Ask the Private Investigator.

[Lissa]

Originally posted by Evil Captor
Damn! I figured with all the super villains on TV and in the movies, they must be pretty common, and criminal masterminds must be a dime a dozen! Instead, they're lazy and greedy. There go my Hollywood illusions ... first I find out Liberace is gay, and now this!

Indeed, one of the most frustrating things about investigating criminal activity is the total unreliability of the subjects. You may set up an entire task force to track some guy for an entire day, waiting for a deal to go down, only to realize that he used the product last night, slept in and will not be able to deliver for a few more days. Even the criminals cannot count on the other criminals and this makes it very hard to allocate resources on a case. There has been many a time when we just stopped pursuing the investigation on a subject because he was so bloody incompetent that every time we tried to prepare surveillance or get a warrant, he did not come through with committing the crime. The way I look at it, if their that bad, they probably only get one over on us every once in a while.

I remember one time when a parolee sent a photo of himself into another inmate in prison bragging about all the drug deals and money he has made. He took pictures of him and a buddy with 5k lined up on the ground and 6 bags of heroin and 3 bags of marijuana. He was also standing next to a car, that when we ran the plates, came back as stolen. When we arrested him at his house, we recovered the car getting chopped up in the garage, about 3k (we could read some of the serial numbers on the bills in the picture and matched them up) and some cocaine. Needless to say, he's back out of a prison again after a 6 month junket. Gotta love that revolving door of the CJS.

"Mr. Lissa"

[Bill H.]

This from Lissa caught my eye:

Many of my cases involve female staff having sexual relations with male inmates.

Why does this situation arise? I can see male staff getting sex from female inmates in return for favors, or via threats. But what's the incentive for female staff?

When you say "many of your cases", are you implying that this is a common occurance?

[Lissa]

Originally posted by Bill H.
This from Lissa caught my eye:

------------------------------
Many of my cases involve female staff having sexual relations with male inmates.
------------------------------

Why does this situation arise? I can see male staff getting sex from female inmates in return for favors, or via threats. But what's the incentive for female staff?

When you say "many of your cases", are you implying that this is a common occurance?

You are missing an extremely important part of the equation. Infatuation and even love. Yes, female staff become infatuated with male inmates. They fall for them, bring drugs in, have sex with them, bring them various items such as food and shoes, help them fight their cases in court and even after losing their jobs (and marriages) sometimes, they will continue the relationship. It might surprise to realize that my very first case as an investigator was one in which a married man was in love with a male inmate in the prison. He even went as far as to offer him a chance to escape. I remember one case where the woman was so in love with the inmate that she smuggled in a gun to him and then became a "friendly hostage". we caught it before it could escalate, but she brought in a uniform for him that she had altered and made a fake ID. She then planned to walk out with him and if somebody challenged them he would use the gun to "take her hostage".

How do I explain this? Well, there are a lot of very unhappy people in the world. Thousands of women stay married to, date and meet men in prison. Thus, it is not illogical to conclude that employees would be susceptible to the same thing. Since I have been an investigator, I can't remember exactly, but I think I have fired 11-15 men and women for inapprorpiate relationships with inmates. They have done all of the aforementioned for their men in prison and I expect that in any prison, at any given time, there are at least 2-5 active cases of men/women employees having relationships with the inmates. These relationships may vary in their seriousness (some do not go to the sexual end of the spectrum). You must remember, in most states, for a staff member to have sex with an inmate is considered a sex offense because the inmate is technically a victim of a person in a more powerful position. i.e Rapo

I have no research besides personal experience to back up my own theory, but I feel that the typical person to have a relationship with an inmate is usually
1)the cross-gender in the prison (male staff/female inmate; female staff/male inmate).
2) The individual is usually having personal problems. Relationship issues, financial strife, familial dissatisifaction.
3) They are sometimes the people who are the hardest on the inmates.
4) They usually are less than attractive people who have a history of difficult relationships. Many of them are abused by partners.
5) They usually want power in a relationship. Let me explain. Women who typically engage in relationships with inmates (even those who are not employees- unless the relationship began before the person was in prison) have had a tough time relating to men on an equal level on the outside. You see, in a prison, the inmate is totally focused on you. They will promise you anything, tell you that they love undyingly, tell you that you are focus of their lives AND in reality, you really are. A felon in prison has nothing else to cling to and you become it. You become the focus of their lives, idealized and revered. Many times I have likened the actions of the employee to that of a highschool teen. They pass notes, giggle, try to "show up" where the inmate is, follow them around, have go-betweens and talk/write about intense sexual fantasies. Finally, and most importantly, the woman has total control of the relationship. She chooses when she will talk to him and she knows that he cannot ever intrude upon her outside life (or usually will not). She does not have to worry about late night phone calls and she always knows where he is at all times. She can feel more secure in the reality that he is unlikely to "cheat" on her. Regrettably, the women do not realize that he may be having homosexual sex at the same time. She also has a powerful position over him in the prison and that could be very inviting. This is the power dynamic that I think exists in many of these relationship.

