Originally printed in New Times Blogs by Ray Stern, December 6, 2010
Maybe tailing the investigator for the Arizona State Supreme Court was a bad idea.
A probable-cause panelist for the state high court, spurred by a report from investigator John Gleason, has ordered disciplinary procedures to begin against former Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas and his former deputy, Lisa Aubuchon.
In a 76-page report presented to the panelist, Gleason notes that if the allegations against Thomas and Aubuchon were proven, then they should be disbarred.
Such a disciplinary move would be a major blow to Thomas, who quit his office in what turned out to be an unsuccessful bid for state Attorney General this year. Disbarment would mean Thomas and Aubuchon couldn't work as lawyers in Arizona. Thomas could forget any notion of a political comeback.
The final word on punishment won't be known for several months.
The report by John Gleason is expected to be released by the state Supreme Court at a 2 p.m. news conference.
We don't have the report yet, but a state Supreme Court official confirmed the gist of it to New Times.
The order by Judge Charles Jones, who was appointed this year as a "probable cause panelist" to help sort out the county's legal mess, was filed with the Arizona State Bar this afternoon.
The order is more than a recommendation that Thomas and Aubuchon be disbarred, says the state high court's spokeswoman, Jennifer Liewer. She compared Jones' report to the findings of a grand jury.
The next step will be for Gleason, (brought in from Colorado to avoid a perception of bias), to file formal charges with the bar's new disciplinary judge, William O'Neil. During his investigation, Gleason was tailed by private investigators working for lawyers hired by Aubuchon at public expense.
An Arizona Republic article today suggests that disciplinary action may also be coming for former deputy county attorney and blogger Rachel Alexander.
We can't help but wonder how one of Thomas' chief aides, Barnett Lotstein, would remain unscathed in these proceedings.
In any case, Thomas and crew will have plenty of opportunity to fight and/or appeal their case.
Rick DeBruhl, spokesman for the State Bar, says Gleason will file the charges "in the near future." Typically, this step would occur within 60 days, but in this case it'll likely to happen sooner, he says.
Within 150 days of the charges being filed Thomas and Aubuchon will be given the chance to defend themselves against the allegations in a public "trial" of sorts, DeBruhl says. He adds that the event won't be a "trial," per se, because Thomas and Aubuchon haven't been accused of any crime. Rather, they will fight allegations that they violated the ethical rules of attorneys, he says. Continuing the metaphor, Gleason will act as the "prosecutor," DeBruhl says, and will present the case to a small panel consisting of O'Neil, a lawyer, and a member of the public.
O'Neil could grant time extensions to the process, if he decides it's necessary, DeBruhl adds.
Theoretically, Thomas and Aubuchon could also receive punishment that falls short of disbarment.
DeBruhl says Jones' order could have contained a recommendation for the immediate suspension of the law licenses of Thomas and Aubuchon, but it didn't.
Aubuchon filed a $10 million claim against the county after being fired, and both she and Thomas have set up shop in the Valley as private-practice lawyers.
John Gleason will act as a "prosecutor" of sorts in the disciplinary hearing against Thomas and Aubuchon.
As far as we're concerned, this should be a slam-dunk case for disbarment. Thomas, for example, filed a criminal complaint (with Aubuchon's help) against Superior Court Judge Gary Donahoe that alleged bribery. No evidence of anything remotely resembling bribery ever surfaced, and the facts surrounding the case seem to show that Thomas used the charge to avoid a conflict-of-interest hearing against him by Donahoe.
Thomas, working as the legal arm to Sheriff Joe Arpaio's politically minded "anti-corruption" task force, also brought charges against County Supervisors Mary Rose Wilcox and Don Stapley.
All of those charges were dropped after a judge ruled that Thomas had serious conflicts in the cases.
Thursday, December 9, 2010
Wednesday, December 1, 2010
Top 5 Holiday Scams
From the Better Business Bureau website, 11/24/2010
The holidays are a happy time for food, family and friends, but they are also a time for fraud. Consumers can fall into any number of traps over the holidays and become victim to identity thieves, hackers and deceptive merchants online. The Better Business Bureau is warning holiday shoppers and donors to look out for five common scams this season.
“While the rest of us are pulling the decorations out of the attic, scammers are blowing the dust off of their old holiday scams,” said Matthew Fehling, BBB President/CEO. “We can all help make these holiday scams a ghost of Christmas’ past by not falling for them anymore.”
BBB recommends being on the lookout for the following scams this holiday season:
1. Scam shopping sites online
We’re all looking for a great deal online, but some sites offer electronics or luxury goods at prices that are too good to be true. Every holiday season BBB hears from holiday shoppers who paid for a supposedly great deal online, but received nothing in return.
BBB advice: Always look for the BBB seal when shopping online and click on the seal to confirm it is legitimate. When shopping on sites that you aren’t household names, check the business out with the BBB before you buy.
2. Finding the season’s hottest toys and gadgets online
Every year, holiday shoppers fight over the “must have” toy or gadget of the season. When the item is sold out in stores, you can often find it online through sites like Craigslist or eBay—for a much steeper price, however some sellers will take your money and run.
BBB Advice: If you shop on Craigslist, consider conducting the transaction in person when applicable -never wire money as payment to someone you don’t know. When purchasing items on auctions such as eBay, research the seller extensively and always listen to your doubts if the deal doesn’t sound legit.
3. Identity theft at the mall
While you’re struggling at the mall with bags of presents, identity thieves see an opportunity to steal your wallet and debit or credit card numbers.
BBB Advice: Don’t let yourself get bogged down in purchases and lose track of your wallet. Know where your credit and debit cards are at all times and cover the keypad when entering your PIN while purchasing items or getting money from the ATM.
4. Bogus charitable pleas
The holidays are a time of giving which creates a great opportunity for scammers to solicit donations to line their own pockets. Also beware of solicitations from charities that don’t necessarily deliver on their promises or are ill-equipped to carry through on their plans.
BBB Advice: Always research a charity with the BBB Wise Giving Alliance before you give to see if the charity meets the 20 Standards for Charity Accountability.
5. Phishing e-mails
Phishing e-mails are a common way for hackers to break into your computer to access your personal information. Common phishing e-mails around the holidays include e-cards and messages pretending to be from companies like UPS or FedEx that include links to package tracking information.
BBB Advice: Don’t click on any links or open any attachments to e-mails until you have confirmed that they are not malicious. E-mail addresses that don’t match up, typos and grammatical mistakes are common red flags of a malicious phishing e-mail. Also beware of unsolicited e-mails from companies with which you are not associated. Make sure you have current antivirus software and that all security patches have been installed on the computer.
The holidays are a happy time for food, family and friends, but they are also a time for fraud. Consumers can fall into any number of traps over the holidays and become victim to identity thieves, hackers and deceptive merchants online. The Better Business Bureau is warning holiday shoppers and donors to look out for five common scams this season.
“While the rest of us are pulling the decorations out of the attic, scammers are blowing the dust off of their old holiday scams,” said Matthew Fehling, BBB President/CEO. “We can all help make these holiday scams a ghost of Christmas’ past by not falling for them anymore.”
BBB recommends being on the lookout for the following scams this holiday season:
1. Scam shopping sites online
We’re all looking for a great deal online, but some sites offer electronics or luxury goods at prices that are too good to be true. Every holiday season BBB hears from holiday shoppers who paid for a supposedly great deal online, but received nothing in return.
BBB advice: Always look for the BBB seal when shopping online and click on the seal to confirm it is legitimate. When shopping on sites that you aren’t household names, check the business out with the BBB before you buy.
2. Finding the season’s hottest toys and gadgets online
Every year, holiday shoppers fight over the “must have” toy or gadget of the season. When the item is sold out in stores, you can often find it online through sites like Craigslist or eBay—for a much steeper price, however some sellers will take your money and run.
BBB Advice: If you shop on Craigslist, consider conducting the transaction in person when applicable -never wire money as payment to someone you don’t know. When purchasing items on auctions such as eBay, research the seller extensively and always listen to your doubts if the deal doesn’t sound legit.
3. Identity theft at the mall
While you’re struggling at the mall with bags of presents, identity thieves see an opportunity to steal your wallet and debit or credit card numbers.
BBB Advice: Don’t let yourself get bogged down in purchases and lose track of your wallet. Know where your credit and debit cards are at all times and cover the keypad when entering your PIN while purchasing items or getting money from the ATM.
4. Bogus charitable pleas
The holidays are a time of giving which creates a great opportunity for scammers to solicit donations to line their own pockets. Also beware of solicitations from charities that don’t necessarily deliver on their promises or are ill-equipped to carry through on their plans.
BBB Advice: Always research a charity with the BBB Wise Giving Alliance before you give to see if the charity meets the 20 Standards for Charity Accountability.
5. Phishing e-mails
Phishing e-mails are a common way for hackers to break into your computer to access your personal information. Common phishing e-mails around the holidays include e-cards and messages pretending to be from companies like UPS or FedEx that include links to package tracking information.
BBB Advice: Don’t click on any links or open any attachments to e-mails until you have confirmed that they are not malicious. E-mail addresses that don’t match up, typos and grammatical mistakes are common red flags of a malicious phishing e-mail. Also beware of unsolicited e-mails from companies with which you are not associated. Make sure you have current antivirus software and that all security patches have been installed on the computer.
Tuesday, November 9, 2010
Living Trust Scams In Arizona
Originally posted in Finance Industry Today, November 3, 2010
Attorney General of Arizona, Terry Goddard, has issued an official notice to people across the state to be on the lookout for unscrupulous salespeople offering do-it-yourself living trust kits that are oftentimes both unnecessary and financially risky. At an average of $1,500 apiece, this is a very lucrative con for the scammers and a big loss for the victims.
The high volume of such living trust-type products has led the Attorney General's office to deem them "mills," a name indicative of a cookie-cutter approach that is focused on just pumping out sales. They have been popping up all over Arizona, fueled by job cuts, the loss of retirement/savings/investment funds in a volatile stock market, the national housing crisis and other valid financial concerns.
How Do These Scams Operate?
Like other snake oil salesmen throughout history, these self-proclaimed "certified trust advisors" and "estate planning experts" exalt the value of their living trust kits, positioning them as a cure-all for any estate planning concern a consumer could face. The kits are commonly sold in free informational seminars complete with bells, whistles, flashy props, bright lights and a high-pressure sales pitch. Living trust products are aimed at senior citizens who may fear that a lifetime worth of hard work will be lost to the whims of a strained economy, but these all-purpose kits only drain even more of those hard-earned funds.
What Are Living Trust Kits Supposed to Do?
On the surface, these kits look like a good idea -- a great way to protect assets from undue tax burdens, loss caused by stock fluctuations or other reasons. To many people, they seem like the perfect solution -- all their estate planning needs addressed in one tidy transaction with someone who is marketing himself as a specialist. Unfortunately, more often than not, these products are not helpful and are a poor solution to the customer's financial needs. If a living trust or any other legal document is improperly drafted, it may put a substantial portion of a person's estate at risk.
