.
I agree. And why be uncooperative? That will get you no where. There was obviously something hidden here.
Well, even if it was “for a friend”….the investigator should have documented everything as usual. I have done work “for friends” before and still document everything as if it were an actual paying client. Even though it is for a friend, it is still an official investigation and I could be held accountable for just this sort of situation. So, that’s his fault and he should have been a little more cooperative with the courts….if it was a legit case…
This was a private surveillance, done for a friend. There was no attorney involved.
NH law does cover PIs on a surveilance. The term legitinmate purpose is in the stalking statue as an exemption for investigators. The burden is on us to prove the purpose was legitimate.
Didn’t the court just subpoena his case record? (If there really was one.)