If you add all of these factors up you have individuals with low self-esteem, negative realtionships, hard luck and a desire to be wanted above all else. That is a dangerous combination in a prison environment. Inmates are conniving, many times evil and very manipulative. Add this all to the fact that men in prison can be attractive, muscular and usually represent the epitomy of masculinity (strong, violent, aggressive). As the saying goes, why do women like bad men, I don't know why, but that tendency definetely relates to this.

As for the one man I have removed for a sexual relationship. I believe the power and unhappiness played in as well. Here was a closet homosexual with a wife and children. His true lifestyle was not supported by his real life and the prison offered him an alternate reality to live that fantasy. Plus, he knew that the inmate was serving 20+ years and the chances of his inside life, meeting his outside life were slim.

Many people crave excitement in relationships and a prison romance is definitely exciting. I remember one 56 year old female correctional officer who was one of the best officers we had. She was firm, but fair and she ran her block perfectly for 23 years. She became infatuated with a male inmate and they passed love notes. Her husband had left her five years prior and she was very distressed. She had an isolated home existence and she needed something new and she was corrupted by a maggot- and I say maggot because he was a real slick piece of crap that really played her. That was the only case I ever had where i really felt bad for the subject. I still do to this day. She was the only subject i ever had that confessed immediately, answered all questions truthfully and we accepted her resignation rather than firing her.

So, this is a common occurrence, but one should not walk away with this judging correctional staff. We are placed in one of the most dangerous and difficult environments to work that exist. We recruit for entry positions from a very diverse group of individuals that are no always the best of the best. BUT, we operate prisons very efficiently and keep the public safe. Furthermore, the majority of employees are devoted public servants who truly follow the rules, tow the line, treat the prisoners properly and really serve the public.

BTW- I personally consider having a relationship with an inmate one of the worst offenses a prison employee can committ. They violate not only work rules, but the important trust that allows us to maintain the "gray line of professionalism".

"Mr. Lissa"

[pipper]

In the other thread you mentioned you used the license plate to obtain the driver's name and address. Where did you go to do that search? Is that sort of info in the public domain? How much (if anything) does it cost to get that sort of info?

[Lissa]

Originally posted by pipper
In the other thread you mentioned you used the license plate to obtain the driver's name and address. Where did you go to do that search? Is that sort of info in the public domain? How much (if anything) does it cost to get that sort of info?

Hubby's at work-- I'll tell him about this when he gets home, but for now, I'll tell you what I know.

In some states, that information is public record. (That's how a stalker found and killed actress Rebecca Shaefer years ago). I know in my state you have to fill out and mail in a form if you want your informaton kept out of the public system. Most people don't bother.

I think all you would have to do is contact your local BMV. They could give you the address to which you need to write in order to get the information. I'm not sure if there woud be any cost.

[Hilarity N. Suze]

Originally posted by pkbites
I work both as security consultant and as a police officer, and I have been told by credible individuals (the legal department at my consulting firm and an assistant d.a.) that placing a tracking device on a persons vehicle, without a warrant/court order, or permission of the owner or operator of such vehicle, was not legal, and violated several statutes. I don't have a site for that statement at this time. I'm looking though.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/121572_gps12.html

[MaryEFoo]

Does dope get into prisons via "bent" guards?

Do the prisoners brew up pruno? How do they manage?

What is the "economy" in the prisons you know about, ie can they earn money? do they have jobs, ie like the prison laundry or for outside industry? If they earn, is it paid in money or script? How much an hour?

[Lissa]

Originally posted by MaryEFoo
Does dope get into prisons via "bent" guards?

Do the prisoners brew up pruno? How do they manage?

What is the "economy" in the prisons you know about, ie can they earn money? do they have jobs, ie like the prison laundry or for outside industry? If they earn, is it paid in money or script? How much an hour?

Drugs get into prisons through a multitude of means. It can be brought in by staff. But it also comes in from packages and visitors. I even had a few cases where individuals were opening tennis balls, stuffing dope inside, running up to the fence line and throwing it over the fence for later recovery by the inmates on the yard. There are also very unique ways the inmates design to get drugs, like having ex-felon associates working in warehouses and distributions shops that do business with prisons. Then they hide the contraband on an incoming vehicle or delivery.