By using the tools provided in the kit (most often boilerplate forms and general information that could easily be found at little or no cost on the Internet or at a local library), the "trust advisor" (a title not actually recognized by the state of Arizona -- the state does not regulate the sale of living trusts), upon receipt of a sizable fee, convinces the consumer to disclose detailed, private financial information that could possibly be used to sell other unnecessary estate planning or investment property in the future.
How Can You Avoid Being Scammed?
In spite of the convincing sales pitches and fancy-looking kits offered by these sellers, and the fact that these products might actually be a good fit for some consumers, the Attorney General's office advises that you use caution if you are considering purchasing one. Taking a few simple steps now can not only help you determine if you need a living trust, but it may be able to save you hassles down the road trying to undo damage done by an improperly prepared one.
When thinking about buying a living trust "kit," keep the following tips in mind:
- Estate planning is not like clothing -- be skeptical of a "one size fits all" product, especially if the salesperson offers guaranteed satisfaction; there are thousands of possible variables that a cookie-cutter document might not be able to handle
- If the marketer of a living trust kit or other estate planning document is holding him or herself out as a "expert" or "certified specialist," ask for documentation
- Ask for a written estimate of any and all costs associated with the living trust kit you are considering. Will the purchase price include filing fees, mail expenses, notary fees, etc.?
- Do a little math -- could an attorney offer the same services at a comparable price? If so, then you would receive personalized service and the confidence that someone with in-depth knowledge of Arizona estate planning laws has drafted a comprehensive document for you.
- Determine if a refund is offered if you determine that the product is not a good fit for you. If one is offered, ask for a written copy of the details.
- Honestly assess your financial information; depending upon the size of your estate and any unique assets, you may or may not need a living trust -- a simple will could suffice in some situations
If you or a loved one is considering implementing a living trust, take the Attorney General's advice to heart, and seriously consider seeking the advice of a trained estate planning attorney before you purchase a kit or give confidential financial information to a stranger.
Attorney General of Arizona, Terry Goddard, has issued an official notice to people across the state to be on the lookout for unscrupulous salespeople offering do-it-yourself living trust kits that are oftentimes both unnecessary and financially risky. At an average of $1,500 apiece, this is a very lucrative con for the scammers and a big loss for the victims.
The high volume of such living trust-type products has led the Attorney General's office to deem them "mills," a name indicative of a cookie-cutter approach that is focused on just pumping out sales. They have been popping up all over Arizona, fueled by job cuts, the loss of retirement/savings/investment funds in a volatile stock market, the national housing crisis and other valid financial concerns.
How Do These Scams Operate?
Like other snake oil salesmen throughout history, these self-proclaimed "certified trust advisors" and "estate planning experts" exalt the value of their living trust kits, positioning them as a cure-all for any estate planning concern a consumer could face. The kits are commonly sold in free informational seminars complete with bells, whistles, flashy props, bright lights and a high-pressure sales pitch. Living trust products are aimed at senior citizens who may fear that a lifetime worth of hard work will be lost to the whims of a strained economy, but these all-purpose kits only drain even more of those hard-earned funds.
What Are Living Trust Kits Supposed to Do?
On the surface, these kits look like a good idea -- a great way to protect assets from undue tax burdens, loss caused by stock fluctuations or other reasons. To many people, they seem like the perfect solution -- all their estate planning needs addressed in one tidy transaction with someone who is marketing himself as a specialist. Unfortunately, more often than not, these products are not helpful and are a poor solution to the customer's financial needs. If a living trust or any other legal document is improperly drafted, it may put a substantial portion of a person's estate at risk.
By using the tools provided in the kit (most often boilerplate forms and general information that could easily be found at little or no cost on the Internet or at a local library), the "trust advisor" (a title not actually recognized by the state of Arizona -- the state does not regulate the sale of living trusts), upon receipt of a sizable fee, convinces the consumer to disclose detailed, private financial information that could possibly be used to sell other unnecessary estate planning or investment property in the future.
How Can You Avoid Being Scammed?
In spite of the convincing sales pitches and fancy-looking kits offered by these sellers, and the fact that these products might actually be a good fit for some consumers, the Attorney General's office advises that you use caution if you are considering purchasing one. Taking a few simple steps now can not only help you determine if you need a living trust, but it may be able to save you hassles down the road trying to undo damage done by an improperly prepared one.
When thinking about buying a living trust "kit," keep the following tips in mind:
- Estate planning is not like clothing -- be skeptical of a "one size fits all" product, especially if the salesperson offers guaranteed satisfaction; there are thousands of possible variables that a cookie-cutter document might not be able to handle
- If the marketer of a living trust kit or other estate planning document is holding him or herself out as a "expert" or "certified specialist," ask for documentation
- Ask for a written estimate of any and all costs associated with the living trust kit you are considering. Will the purchase price include filing fees, mail expenses, notary fees, etc.?
- Do a little math -- could an attorney offer the same services at a comparable price? If so, then you would receive personalized service and the confidence that someone with in-depth knowledge of Arizona estate planning laws has drafted a comprehensive document for you.
- Determine if a refund is offered if you determine that the product is not a good fit for you. If one is offered, ask for a written copy of the details.
- Honestly assess your financial information; depending upon the size of your estate and any unique assets, you may or may not need a living trust -- a simple will could suffice in some situations
If you or a loved one is considering implementing a living trust, take the Attorney General's advice to heart, and seriously consider seeking the advice of a trained estate planning attorney before you purchase a kit or give confidential financial information to a stranger.
Tuesday, November 2, 2010
Arizona Seniors Scammed by "Fake Grandchildren"
Originally posted by the Associated Press, October 23, 2010
Arizona authorities are warning seniors about a scam in which thieves pose as grandchildren over the phone and ask for bail money.
The Yavapai County Sheriff's Office reported Saturday that three such scams have occurred since September last year.
The most recent was on Oct. 18, when a 75-year-old Cottonwood man got a call from a woman who identified herself by name as his granddaughter, told him she had been arrested in Canada and that she needed bail money.
Shortly after, someone who said they were a police sergeant called and told the man to wire $5,600 in bail money to a contact in Florida. The man followed the instructions but later found out his granddaughter never had been arrested and was safe at her home in Utah, and he was out $5,600.
Sheriff's spokesman Dwight D'Evelyn said two similar incidents occurred in September last year.
He said such scams are difficult to investigate because suspects usually live outside the U.S. and throw out cell phones before they can be traced.
D'Evelyn said detectives believe whoever is responsible uses social networking sites, such as Facebook, to identify family members through profiles and photos. In some cases, people write about travel plans and specific family information, making schemes much easier.
He warned people to tell their parents and grandparents about the scheme, and that any requests for money to be wired should be seen as a red flag.
"Remember, these suspects specifically target seniors who may be more trusting and cooperate quickly out of concern for their jailed' loved one," D'Evelyn said.
Arizona authorities are warning seniors about a scam in which thieves pose as grandchildren over the phone and ask for bail money.
The Yavapai County Sheriff's Office reported Saturday that three such scams have occurred since September last year.
The most recent was on Oct. 18, when a 75-year-old Cottonwood man got a call from a woman who identified herself by name as his granddaughter, told him she had been arrested in Canada and that she needed bail money.
Shortly after, someone who said they were a police sergeant called and told the man to wire $5,600 in bail money to a contact in Florida. The man followed the instructions but later found out his granddaughter never had been arrested and was safe at her home in Utah, and he was out $5,600.
Sheriff's spokesman Dwight D'Evelyn said two similar incidents occurred in September last year.
He said such scams are difficult to investigate because suspects usually live outside the U.S. and throw out cell phones before they can be traced.
D'Evelyn said detectives believe whoever is responsible uses social networking sites, such as Facebook, to identify family members through profiles and photos. In some cases, people write about travel plans and specific family information, making schemes much easier.
He warned people to tell their parents and grandparents about the scheme, and that any requests for money to be wired should be seen as a red flag.
"Remember, these suspects specifically target seniors who may be more trusting and cooperate quickly out of concern for their jailed' loved one," D'Evelyn said.
Friday, September 24, 2010
Private Eye Accused of Planting Evidence in Oklahoma Moves to Arizona
Originally published in Victoria Advocate.com.
Nine years after a fatal shooting, a Texas private investigator nicknamed "The Rhino" reported to the slain woman's parents that he had found new evidence.
He told the parents he'd found an unfired .25-caliber bullet last year in the backyard of the crime scene. He told police the same thing.
In a report to the parents, James Leroy Richards promised to have the bullet checked for fingerprints. He wrote he firmly believes the bullet was from "the murder weapon."
Police allege he is a liar.
Richards, 58, goes professionally by the name Richard Lee James and also is a bounty hunter.
Richards was charged Sept. 9 with a misdemeanor - obstructing an officer in the performance of his official duties. Oklahoma County prosecutors say they are disappointed they couldn't charge him with a felony.
Midwest City police still are investigating the death of Nancy Probst. The partially nude woman was shot in the head inside her house on Nov. 16, 2000. She was 32. Her baby girl, in a nearby crib, was unharmed.
Prosecutors charged her husband, Matthew J. Probst, with first-degree murder but later dismissed the case because of insufficient evidence. Police said last year he has never been cleared as a suspect.
Richards told the victim's parents he dug up the bullet last year during a search of the backyard of the house where the victim lived. He reported it was "buried in the soil in the area where the storage shed used to be."
Police reported Richards had a long excuse for why he had not turned the bullet over to officials.
Police said the house's current tenant reported the investigator spent only a brief time in the backyard, never dug there and did not remove anything.
Midwest City Police Detective Lacky J. Harkins reported the homicide investigation was slowed and valuable time and resources were wasted "due to the lies" the private investigator told him and a police lieutenant.
The detective said Richards admitted in a phone conversation in March that he had lied about the discovery. Then, the detective reported, Richards at one point stated, "Let's just say it was planted." Finally, the detective reported, Richards admitted he had brought the bullet with him.
"He wanted me to just drop the whole incident. I told him I thought it was sorry of him to have taken the family's money and make this up. He agreed it was sorry," Harkins said.
Oklahoma County District Attorney David Prater said restitution will be sought from Richards if he is caught and convicted.
The victim's parents, Carl and Alberta Helmle, have hired several private investigators to look into their daughter's death. They paid Richards more than $5,000. They later fired him. They declined to comment.
Richards has lived in Texas, but he wrote on Twitter he was moving to Arizona. Because he faces only a misdemeanor, he will not be arrested in another state and extradited.
"But if he ever comes in the state of Oklahoma and he gets pulled over on a traffic ticket ... he can be held and we can go down and transport him up from whatever county he got arrested in," Prater said.
In an e-mail Saturday, Richards wrote he is being harassed by Midwest City police. He did not respond to a question about the charge.
"I've said it before and I'll say it again: investigate your investigator first. Get to know him or her, do a little research, and save yourself potential grief and wasted funds. Please refer to my July 2010 article in this blog, 'How A Private Investigator Can Help You.' for more information."
Jeff Kimble, P.I.
Nine years after a fatal shooting, a Texas private investigator nicknamed "The Rhino" reported to the slain woman's parents that he had found new evidence.
He told the parents he'd found an unfired .25-caliber bullet last year in the backyard of the crime scene. He told police the same thing.
In a report to the parents, James Leroy Richards promised to have the bullet checked for fingerprints. He wrote he firmly believes the bullet was from "the murder weapon."
Police allege he is a liar.
Richards, 58, goes professionally by the name Richard Lee James and also is a bounty hunter.
Richards was charged Sept. 9 with a misdemeanor - obstructing an officer in the performance of his official duties. Oklahoma County prosecutors say they are disappointed they couldn't charge him with a felony.
Midwest City police still are investigating the death of Nancy Probst. The partially nude woman was shot in the head inside her house on Nov. 16, 2000. She was 32. Her baby girl, in a nearby crib, was unharmed.
Prosecutors charged her husband, Matthew J. Probst, with first-degree murder but later dismissed the case because of insufficient evidence. Police said last year he has never been cleared as a suspect.
Richards told the victim's parents he dug up the bullet last year during a search of the backyard of the house where the victim lived. He reported it was "buried in the soil in the area where the storage shed used to be."
Police reported Richards had a long excuse for why he had not turned the bullet over to officials.
Police said the house's current tenant reported the investigator spent only a brief time in the backyard, never dug there and did not remove anything.
Midwest City Police Detective Lacky J. Harkins reported the homicide investigation was slowed and valuable time and resources were wasted "due to the lies" the private investigator told him and a police lieutenant.
The detective said Richards admitted in a phone conversation in March that he had lied about the discovery. Then, the detective reported, Richards at one point stated, "Let's just say it was planted." Finally, the detective reported, Richards admitted he had brought the bullet with him.
"He wanted me to just drop the whole incident. I told him I thought it was sorry of him to have taken the family's money and make this up. He agreed it was sorry," Harkins said.
Oklahoma County District Attorney David Prater said restitution will be sought from Richards if he is caught and convicted.
The victim's parents, Carl and Alberta Helmle, have hired several private investigators to look into their daughter's death. They paid Richards more than $5,000. They later fired him. They declined to comment.
Richards has lived in Texas, but he wrote on Twitter he was moving to Arizona. Because he faces only a misdemeanor, he will not be arrested in another state and extradited.
"But if he ever comes in the state of Oklahoma and he gets pulled over on a traffic ticket ... he can be held and we can go down and transport him up from whatever county he got arrested in," Prater said.
In an e-mail Saturday, Richards wrote he is being harassed by Midwest City police. He did not respond to a question about the charge.
"I've said it before and I'll say it again: investigate your investigator first. Get to know him or her, do a little research, and save yourself potential grief and wasted funds. Please refer to my July 2010 article in this blog, 'How A Private Investigator Can Help You.' for more information."
Jeff Kimble, P.I.
Thursday, September 9, 2010
Facebook Postings in Legal and Financial Arenas
Written by Phil Villarreal - September 8, 2010 - Arizona Daily Star
http://www.azstarnet.com/
Comments and pictures parents post on Facebook can come back to haunt them during custody battles, debt-collection efforts and job applications.
A compromising Facebook post "is like a smoking gun in that you can't destroy it," said attorney Shawn Kenney, the law department team leader at Thrush Law Group.
Kenney said he's seen custody cases hinge on arguments of parental incompetence stemming from Facebook posts. He recalled a case in which a father posted a picture of himself proudly displaying a 3-foot acrylic bong. In another case, Kenney said a mother wrote about how she'd been out with her girlfriends "getting trashed for the third time this week."
"When people put information on Facebook it may not be in their best interest and does come back to haunt them in ongoing litigation involving custody," Kenney said, adding he's also seen a mother call her young boy "my pimp" and a father post a picture of himself baring tattoos while posed with a butcher knife, joking that he was a killer.
Divorce attorney Robbie Lewis, who owns the Law Offices of Robert G. Lewis, P.C., has also seen Facebook rear its often-ugly head in custody battles.
"The whole face of discovery in divorce has really changed over the last few years," Lewis said. "I can't tell you how many times clients have found out about extramarital affairs through looking through their spouses' telephones in the middle of the night, or checking their spouses' e-mail or Facebook accounts."
Lewis said in the past, clients would hire private investigators to dig up dirt on spouses. Now the evidence can be found with a few mouse clicks.
"People put silly things on Facebook accounts - pictures of themselves or other people in bars doing inappropriate things" that end up presented at trial, Lewis said.
Attorney Grady Wade, who, along with his work in other legal fields, defends clients in debt-collection cases and sometimes collects debt for creditors, said while he doesn't personally use Facebook to investigate debtors, anything people post publicly on Facebook is fair game.
"If they put stuff up there, it's pretty much for public use," Wade said. "If they don't make the page private, then it's for public use and they don't have any expectation of privacy."
The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, which prohibits abusive behavior and restricts the methods collectors can use to locate debtors, doesn't prohibit using social networking sites.
Wade said third-party debt collectors aren't allowed to publicly shame debtors. For instance, a collector couldn't become a friend of a debtor under a false pretense and then post something on his wall about him owing money.
The restrictions don't apply to the creditors themselves, Wade said, adding that he'd advise clients to record any contact with a third-party collector.
Tucsonans applying for jobs at the University of Arizona, the region's second-largest employer, had best clean up their Facebook profiles.
UA human-resources manager Chris Wolf said managers dig up whatever information they can to vet job prospects, and Facebook is within limits.
"If a candidate regularly references violent behavior, then that may be a red flag," Wolf said. "It's more likely that a hiring manager will discover that someone references topics such as their political views - irrelevant when it comes to determining whether they can perform well, yet it may create an unintended bias."
No matter the context, Kenney said people should stop thinking of Facebook posts as semi-private announcements to close friends. He recalls a mentor's advice from decades ago, advising him to be careful about what he put in writing and says it applies to social networking sites:
"Never put anything on there you wouldn't want on a billboard on the highway," he said.
http://www.azstarnet.com/
Comments and pictures parents post on Facebook can come back to haunt them during custody battles, debt-collection efforts and job applications.
A compromising Facebook post "is like a smoking gun in that you can't destroy it," said attorney Shawn Kenney, the law department team leader at Thrush Law Group.
Kenney said he's seen custody cases hinge on arguments of parental incompetence stemming from Facebook posts. He recalled a case in which a father posted a picture of himself proudly displaying a 3-foot acrylic bong. In another case, Kenney said a mother wrote about how she'd been out with her girlfriends "getting trashed for the third time this week."
"When people put information on Facebook it may not be in their best interest and does come back to haunt them in ongoing litigation involving custody," Kenney said, adding he's also seen a mother call her young boy "my pimp" and a father post a picture of himself baring tattoos while posed with a butcher knife, joking that he was a killer.
Divorce attorney Robbie Lewis, who owns the Law Offices of Robert G. Lewis, P.C., has also seen Facebook rear its often-ugly head in custody battles.
"The whole face of discovery in divorce has really changed over the last few years," Lewis said. "I can't tell you how many times clients have found out about extramarital affairs through looking through their spouses' telephones in the middle of the night, or checking their spouses' e-mail or Facebook accounts."
Lewis said in the past, clients would hire private investigators to dig up dirt on spouses. Now the evidence can be found with a few mouse clicks.
"People put silly things on Facebook accounts - pictures of themselves or other people in bars doing inappropriate things" that end up presented at trial, Lewis said.
Attorney Grady Wade, who, along with his work in other legal fields, defends clients in debt-collection cases and sometimes collects debt for creditors, said while he doesn't personally use Facebook to investigate debtors, anything people post publicly on Facebook is fair game.
"If they put stuff up there, it's pretty much for public use," Wade said. "If they don't make the page private, then it's for public use and they don't have any expectation of privacy."
The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, which prohibits abusive behavior and restricts the methods collectors can use to locate debtors, doesn't prohibit using social networking sites.
Wade said third-party debt collectors aren't allowed to publicly shame debtors. For instance, a collector couldn't become a friend of a debtor under a false pretense and then post something on his wall about him owing money.
The restrictions don't apply to the creditors themselves, Wade said, adding that he'd advise clients to record any contact with a third-party collector.
Tucsonans applying for jobs at the University of Arizona, the region's second-largest employer, had best clean up their Facebook profiles.
UA human-resources manager Chris Wolf said managers dig up whatever information they can to vet job prospects, and Facebook is within limits.
"If a candidate regularly references violent behavior, then that may be a red flag," Wolf said. "It's more likely that a hiring manager will discover that someone references topics such as their political views - irrelevant when it comes to determining whether they can perform well, yet it may create an unintended bias."
No matter the context, Kenney said people should stop thinking of Facebook posts as semi-private announcements to close friends. He recalls a mentor's advice from decades ago, advising him to be careful about what he put in writing and says it applies to social networking sites:
"Never put anything on there you wouldn't want on a billboard on the highway," he said.
Friday, August 27, 2010
Weld County Private Eye Charged With Stalking
written by Kirk Mitchell - August 13, 2010 - The Denver Post
http://www.denverpost.com
A private investigator was arrested and charged with felony stalking recently in Weld County for doing what colleagues say is the backbone of their profession: surveillance.
Timothy Allan Stitt, 42, was charged in Weld County District Court for putting a tracking device on the car of Shantele Sherman in LaSalle last month.
Stitt admitted he was following Sherman at the behest of her estranged husband, Jeff Schudel.
The two are in a child-custody dispute.
"I don't know if that's ever happened before," said Denver private investigator Ryan Ross, who writes a blog about private-investigator issues in Colorado. "The charges weren't specific to him using a GPS. The ramifications are much broader."
A prosecutor at the Weld County district attorney's office filed a stalking charge against Stitt after Sherman claimed she suffered severe emotional distress. Schudel, too, has been charged with stalking.
Assistant District Attorney Michael Rourke said he couldn't comment on Stitt's case out of fairness to him. Rourke said he was not aware of any private investigators ever being charged with stalking before.
Stitt was charged under a subsection of the stalking statute. People violate the law if they repeatedly follow, approach, contact, place under surveillance or make any form of communication with another person — or a member of that person's family — and cause him or her "serious emotional distress."
The statute does not require the complainant to receive professional counseling in order to prove the criteria are met.
Rourke said he believes private investigators should be concerned about the statute if they are causing people serious emotional distress.
But Ross said police also follow possible criminals, and that distresses them. Just like police, private investigators perform a legitimate service, he said.
"A lot of private investigators have cases that obligate them to follow somebody," Ross said. "When we get hired, it's not for prurient interests. It's to protect the life and safety of children."
In some cases, people hire private investigators to try to gather evidence that their spouse has a drinking problem or other habits that jeopardize their kids.
In Stitt's case, Schudel allegedly called his estranged wife and told her he had paid a lot of money to track her whereabouts, an arrest warrant affidavit says.
"Shantele stated that (her husband) knew exactly when she was out at night and when she was at work," the document says. "So if it takes three months or three years, these people will be watching how you care for our son."
Sherman found a black metal GPS device with two green lights attached under her car. She said she was shaking.
There was no indication in the arrest affidavit that Sherman knew Stitt was following her until her husband called her.
Colorado lawmakers defined stalking as involving "highly inappropriate intensity, persistence and possessiveness, it entails great unpredictability and creates great stress and fear for the victim."
"It involves severe intrusions on the victim's personal privacy . . . as well as risks to security and safety of the victim."
When the detective interviewed Stitt, who has a business called Civil Task Force Investigations, Stitt acknowledged working for Schudel. He said Schudel paid him $300 to put the GPS device under Sherman's car. He had been following Sherman for about two weeks.
Stitt declined to comment to The Denver Post.
Ross said there are as many as 500 private investigators in Colorado, which does not license them.
"PIs and clients don't want to have to guess what a police officer will do," Ross said. "If we know where the line is, we won't cross it."
http://www.denverpost.com
A private investigator was arrested and charged with felony stalking recently in Weld County for doing what colleagues say is the backbone of their profession: surveillance.
Timothy Allan Stitt, 42, was charged in Weld County District Court for putting a tracking device on the car of Shantele Sherman in LaSalle last month.
Stitt admitted he was following Sherman at the behest of her estranged husband, Jeff Schudel.
The two are in a child-custody dispute.
"I don't know if that's ever happened before," said Denver private investigator Ryan Ross, who writes a blog about private-investigator issues in Colorado. "The charges weren't specific to him using a GPS. The ramifications are much broader."
A prosecutor at the Weld County district attorney's office filed a stalking charge against Stitt after Sherman claimed she suffered severe emotional distress. Schudel, too, has been charged with stalking.
Assistant District Attorney Michael Rourke said he couldn't comment on Stitt's case out of fairness to him. Rourke said he was not aware of any private investigators ever being charged with stalking before.
Stitt was charged under a subsection of the stalking statute. People violate the law if they repeatedly follow, approach, contact, place under surveillance or make any form of communication with another person — or a member of that person's family — and cause him or her "serious emotional distress."
The statute does not require the complainant to receive professional counseling in order to prove the criteria are met.
Rourke said he believes private investigators should be concerned about the statute if they are causing people serious emotional distress.
But Ross said police also follow possible criminals, and that distresses them. Just like police, private investigators perform a legitimate service, he said.
"A lot of private investigators have cases that obligate them to follow somebody," Ross said. "When we get hired, it's not for prurient interests. It's to protect the life and safety of children."
In some cases, people hire private investigators to try to gather evidence that their spouse has a drinking problem or other habits that jeopardize their kids.
In Stitt's case, Schudel allegedly called his estranged wife and told her he had paid a lot of money to track her whereabouts, an arrest warrant affidavit says.
"Shantele stated that (her husband) knew exactly when she was out at night and when she was at work," the document says. "So if it takes three months or three years, these people will be watching how you care for our son."
Sherman found a black metal GPS device with two green lights attached under her car. She said she was shaking.
There was no indication in the arrest affidavit that Sherman knew Stitt was following her until her husband called her.
Colorado lawmakers defined stalking as involving "highly inappropriate intensity, persistence and possessiveness, it entails great unpredictability and creates great stress and fear for the victim."
"It involves severe intrusions on the victim's personal privacy . . . as well as risks to security and safety of the victim."
When the detective interviewed Stitt, who has a business called Civil Task Force Investigations, Stitt acknowledged working for Schudel. He said Schudel paid him $300 to put the GPS device under Sherman's car. He had been following Sherman for about two weeks.
Stitt declined to comment to The Denver Post.
Ross said there are as many as 500 private investigators in Colorado, which does not license them.
"PIs and clients don't want to have to guess what a police officer will do," Ross said. "If we know where the line is, we won't cross it."
Tuesday, August 10, 2010
Beware Of the Credit Card Skimmer Scam
written by Michelle Ye Hee Lee - Aug. 1, 2010, The Arizona Republic, http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic
The Arizona Department of Weights and Measures is warning consumers to take extra precautions to protect their identities because of an increase in the use of illicit credit-card readers at gas pumps.
Police departments around the state have reported at least 30 cases related to "skimmers" - illegal reading devices attached to legitimate credit-card readers - found at gas stations in the past six months, said Shawn Marquez, director of compliance programs for the state agency.
Skimmers have been reported in Maricopa, La Paz and Mohave counties, and in the cities of Phoenix, Lake Havasu City, Bullhead City, Kingman, Glendale and Surprise, the agency said.
According to police departments in the counties that reported skimmer activity, cases have cropped up sporadically over the past year, but not in a concentrated area. It appears the scammers moved in and out of each area quickly.
The tiny devices are surreptitiously installed into or onto gas pumps, copying the electronic data in the magnetic strip of credit or debit cards as people swipe them at the pump. The information can then be used to counterfeit credit or debit cards. Skimmers also are commonly planted in ATMs, authorities said.
The devices are not planted by the business owners, but by scammers adept at placing them at key locations.
Last month, Gov. Jan Brewer directed the Department of Weights and Measures to increase training and inspection efforts to search for skimmers.
Over the next few weeks, state inspectors will increase the number of inspections on gas pumps, hold training seminars for its officers on technology used to detect skimmers and work with professionals in the petroleum industry to collaborate on detection and protective measures, Marquez said.
Because skimmers often are placed inside the pumps, it is difficult for consumers to detect them, Marquez said. But he urged people to report any suspicious devices on or around any gas pump.
Skimmers are about 2 inches long, with electrical wires attached.
The problem is not restricted to gas pumps. Jeno Erdelyi, 46, a Californian working in the restaurant business, said skimmers are common enough that even waiters sometimes hide the devices in their wallets or belts to secretly swipe cards.
Erdelyi, who was recently visiting Phoenix, said he withdraws cash to buy gas. He uses oil-company credit cards only when he travels for work.
Gouinda Das, 36, a Phoenix Shell gas-station attendant, said most patrons use cards to purchase their gas. Only about 30 to 40 customers a day pay with cash, usually when they buy other items at the convenience store, he said.
Miljan Rakic, 21, who was gassing up recently at a Phoenix station, said he routinely checks his online statements and uses credit cards with fraud-protection guarantees to avoid identity theft.
Rakic, a former credit-company employee, said he has encountered customers whose identities were stolen after running their cards through skimmers attached to gas-pump card readers. The devices resembled small lock boxes, he said, so patrons assumed the skimmers were a part of the card reader.
Like Rakic, consumers should regularly monitor their credit- and debit-card statements and check their credit scores, said Steven Katz, senior director of corporate communications at TransUnion, a national credit company.
Before draining an account, identity thieves may charge a few small transactions to see if card owners are monitoring their accounts, said Jennifer Leuer, general manager of ProtectMyID, an identity-protection service with Experian.
Any discrepancies in bank statements should be reported immediately to the bank, police and credit bureaus, because the amount card owners are liable for may increase the longer they wait to report fraud, Leuer said.
Consumer liability is limited to $50 for credit cards once the card is reported lost or stolen. But for debit cards, the liability fee is dependent on the number of days consumers wait to report it. According to the Electronic Fund Transfer Act, consumers could be responsible for all the money lost in their accounts if they wait longer than 60 days from the date the bank statement is mailed.
The Arizona Department of Weights and Measures is warning consumers to take extra precautions to protect their identities because of an increase in the use of illicit credit-card readers at gas pumps.
Police departments around the state have reported at least 30 cases related to "skimmers" - illegal reading devices attached to legitimate credit-card readers - found at gas stations in the past six months, said Shawn Marquez, director of compliance programs for the state agency.
Skimmers have been reported in Maricopa, La Paz and Mohave counties, and in the cities of Phoenix, Lake Havasu City, Bullhead City, Kingman, Glendale and Surprise, the agency said.
According to police departments in the counties that reported skimmer activity, cases have cropped up sporadically over the past year, but not in a concentrated area. It appears the scammers moved in and out of each area quickly.
The tiny devices are surreptitiously installed into or onto gas pumps, copying the electronic data in the magnetic strip of credit or debit cards as people swipe them at the pump. The information can then be used to counterfeit credit or debit cards. Skimmers also are commonly planted in ATMs, authorities said.
The devices are not planted by the business owners, but by scammers adept at placing them at key locations.
Last month, Gov. Jan Brewer directed the Department of Weights and Measures to increase training and inspection efforts to search for skimmers.
Over the next few weeks, state inspectors will increase the number of inspections on gas pumps, hold training seminars for its officers on technology used to detect skimmers and work with professionals in the petroleum industry to collaborate on detection and protective measures, Marquez said.
Because skimmers often are placed inside the pumps, it is difficult for consumers to detect them, Marquez said. But he urged people to report any suspicious devices on or around any gas pump.
Skimmers are about 2 inches long, with electrical wires attached.
The problem is not restricted to gas pumps. Jeno Erdelyi, 46, a Californian working in the restaurant business, said skimmers are common enough that even waiters sometimes hide the devices in their wallets or belts to secretly swipe cards.
Erdelyi, who was recently visiting Phoenix, said he withdraws cash to buy gas. He uses oil-company credit cards only when he travels for work.
Gouinda Das, 36, a Phoenix Shell gas-station attendant, said most patrons use cards to purchase their gas. Only about 30 to 40 customers a day pay with cash, usually when they buy other items at the convenience store, he said.
Miljan Rakic, 21, who was gassing up recently at a Phoenix station, said he routinely checks his online statements and uses credit cards with fraud-protection guarantees to avoid identity theft.
Rakic, a former credit-company employee, said he has encountered customers whose identities were stolen after running their cards through skimmers attached to gas-pump card readers. The devices resembled small lock boxes, he said, so patrons assumed the skimmers were a part of the card reader.
Like Rakic, consumers should regularly monitor their credit- and debit-card statements and check their credit scores, said Steven Katz, senior director of corporate communications at TransUnion, a national credit company.
Before draining an account, identity thieves may charge a few small transactions to see if card owners are monitoring their accounts, said Jennifer Leuer, general manager of ProtectMyID, an identity-protection service with Experian.
Any discrepancies in bank statements should be reported immediately to the bank, police and credit bureaus, because the amount card owners are liable for may increase the longer they wait to report fraud, Leuer said.
Consumer liability is limited to $50 for credit cards once the card is reported lost or stolen. But for debit cards, the liability fee is dependent on the number of days consumers wait to report it. According to the Electronic Fund Transfer Act, consumers could be responsible for all the money lost in their accounts if they wait longer than 60 days from the date the bank statement is mailed.
Friday, July 23, 2010
How NOT to Operate a Private Investigative Agency
Reprinted from http://www.legalnewsline.com/, Friday, July 16, 2010, originally titled "Gansler, P.I. Firm Settle." Written by Keith Loria.
Maryland Attorney General Douglas Gansler announced on Wednesday [July 14, 2010] that his office has reached a settlement with a private investigation firm over allegations that it took money from clients and never provided services.
Donaldson Investigations LLC, an Anne Arundel County-based private investigation company, and Jerry Donaldson, its owner, were allegedly debiting money from clients without telling them first.
"Consumers need to know when the companies they hire to perform a service take money out of their bank accounts," Gansler said. "We are pleased that Donaldson has agreed to change the way it does business and resolve the complaints we have received."
Although Donaldson Investigations denied it violated any laws, the company agreed to stop withdrawing money from its customers' bank accounts without letting its customers know in writing at least 10 days in advance.
The company also agreed to deal with the complaints that the Consumer Protection Division has received, or that come in within the next five years, using the attorney general's arbitration program.
The settlement also calls for the company to pay $5,000 in legal fees and $5,000 as a civil penalty, which can increase to $20,000 if the company doesn't comply with the agreement.
Note From Jeff Kimble:
The above article offers a cautionary tale. The unsrupulous, the opportunistic, and the dishonest are few, but unfortunately they are still found in every facet of the business world, including private investigative agencies. (See: Things You Should Know Before Hiring a Private Eye in the May 2010 archive of this blog.)
At Arizona Private Investigations, we meet face to face with our clients, provide regular updates and reports, contractually bind our company to prepaid and/or fully disclosed fees, and never automatically withdraw funds from your account. At Arizona Private Investigations, you will always know where you stand, what you pay, and what method of payment will be used before the investigation even begins.
Our company has built its reputation on two things: honesty and great personal service. We will never settle for less. Call for a free consultation at 480-318-9936 or visit our website at: http://www.azprivateeye.com.
Jeff Kimble, P.I.
Arizona Private Investigations/
Arizona Legal Document Services, L.L.C.
101 West Main Street, Ste. 9
Mesa, Arizona 85201
Maryland Attorney General Douglas Gansler announced on Wednesday [July 14, 2010] that his office has reached a settlement with a private investigation firm over allegations that it took money from clients and never provided services.
Donaldson Investigations LLC, an Anne Arundel County-based private investigation company, and Jerry Donaldson, its owner, were allegedly debiting money from clients without telling them first.
"Consumers need to know when the companies they hire to perform a service take money out of their bank accounts," Gansler said. "We are pleased that Donaldson has agreed to change the way it does business and resolve the complaints we have received."
Although Donaldson Investigations denied it violated any laws, the company agreed to stop withdrawing money from its customers' bank accounts without letting its customers know in writing at least 10 days in advance.
The company also agreed to deal with the complaints that the Consumer Protection Division has received, or that come in within the next five years, using the attorney general's arbitration program.
The settlement also calls for the company to pay $5,000 in legal fees and $5,000 as a civil penalty, which can increase to $20,000 if the company doesn't comply with the agreement.
Note From Jeff Kimble:
The above article offers a cautionary tale. The unsrupulous, the opportunistic, and the dishonest are few, but unfortunately they are still found in every facet of the business world, including private investigative agencies. (See: Things You Should Know Before Hiring a Private Eye in the May 2010 archive of this blog.)
At Arizona Private Investigations, we meet face to face with our clients, provide regular updates and reports, contractually bind our company to prepaid and/or fully disclosed fees, and never automatically withdraw funds from your account. At Arizona Private Investigations, you will always know where you stand, what you pay, and what method of payment will be used before the investigation even begins.
Our company has built its reputation on two things: honesty and great personal service. We will never settle for less. Call for a free consultation at 480-318-9936 or visit our website at: http://www.azprivateeye.com.
Jeff Kimble, P.I.
Arizona Private Investigations/
Arizona Legal Document Services, L.L.C.
101 West Main Street, Ste. 9
Mesa, Arizona 85201
Monday, July 12, 2010
How a Private Investigator Can Help You
The following was written by Jeff Kimble, P.I., owner of Arizona Legal Document Services, L.L.C. http://www.arizonalegaldocs.com/. It is intended to provide general information regarding the business of private investigations and should not be considered legal advice.
The public perception of the private investigator is varied and nebulous, both from the frequently exaggerated and inaccurate portrayals of "private eyes" in film and television, and also from the simple fact that, compared to other occupations, a relatively small percentage of citizens run across or require the services of a private investigator in the first place.
A simple yet precise definition of a private investigator is one who is employed to collect information. Once the drama, the mystique, and the ridiculous (just watch one episode of Magnum P.I. to get the wrong idea of the investigation business) are stripped from the fictitious versions of the job description, a private investigator is essentially a collector of information. He or she—if ethical, professional, and experienced—knows how to retrieve this information legally, whether through research, observation, or technical means, and then provides this information to his or her client for a fee.
Private investigators are hired by individuals, families, small businesses, large corporations, and even by government entities. Cases range from industrial espionage to lost pets, from criminal investigations to pre-employment screenings, and the types of P.I.'s and their specialties are as diverse as are the clients who hire them and the varied cases they present.
The first step toward determining whether a private investigator can help you is by clearly defining your reasons for hiring one in the first place. What do you want? Are you simply trying to find out the truth in a personal matter? Or are you planning to use the information you obtain from the investigation in court? Or both? These kinds of questions are important to ask yourself before you begin your search for a reputable investigator, as they may affect the outcome of your case, as well as its cost.
If you are considering litigation (going to court) you may want to hire an attorney before hiring a private investigator. The attorney should advise you as to whether your case requires the services of an investigator to be successful. There is no sense in making a financial investment in information that may ultimately not be useful or admissable in court.
If you are purely interested in "the truth" regarding a matter, then calling a P.I. directly may be your best option. A private investigator can be your confidential resource for what you cannot (or do not want to) ascertain on your own. He or she can be "your eyes" into matters the police may not be able to help you with, and can effectively be your agent or representative in matters familial, civil, and/or personal in nature.
Always keep in mind that different investigative agencies offer different services, and those services can vary greatly in cost and scope. A large agency with hundreds of operatives may not be economically appropriate to help you find a long lost relative, but may be perfect to handle a complicated case of corporate fraud. A small agency may be ideal to help you determine if your spouse is unfaithful, but may be the completely wrong choice for the countersurveillance needs of a Fortune 500 Company. Investigate your investigator first. Research online, contact the Better Business Bureau, read client testimonials, and thoroughly review the agency's licensing and qualifications. (See: Things You Should Know before Hiring a Private Eye in the May 2010 archive of this blog.)
Once you feel satisfied with your choice, meet the investigator(s) in person. How do you feel about him, her, or them? Do they handle themselves professionally? Do they appear trustworthy? What is your "gut reaction"? Do you feel comfortable with them in general? These are valid questions, and often the best test when making the final determination. You could very well end up having a long and intimate business relationship with this person or persons, and they may see your significant other, family, friends, business associates, and acquaintances at their best or worst. If you don't feel completely comfortable trusting him or her with your personal and/or business information—look elsewhere.
Once you have determined that you require the services of a private investigator and have made your choice from the many agencies available, what are some of the specific services private investigators have to offer?
My company, Arizona Private Investigations, a subdivision of Arizona Legal Document Services, L.L.C., offers the following:
Child Custody and Infidelity Investigations
Pre-Employment Screening
Criminal History Reports
Individual Background Profiles
Adult and Youth Caregiver Abuse/Neglect Investigations
Teen Whereabouts/Lifestyle Investigations
Premarital Screening
Tenant Screening
Missing Persons /Skip Traces
Witness Location
Witness Interviews (statements and affidavits)
Police Interviews
Expert Witness Research and Interviews
Evidence Collection
Surveillance (physical, photographic, and satellite tracking)
Testimony/Deposition
Location and Recovery of Property (including replevins)
Threat Investigations
Insurance Fraud Investigations
Criminal Investigations
Forensic Audio Enhancement
Forensic Photographic Enhancement
Hiring a private investigator can be one of the most valuable and life changing choices you ever make. To further appreciate what a private investigator can do for you, contact Jeff Kimble at 480-318-9936, or visit the Arizona Legal Document Services, L.L.C. website at:
http://www.azprivateeye.com
"The Truth will set you free..."
The public perception of the private investigator is varied and nebulous, both from the frequently exaggerated and inaccurate portrayals of "private eyes" in film and television, and also from the simple fact that, compared to other occupations, a relatively small percentage of citizens run across or require the services of a private investigator in the first place.
A simple yet precise definition of a private investigator is one who is employed to collect information. Once the drama, the mystique, and the ridiculous (just watch one episode of Magnum P.I. to get the wrong idea of the investigation business) are stripped from the fictitious versions of the job description, a private investigator is essentially a collector of information. He or she—if ethical, professional, and experienced—knows how to retrieve this information legally, whether through research, observation, or technical means, and then provides this information to his or her client for a fee.
Private investigators are hired by individuals, families, small businesses, large corporations, and even by government entities. Cases range from industrial espionage to lost pets, from criminal investigations to pre-employment screenings, and the types of P.I.'s and their specialties are as diverse as are the clients who hire them and the varied cases they present.
The first step toward determining whether a private investigator can help you is by clearly defining your reasons for hiring one in the first place. What do you want? Are you simply trying to find out the truth in a personal matter? Or are you planning to use the information you obtain from the investigation in court? Or both? These kinds of questions are important to ask yourself before you begin your search for a reputable investigator, as they may affect the outcome of your case, as well as its cost.
If you are considering litigation (going to court) you may want to hire an attorney before hiring a private investigator. The attorney should advise you as to whether your case requires the services of an investigator to be successful. There is no sense in making a financial investment in information that may ultimately not be useful or admissable in court.
If you are purely interested in "the truth" regarding a matter, then calling a P.I. directly may be your best option. A private investigator can be your confidential resource for what you cannot (or do not want to) ascertain on your own. He or she can be "your eyes" into matters the police may not be able to help you with, and can effectively be your agent or representative in matters familial, civil, and/or personal in nature.
Always keep in mind that different investigative agencies offer different services, and those services can vary greatly in cost and scope. A large agency with hundreds of operatives may not be economically appropriate to help you find a long lost relative, but may be perfect to handle a complicated case of corporate fraud. A small agency may be ideal to help you determine if your spouse is unfaithful, but may be the completely wrong choice for the countersurveillance needs of a Fortune 500 Company. Investigate your investigator first. Research online, contact the Better Business Bureau, read client testimonials, and thoroughly review the agency's licensing and qualifications. (See: Things You Should Know before Hiring a Private Eye in the May 2010 archive of this blog.)
Once you feel satisfied with your choice, meet the investigator(s) in person. How do you feel about him, her, or them? Do they handle themselves professionally? Do they appear trustworthy? What is your "gut reaction"? Do you feel comfortable with them in general? These are valid questions, and often the best test when making the final determination. You could very well end up having a long and intimate business relationship with this person or persons, and they may see your significant other, family, friends, business associates, and acquaintances at their best or worst. If you don't feel completely comfortable trusting him or her with your personal and/or business information—look elsewhere.
Once you have determined that you require the services of a private investigator and have made your choice from the many agencies available, what are some of the specific services private investigators have to offer?
My company, Arizona Private Investigations, a subdivision of Arizona Legal Document Services, L.L.C., offers the following:
Child Custody and Infidelity Investigations
Pre-Employment Screening
Criminal History Reports
Individual Background Profiles
Adult and Youth Caregiver Abuse/Neglect Investigations
Teen Whereabouts/Lifestyle Investigations
Premarital Screening
Tenant Screening
Missing Persons /Skip Traces
Witness Location
Witness Interviews (statements and affidavits)
Police Interviews
Expert Witness Research and Interviews
Evidence Collection
Surveillance (physical, photographic, and satellite tracking)
Testimony/Deposition
Location and Recovery of Property (including replevins)
Threat Investigations
Insurance Fraud Investigations
Criminal Investigations
Forensic Audio Enhancement
Forensic Photographic Enhancement
Hiring a private investigator can be one of the most valuable and life changing choices you ever make. To further appreciate what a private investigator can do for you, contact Jeff Kimble at 480-318-9936, or visit the Arizona Legal Document Services, L.L.C. website at:
http://www.azprivateeye.com
"The Truth will set you free..."
Monday, June 21, 2010
History of the Private Investigator
The following was originally posted by http://www.writingpis.wordpress.com/ on May 19, 2010.
In 1833 Eugene Francois Vidcoq, a French ex-criminal, founded one of the first private detective agencies, Le bureau des renseignments (Office of Intelligence) where he oversaw the work of other detectives, many ex-criminals like himself. He’s credited with having introduced record-keeping, criminology, and ballistics to criminal investigation. He also created indelible ink and unalterable bond paper with his printing company. Apparently, he had an altruistic bent as he claimed he never informed on anyone who had stolen for real need.
With Vidocq, the private investigator was born. As the industry evolved, clients often hired PIs to act in law enforcement capacities, especially in matters they were not equipped for or willing to do. This led to PI agencies sometimes performing like private militia and assisting companies in labor disputes.
Such an agency was the Pinkerton National Detective Agency in the United States. It was established in 1850 by Allan Pinkerton, whose claim to fame was foiling a plot to assassinate then President-Elect Abraham Lincoln.
In an era with many law enforcement personnel openly associating with criminals sharing their illegal profits, Pinkerton stood out by promising that his agents would not only produce results, but always act with the highest ethics. He promised to:
Accept no bribes
Never compromise with criminals;
Partner with local law enforcement agencies, when necessary
Refuse divorce cases or cases that initiated scandals of clients
Turn down reward money (his agents were paid well)
Never raise fees without the client’s pre-knowledge, and
Apprise clients on an ongoing basis.
It’s remarkable how many of the above ethical standards are mirrored in many PIs’ standards today (such as regularly apprising clients, partnering with law enforcement, and raising fees only with clients’ knowledge). It’s also amusing to read how Pinkerton’s men refused divorce cases considering today many PIs specialize in marital investigations.
The term “private eye” is from the Pinkerton agency’s logo, an eye surrounded with the words “We Never Sleep.”
In his memoirs, Pinkerton credited two specific agents (one female) for helping establish the firm’s reputation for efficiency and honor: Timothy Webster and Kate Warne (the first female detective in the U.S.).
By the 1920s, due to the expanding middle class in America, the private investigator became better known to the average citizen. Since then, the PI industry has continued to grow as it fills the needs of the public (who retain PIs to work on cases like infidelity, fraud, and criminal defense investigations). Licensing requirements, with criteria a PI must meet, have also been regulated in most states in the U.S. Additionally, professional organizations (regional, national, and international) combined with good business practices have cast the PI career in a more respected light versus its outdated, fictional reputation as the wrinkled trench coat, fallen-from-grace Sam Spade figure found in books and film.
In 1833 Eugene Francois Vidcoq, a French ex-criminal, founded one of the first private detective agencies, Le bureau des renseignments (Office of Intelligence) where he oversaw the work of other detectives, many ex-criminals like himself. He’s credited with having introduced record-keeping, criminology, and ballistics to criminal investigation. He also created indelible ink and unalterable bond paper with his printing company. Apparently, he had an altruistic bent as he claimed he never informed on anyone who had stolen for real need.
With Vidocq, the private investigator was born. As the industry evolved, clients often hired PIs to act in law enforcement capacities, especially in matters they were not equipped for or willing to do. This led to PI agencies sometimes performing like private militia and assisting companies in labor disputes.
Such an agency was the Pinkerton National Detective Agency in the United States. It was established in 1850 by Allan Pinkerton, whose claim to fame was foiling a plot to assassinate then President-Elect Abraham Lincoln.
In an era with many law enforcement personnel openly associating with criminals sharing their illegal profits, Pinkerton stood out by promising that his agents would not only produce results, but always act with the highest ethics. He promised to:
Accept no bribes
Never compromise with criminals;
Partner with local law enforcement agencies, when necessary
Refuse divorce cases or cases that initiated scandals of clients
Turn down reward money (his agents were paid well)
Never raise fees without the client’s pre-knowledge, and
Apprise clients on an ongoing basis.
It’s remarkable how many of the above ethical standards are mirrored in many PIs’ standards today (such as regularly apprising clients, partnering with law enforcement, and raising fees only with clients’ knowledge). It’s also amusing to read how Pinkerton’s men refused divorce cases considering today many PIs specialize in marital investigations.
The term “private eye” is from the Pinkerton agency’s logo, an eye surrounded with the words “We Never Sleep.”
In his memoirs, Pinkerton credited two specific agents (one female) for helping establish the firm’s reputation for efficiency and honor: Timothy Webster and Kate Warne (the first female detective in the U.S.).
By the 1920s, due to the expanding middle class in America, the private investigator became better known to the average citizen. Since then, the PI industry has continued to grow as it fills the needs of the public (who retain PIs to work on cases like infidelity, fraud, and criminal defense investigations). Licensing requirements, with criteria a PI must meet, have also been regulated in most states in the U.S. Additionally, professional organizations (regional, national, and international) combined with good business practices have cast the PI career in a more respected light versus its outdated, fictional reputation as the wrinkled trench coat, fallen-from-grace Sam Spade figure found in books and film.
Legalities of Surveillance
The following was written by Kelly E. Riddle, Kelmar and Associates Incorporated.
Surveillance and privacy issues are a constant source of contention for PI's. Although the author is not an attorney and does not intend to offer legal advice, there are case-laws currently on the book which investigators and their clients should be aware of. These, by no means, are the final or sole cases related to the subject. It should be understood that the courts are constantly hearing cases that may have a bearing on the PI industry. The courts have the right to over-rule prior decisions, to restrict prior findings or to disregard prior case law all together. Therefore, please consider the following case findings with these circumstances in mind.
DeLuna -v- State of Texas (1986): Part of the court's findings involved a decision that photographs are admissible as evidence if they accurately depict the subject at the time they were taken.
Darden -v- State of Texas (1982): The court ruled on several issues which included the admissibility of motion pictures and photographs as evidence. The court decided that motion pictures and photographs are admissible as evidence provided there is proof of their accuracy as correct representations of the subject at the given time and they have material relevance.
Johnson -v- State of Texas (1977): The court delivered a finding that photographs that fairly and accurately depict the subject are generally admissible and any discrepancies between the photograph and the subject at the relevant time, if properly pointed out, will not render the photograph inadmissible.
Terry -v- State of Texas (1973): The court indicated that photographs are admissible in evidence and sighted the theory that they are pictorial communications of the witness who uses them, instead of, or in addition to, some other method of communication.
Hall -v- State of Texas (1992): The court ruled that under Rule 1001 which governs the admissions of photographs, including video tapes, the "7 prong test" must be satisfied. The 7 prong test consists of the following:
1) It must be proved that the recording device (camera) was capable of taking testimony. Note: The investigator must be able to show that the camera was in good operating condition without malfunctions.
2) The operator of the recording device must be shown to be competent in the use and operation of the device.
3) The authenticity and correctness of the recording must be documented. Note: The investigator must be able to document the proper chain of custody and that tampering with the tape has not occurred.
4) The investigator must be able to show that the tape or photographs have not had any additions, deletions or changes made to the tape. Note: The investigator must be able to testify that the tape is a true and complete recording, free of editing or tampering of any kind. If a tape is edited, the original unedited copy must be available for review by the court.
5) The court must be shown the manner of presentation.
6) The recording must show proper identification of the subjects depicted in the tape or photographs. Note: The investigator must have proper facial views of the subject documented so that the identity of the subjects can be assessed.
7) Must be able to show that the testimony or actions was elicited voluntarily without inducement. Note: This goes directly to the "entrapment" of a subject. The Investigator cannot cause a situation that would create circumstances that would make the subject act differently than they might without the circumstances presented to them. Example: the investigator cannot let the air out of a tire to cause the subject to have to change the tire.
U.S. -v- Pretzinger (1976): The court indicated that the attachment of an electronic location device to a vehicle moving about on public thoroughfares or through public air or public space does not infringe upon any reasonable expectation of privacy and does not constitute a search. therefore no search warrant is needed for installation of the device. Note: The investigator should remember other laws such as trespassing laws when considering the use of these devices. If the investigator has to enter upon the property of the subject to affix the device on the vehicle, trespassing may have occurred.
U.S. -v- Mendoza (1978): The court made a ruling on the admissibility of tape recordings which were made with the consent of one party to a conversation (ex: an undercover officer). The court rules that judicial authorization to record conversations is not necessary in these situations.
U.S. -v- Torres (1984): According to the findings in this case, television surveillance of suspected criminals and criminality is not unconstitutional.
U.S. -v- Rizzo (1978): The court found that in this case, a private investigator was attempting to gather evidence of marital infidelity on behalf of their client. The court stated that regardless of whether or not the private investigator installed an electronic device for recording conversations over the telephone or procured the client-spouse to install it by giving her the device and instructing her on how to use it, they violated the provision against interception of wire or oral communications.
White -v- Weiss (1976): The found that when a private investigator used, or gave their client an electronic device to record telephone conversations even though it was within the client's own home and it involved one spouse against another violated the wiretap provisions of Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act.
U.S. -v- Myers (1982): In a case in which undercover agents videotaped a conversation with a Congressmen, the court ruled that the agents did not violate the Congressmen's 1st and 4th Amendment Rights.
Air Line Pilot's Association, International -v- United Airlines: The court rules that it is a violation of the National Labor Relations Act to unlawfully photograph a picket line is it is intended to coerce or interfere.
National Labor relations Board -v- Southern Mayland Hospital: The court ruled that it is not illegal to photograph union activities in areas restricted to the union.
General Notes: It is apparent that the court has ruled that a person has the right to privacy if a reasonable and prudent person would have an expectation of privacy under similar circumstances. If a person has the garage door open and you can see the subject from the street without any binoculars or other visual assistance, the person can't expect to have a total sense of privacy. Whereas, a subject in their own home with the doors and curtains closed would be expected to have a certain degree of privacy. Common sense goes a long way in this type of work. Remember, it is your business, livelihood and reputation on the line. Making a few dollars illegally is not worth the long-term circumstances. If the situation involves trespassing, entrapment or some other violation, think before you commit.
Surveillance and privacy issues are a constant source of contention for PI's. Although the author is not an attorney and does not intend to offer legal advice, there are case-laws currently on the book which investigators and their clients should be aware of. These, by no means, are the final or sole cases related to the subject. It should be understood that the courts are constantly hearing cases that may have a bearing on the PI industry. The courts have the right to over-rule prior decisions, to restrict prior findings or to disregard prior case law all together. Therefore, please consider the following case findings with these circumstances in mind.
DeLuna -v- State of Texas (1986): Part of the court's findings involved a decision that photographs are admissible as evidence if they accurately depict the subject at the time they were taken.
Darden -v- State of Texas (1982): The court ruled on several issues which included the admissibility of motion pictures and photographs as evidence. The court decided that motion pictures and photographs are admissible as evidence provided there is proof of their accuracy as correct representations of the subject at the given time and they have material relevance.
Johnson -v- State of Texas (1977): The court delivered a finding that photographs that fairly and accurately depict the subject are generally admissible and any discrepancies between the photograph and the subject at the relevant time, if properly pointed out, will not render the photograph inadmissible.
Terry -v- State of Texas (1973): The court indicated that photographs are admissible in evidence and sighted the theory that they are pictorial communications of the witness who uses them, instead of, or in addition to, some other method of communication.
Hall -v- State of Texas (1992): The court ruled that under Rule 1001 which governs the admissions of photographs, including video tapes, the "7 prong test" must be satisfied. The 7 prong test consists of the following:
1) It must be proved that the recording device (camera) was capable of taking testimony. Note: The investigator must be able to show that the camera was in good operating condition without malfunctions.
2) The operator of the recording device must be shown to be competent in the use and operation of the device.
3) The authenticity and correctness of the recording must be documented. Note: The investigator must be able to document the proper chain of custody and that tampering with the tape has not occurred.
4) The investigator must be able to show that the tape or photographs have not had any additions, deletions or changes made to the tape. Note: The investigator must be able to testify that the tape is a true and complete recording, free of editing or tampering of any kind. If a tape is edited, the original unedited copy must be available for review by the court.
5) The court must be shown the manner of presentation.
6) The recording must show proper identification of the subjects depicted in the tape or photographs. Note: The investigator must have proper facial views of the subject documented so that the identity of the subjects can be assessed.
7) Must be able to show that the testimony or actions was elicited voluntarily without inducement. Note: This goes directly to the "entrapment" of a subject. The Investigator cannot cause a situation that would create circumstances that would make the subject act differently than they might without the circumstances presented to them. Example: the investigator cannot let the air out of a tire to cause the subject to have to change the tire.
U.S. -v- Pretzinger (1976): The court indicated that the attachment of an electronic location device to a vehicle moving about on public thoroughfares or through public air or public space does not infringe upon any reasonable expectation of privacy and does not constitute a search. therefore no search warrant is needed for installation of the device. Note: The investigator should remember other laws such as trespassing laws when considering the use of these devices. If the investigator has to enter upon the property of the subject to affix the device on the vehicle, trespassing may have occurred.
U.S. -v- Mendoza (1978): The court made a ruling on the admissibility of tape recordings which were made with the consent of one party to a conversation (ex: an undercover officer). The court rules that judicial authorization to record conversations is not necessary in these situations.
U.S. -v- Torres (1984): According to the findings in this case, television surveillance of suspected criminals and criminality is not unconstitutional.
U.S. -v- Rizzo (1978): The court found that in this case, a private investigator was attempting to gather evidence of marital infidelity on behalf of their client. The court stated that regardless of whether or not the private investigator installed an electronic device for recording conversations over the telephone or procured the client-spouse to install it by giving her the device and instructing her on how to use it, they violated the provision against interception of wire or oral communications.
White -v- Weiss (1976): The found that when a private investigator used, or gave their client an electronic device to record telephone conversations even though it was within the client's own home and it involved one spouse against another violated the wiretap provisions of Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act.
U.S. -v- Myers (1982): In a case in which undercover agents videotaped a conversation with a Congressmen, the court ruled that the agents did not violate the Congressmen's 1st and 4th Amendment Rights.
Air Line Pilot's Association, International -v- United Airlines: The court rules that it is a violation of the National Labor Relations Act to unlawfully photograph a picket line is it is intended to coerce or interfere.
National Labor relations Board -v- Southern Mayland Hospital: The court ruled that it is not illegal to photograph union activities in areas restricted to the union.
General Notes: It is apparent that the court has ruled that a person has the right to privacy if a reasonable and prudent person would have an expectation of privacy under similar circumstances. If a person has the garage door open and you can see the subject from the street without any binoculars or other visual assistance, the person can't expect to have a total sense of privacy. Whereas, a subject in their own home with the doors and curtains closed would be expected to have a certain degree of privacy. Common sense goes a long way in this type of work. Remember, it is your business, livelihood and reputation on the line. Making a few dollars illegally is not worth the long-term circumstances. If the situation involves trespassing, entrapment or some other violation, think before you commit.
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
The Gun Is Civilization
The following was written by Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Retired).
Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that's it.
In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.
When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force.
The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.
There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we'd be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a [armed] mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger's potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat--it has no validity when most of a mugger's potential marks are armed.
People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that's the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.
Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser.
People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level.
The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply wouldn't work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily employable.
When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation... and that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act.
By Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret)
“They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” Benjamin Franklin
“The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it.” Thomas Jefferson
Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that's it.
In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.
When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force.
The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.
There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we'd be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a [armed] mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger's potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat--it has no validity when most of a mugger's potential marks are armed.
People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that's the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.
Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser.
People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level.
The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply wouldn't work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily employable.
When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation... and that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act.
By Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret)
“They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” Benjamin Franklin
“The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it.” Thomas Jefferson
Saturday, May 15, 2010
Things You Should Know Before Hiring a Private Eye
The following was adapted from information available on the Arizona Department of Public Safety website: http://www.azdps.gov/.
If you are considering hiring a private investigator and have never done so, you may be making decisions while highly emotional. Regardless, you should give such a decision careful thought and thoroughly consider the circumstances before hiring an investigator. Prior to contacting a PI, you should specifically identify what it is you want to know, what your expectations are, and how much money you can afford to spend. Additionally, you may want to first check on the PI (or agency) using a consumer assistance group such as the Better Business Bureau, researching reports on the internet, or examining other sources of business information. Please note: a company is not necessarily "bad" because it has complaints registered with such sources; sometimes the complaints are not justified. You may also want to check with the Arizona Department of Public Safety Licensing Unit to determine if the PI (or agency) is properly licensed. In Arizona, any advertisement for a PI agency (or PI) must also contain their license number.
Once a PI is selected, talk to the investigator and discuss the case with them, including what you want to know, what your expectations are, and how much you can afford. The PI should readily provide options and inform you if your goals and finances are realistic for the case. If the PI cannot provide this information, you may want to look elsewhere.
Once you are in agreement with a PI, a written contract may be drawn up that specifically states what will be done: deadlines, fees, frequency of reports, estimated costs, etc, so that no significant issues are left unknown. While a written contract is not required by law, the lack of such an instrument can prove detrimental for both the PI and the client if problems later arise.
Once the PI has completed the agreed upon work, the client is often required to pay the PI a retainer (or payment as otherwise agreed upon) before the PI is required to provide a case report to the client. The case report may be written or verbal.
The following are common issues between PI's and their clients and are provided for the benefit of both parties. This does not constitute legal advice nor does it interpret law or administrative rules:
1. While most private investigators are competent and manage their affairs in a professional manner, the Arizona Department of Public Safety (AZ DPS) Licensing Unit has received complaints related to misunderstandings about services provided and fees. Many times, consumers believe that their retainer will cover all of the costs for their case. This simply may not be true. You should be aware that a retainer is normally required before a PI will do any work on your case and that payment of a retainer in no way means there will not be further billing for services (unless it is specified in a contract). Initial billing is normally deducted from the retainer, and once that runs out, the client is normally notified. Anyone seeking the services of a PI should consider obtaining a written contract that details what the consumer wants, what the fees will be, time limits, and what the PI can actually perform. If you are hiring a PI to perform work for you and there is a deadline for that work to be completed, ensure that the date is written into a contract. If you are comfortable with the PI, verbal contracts are permitted and common, however, keep in mind that you may have difficulties if problems later occur and there is no written agreement. Either way, it should be your choice, and the PI you are hiring should accomodate you and honor your wishes in regard to a contract. If not, you may want to look elsewhere.
2. Oftentimes, PI's will bill consumers for phone calls, making copies, office consultations and in particular, "stand-by" time. Stand-by time usually occurs when you are directing a PI to wait on your behalf for an event to occur, such as the subject of an investigation to go somewhere. A PI at their office or home on "stand-by" may legally bill you for this time; make sure you and the PI understand what is expected.
3. Generally, every person performing PI services in Arizona must be licensed by the AZ DPS Licensing Unit. PI's are provided an ID card that shows who they are and when their license expires. You may reasonably ask to see their PI ID Card and record the license number and expiration date. Additionally, PI agencies are provided a Private Investigation Business License that must be clearly displayed at their place of business. Report anyone claiming to be a PI who cannot (or will not) produce such licenses or ID to the AZ DPS Licensing Unit at (602) 223-2361.
4. As stated previously, many PI's are competent professionals, however, some are simply inexperienced or unqualified to perform certain services such as lie detection, electronic debugging, and other highly technical and sophisticated specialties. You should speak candidly with the PI (or agency representative) who will be performing such services and establish what the PI's qualifications and experience are. Normally, persons trained in such specialties can provide specific knowledge or evidence from schools, seminars, prior law enforcement and/or military experience, etc. that will demonstrate what their qualifications and experience are. Bottom line: if you are not comfortable with the PI, you may want to find someone else.
5. PI's should provide you with a case report (written or verbal) at the completion of services and once final payment has been made (or some other option that has been agreed upon in a contract.) In some cases, you and the PI may have agreed that your case will be performed in sections and that each section will require payment at its completion. Other variations may be established as well. Regardless, it is in your best interest to know exactly what the terms are before you sign a contract or enter into a verbal agreement. The final report should normally provide a detailed picture of what was done, when it was done, how much time was expended on your case, the results of the investigation, and the cost of each component of the investigation, such as: time expended on surveillance, phone calls, stand-by time, extra investigators, special equipment, etc. If agreed upon by the client and the PI, a basic verbal report is also appropriate.
6. Persons hiring a PI must be aware that cases will not always turn out the way they expect or hope. Surveillance work, criminal background research, and divorce related searches are all classic examples of potentially expensive PI work that may prove fruitless for the client, however, PI's will still legally bill you for their time and efforts and you are obligated to pay them. Inability to obtain desirable or favorable results for a client does not legally justify not paying or disciplining a PI. For example, the Licensing Unit cannot discipline a PI for his/her inability to locate the person he/she was hired to find.
7. You may reasonably ask for evidence of work performed by a PI. This evidence could include photographs or videotape of a certain location or event, an audio recording, copies of documents, receipts, etc, to name a few. For example, let's assume you want to know if a certain car is parked at a hotel in a city 100 miles away. The PI travels to the hotel, locates the car and photographs or videotapes the car while parked at the hotel. This would constitute reasonable evidence that the PI performed the work. As another example, you may want a PI to watch a house to determine if any cars pull into the driveway and then videotape the cars and occupants. But what happens if the PI is watching the house and no cars arrive so the PI doesn't record any video? There is nothing wrong with this if the client is comfortable with it, however, many PI's will use a video or digital camera to record short (5-20 second) time and date stamped videos (or photos) of the location and offer them to the client as evidence they performed the work. You should be wary of PI's that refuse to show evidence of work performed or at least explain what they have done. Bottom line: Get this requirement in writing if it is important to you.
8. Generally, it is illegal under federal law (The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act [GLBA] also known as The Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999) for a person (or PI) to obtain account information from financial institutions (such as banks) unless the account owner gives their consent. Oftentimes in the past, the person (or PI) would perform an act called "pretexting" and fraudulently obtain personal information on the subject of an investigation by pretending to be the account holder. This tactic is now used for identity theft, and is illegal when performed in conjunction with obtaining confidential and protected personal information. Pretexting to obtain personal information used to be common in divorce cases and law suits, but since this tactic is now considered criminal and unethical, an honest PI should not engage in such procedures, nor should he/she be advertising to perform such services. However, keep in mind that some information about you or the subject of an investigation may be a matter of public record, such as whether you own a home, pay your real estate taxes, or have ever filed for bankruptcy. It is not illegal for a PI to collect this kind of information.
9. Generally, it is illegal under federal law (The Telephone Records and Privacy Protection Act [TRPPA] of 2006) for a person (or PI) to obtain personal phone records from a telephone company or internet phone provider service without the consent of the account holder. The means of obtaining such information are similar to those used in obtaining account information from financial institutions.
10. Generally, it is illegal under federal law (The Fair Credit Reporting Act [FCRA] as amended May 22, 2009) for a person (or PI) to obtain credit reports without the consent of the credit holder or some other legitimate purpose. As previously stated, the means of obtaining such information oftentimes are similar to those used in obtaining account information from financial institutions.
If you are considering hiring a private investigator and have never done so, you may be making decisions while highly emotional. Regardless, you should give such a decision careful thought and thoroughly consider the circumstances before hiring an investigator. Prior to contacting a PI, you should specifically identify what it is you want to know, what your expectations are, and how much money you can afford to spend. Additionally, you may want to first check on the PI (or agency) using a consumer assistance group such as the Better Business Bureau, researching reports on the internet, or examining other sources of business information. Please note: a company is not necessarily "bad" because it has complaints registered with such sources; sometimes the complaints are not justified. You may also want to check with the Arizona Department of Public Safety Licensing Unit to determine if the PI (or agency) is properly licensed. In Arizona, any advertisement for a PI agency (or PI) must also contain their license number.
Once a PI is selected, talk to the investigator and discuss the case with them, including what you want to know, what your expectations are, and how much you can afford. The PI should readily provide options and inform you if your goals and finances are realistic for the case. If the PI cannot provide this information, you may want to look elsewhere.
Once you are in agreement with a PI, a written contract may be drawn up that specifically states what will be done: deadlines, fees, frequency of reports, estimated costs, etc, so that no significant issues are left unknown. While a written contract is not required by law, the lack of such an instrument can prove detrimental for both the PI and the client if problems later arise.
Once the PI has completed the agreed upon work, the client is often required to pay the PI a retainer (or payment as otherwise agreed upon) before the PI is required to provide a case report to the client. The case report may be written or verbal.
The following are common issues between PI's and their clients and are provided for the benefit of both parties. This does not constitute legal advice nor does it interpret law or administrative rules:
1. While most private investigators are competent and manage their affairs in a professional manner, the Arizona Department of Public Safety (AZ DPS) Licensing Unit has received complaints related to misunderstandings about services provided and fees. Many times, consumers believe that their retainer will cover all of the costs for their case. This simply may not be true. You should be aware that a retainer is normally required before a PI will do any work on your case and that payment of a retainer in no way means there will not be further billing for services (unless it is specified in a contract). Initial billing is normally deducted from the retainer, and once that runs out, the client is normally notified. Anyone seeking the services of a PI should consider obtaining a written contract that details what the consumer wants, what the fees will be, time limits, and what the PI can actually perform. If you are hiring a PI to perform work for you and there is a deadline for that work to be completed, ensure that the date is written into a contract. If you are comfortable with the PI, verbal contracts are permitted and common, however, keep in mind that you may have difficulties if problems later occur and there is no written agreement. Either way, it should be your choice, and the PI you are hiring should accomodate you and honor your wishes in regard to a contract. If not, you may want to look elsewhere.
2. Oftentimes, PI's will bill consumers for phone calls, making copies, office consultations and in particular, "stand-by" time. Stand-by time usually occurs when you are directing a PI to wait on your behalf for an event to occur, such as the subject of an investigation to go somewhere. A PI at their office or home on "stand-by" may legally bill you for this time; make sure you and the PI understand what is expected.
3. Generally, every person performing PI services in Arizona must be licensed by the AZ DPS Licensing Unit. PI's are provided an ID card that shows who they are and when their license expires. You may reasonably ask to see their PI ID Card and record the license number and expiration date. Additionally, PI agencies are provided a Private Investigation Business License that must be clearly displayed at their place of business. Report anyone claiming to be a PI who cannot (or will not) produce such licenses or ID to the AZ DPS Licensing Unit at (602) 223-2361.
4. As stated previously, many PI's are competent professionals, however, some are simply inexperienced or unqualified to perform certain services such as lie detection, electronic debugging, and other highly technical and sophisticated specialties. You should speak candidly with the PI (or agency representative) who will be performing such services and establish what the PI's qualifications and experience are. Normally, persons trained in such specialties can provide specific knowledge or evidence from schools, seminars, prior law enforcement and/or military experience, etc. that will demonstrate what their qualifications and experience are. Bottom line: if you are not comfortable with the PI, you may want to find someone else.
5. PI's should provide you with a case report (written or verbal) at the completion of services and once final payment has been made (or some other option that has been agreed upon in a contract.) In some cases, you and the PI may have agreed that your case will be performed in sections and that each section will require payment at its completion. Other variations may be established as well. Regardless, it is in your best interest to know exactly what the terms are before you sign a contract or enter into a verbal agreement. The final report should normally provide a detailed picture of what was done, when it was done, how much time was expended on your case, the results of the investigation, and the cost of each component of the investigation, such as: time expended on surveillance, phone calls, stand-by time, extra investigators, special equipment, etc. If agreed upon by the client and the PI, a basic verbal report is also appropriate.
6. Persons hiring a PI must be aware that cases will not always turn out the way they expect or hope. Surveillance work, criminal background research, and divorce related searches are all classic examples of potentially expensive PI work that may prove fruitless for the client, however, PI's will still legally bill you for their time and efforts and you are obligated to pay them. Inability to obtain desirable or favorable results for a client does not legally justify not paying or disciplining a PI. For example, the Licensing Unit cannot discipline a PI for his/her inability to locate the person he/she was hired to find.
7. You may reasonably ask for evidence of work performed by a PI. This evidence could include photographs or videotape of a certain location or event, an audio recording, copies of documents, receipts, etc, to name a few. For example, let's assume you want to know if a certain car is parked at a hotel in a city 100 miles away. The PI travels to the hotel, locates the car and photographs or videotapes the car while parked at the hotel. This would constitute reasonable evidence that the PI performed the work. As another example, you may want a PI to watch a house to determine if any cars pull into the driveway and then videotape the cars and occupants. But what happens if the PI is watching the house and no cars arrive so the PI doesn't record any video? There is nothing wrong with this if the client is comfortable with it, however, many PI's will use a video or digital camera to record short (5-20 second) time and date stamped videos (or photos) of the location and offer them to the client as evidence they performed the work. You should be wary of PI's that refuse to show evidence of work performed or at least explain what they have done. Bottom line: Get this requirement in writing if it is important to you.
8. Generally, it is illegal under federal law (The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act [GLBA] also known as The Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999) for a person (or PI) to obtain account information from financial institutions (such as banks) unless the account owner gives their consent. Oftentimes in the past, the person (or PI) would perform an act called "pretexting" and fraudulently obtain personal information on the subject of an investigation by pretending to be the account holder. This tactic is now used for identity theft, and is illegal when performed in conjunction with obtaining confidential and protected personal information. Pretexting to obtain personal information used to be common in divorce cases and law suits, but since this tactic is now considered criminal and unethical, an honest PI should not engage in such procedures, nor should he/she be advertising to perform such services. However, keep in mind that some information about you or the subject of an investigation may be a matter of public record, such as whether you own a home, pay your real estate taxes, or have ever filed for bankruptcy. It is not illegal for a PI to collect this kind of information.
9. Generally, it is illegal under federal law (The Telephone Records and Privacy Protection Act [TRPPA] of 2006) for a person (or PI) to obtain personal phone records from a telephone company or internet phone provider service without the consent of the account holder. The means of obtaining such information are similar to those used in obtaining account information from financial institutions.
10. Generally, it is illegal under federal law (The Fair Credit Reporting Act [FCRA] as amended May 22, 2009) for a person (or PI) to obtain credit reports without the consent of the credit holder or some other legitimate purpose. As previously stated, the means of obtaining such information oftentimes are similar to those used in obtaining account information from financial institutions.
Complaints
If you have a complaint against a Private Investigator or Private Investigative Agency in Arizona, you should first try to resolve it directly by contacting a supervisor of the agency. If for some reason you are unable to resolve the problem, you may wish to contact senior management or the agencies consumer affairs representative for further assistance. Dealing directly with the agency is usually the fastest, simplest and most effective approach. Most agencies value their customers and will usually be responsive to their concerns. If you are unable to resolve your complaint directly with the PI agency, you may file a complaint with the Arizona Department of Public Safety Licensing Bureau, which is responsible for ensuring that the agencies we regulate comply with applicable state laws. (See address, phone and website information below.) If an investigation of your complaint finds a violation of law or rule, you will be informed of the violation and the corrective action to be taken. However, the AZ DPS does not have authority to resolve contractual disputes or undocumented factual disputes between a customer and an agency. They also do not have the authority to resolve disagreements pertaining to the agencies policies and procedures that are a matter of management discretion and not addressed by specific laws. In such cases, if the agency does not make a voluntary adjustment, AZ DPS will usually advise you to consider obtaining legal counsel regarding your rights to resolve the situation. While the AZ DPS Licensing Bureau endeavors to intercede on behalf of complainants, the transactions at issue are not always within their authority as regulators. The Department's regulatory authority is limited to the laws passed in the legislature that relate to security guards and private investigators.
AZDPS Licensing Unit
PO Box 6328 MD 1160
Phoenix, AZ 85005
Phone: (602) 223-2361
Fax: (602) 223-2938
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