Hooch is a common occurrence in prison. The prisoners will ferment tomato juice or fruit juice and then drink it. It smells and tastes pretty nasty.

Yes, they earn 18-22 dollars a month. Some, who work in prison industries can make about 100 or more a month depending on wehther or not thet get overtime. Their money is credited to an account they can access at the commissary or send out of the prison to order books, clothes or even just to give to people they know. I think their wage averages about .10 to .20 cents an hour.

"Mr. Lissa"

[stypticus]

You speak of the many affairs you've uncovered, providing crucial proof to allow a substantiated accusation. Have you ever turned up antiproof? Ever prove that a person wasn't bonking the trainer, screwing the inmate, ripping off the company, whatever? In the case of emotional issues such as affairs, how did the clients handle it when you told them that the wife is really, as she says, just an avid aerobicist?

[regurgit8]

Having waded through most of this thread, and skimmed only occasionally, I have a question for the P.I.

What about ethical concerns? Do you take just any assignment and take the client's word for it when they tell you a legitimate-sounding reason they are hiring you? Do you have a don't-ask-don't tell policy? In other words, if someone hires you to spy on another person, unearth their past records and whatnot, claiming the subject (victim??) is an ex-lover who owes them child-support, for instance, do you verify this?

The reason I'm asking is that people do not always hire P.I.'s for totally legitimate causes. Do you (meaning P.I.'s in general) make it your policy to make sure that the client's concerns are above board? What if the client is a stalker who wants to find out as much as possible about the subject (victim) for not-so-kosher reasons? And, if you inadvertently help out a stalker who misuses the information you unearth for him, will you accept responsibility? Can the law force you to do so?

Secondly, I have a few general comments regarding this entire subject of privacy. I find it a little disturbing that some people apparently take the attitude of, "It's public information, therefore I'm within my rights to dig around in another person's private affairs." My opinion is that just because something is legal does not automatically make it ethical. I think it is severe rationalizing to say that once something is out there on public record, it's fair game and anything goes.

This is just more proof that we don't have too many laws, as some people always claim, but not enough laws. This is proof that people will literally do anything they can legally get away with, rationalizing that it is "legal". I have no doubt that some people who take this stance will have no trouble overstepping the increasingly blurry line between the simply unethical to the downright illegal.

Sure, much information is public. But if you have to sneak around behind the subject's (victim's?) back to get it, that is a red flag. If your motives are entirely innocent, you can simply ask the subject whatever it is you want to know rather than spying on them behind their back, wouldn't you all agree? And, if they don't want to tell you, leave it at that.

Sure, in certain legitimate instances, such as hunting down the activities of wanted criminals or deadbeat parents, just to name a couple, it's okay to check up on someone. But, with the ease of availability of information, many do research on people they know for pure entertainment and out of curiosity. This is more common than many realize. Not to mention there is more personal information out there on people than many realize, the reason being that most sane people do not think about spying on others, much less engage in it. But, as we all know, the world has its fair share of nuts, stalkers and lunatics.

I personally feel that people other than law enforcement officals spying on others is a violation of somebody's space, no matter how legal. If a person wants to keep certain aspects of their history, background, current situation, etc. private because it is not part of the image they want to present to the world, we should respect that.

I think the proliferation of electronic databases (via the internet), coupled with easy access for anybody, brings out the worst in human nature. We need stricter laws to deter stalkers and hackers. Obviously, the legal system has not kept up with the new host of potential crimes that have come into existance largely during the internet age.

[ralph124c]

I have LOADS of questions:
-do you have lots of friends in the local PD? Would any police detective friends ever allow you access to a crime scene (as in "CHINATOWN"?
-do you chain smoke?
-do you hang around bars to get info on people?
-do you wear sharp 3-piece suits (like Sam Spade and Philip Marlowe did)?
-do you have contacts in your local mafia/underworld?
-do the local cops pass you tips?
-finally, do you live in fogbound SF?

[stypticus]

Originally posted by regurgit8
This is just more proof that we don't have too many laws, as some people always claim, but not enough laws. This is proof that people will literally do anything they can legally get away with, rationalizing that it is "legal". I have no doubt that some people who take this stance will have no trouble overstepping the increasingly blurry line between the simply unethical to the downright illegal.

Translation: those who will do unethical but legal things will have no trouble also doing unethical and illegal things. Therefore we need more laws for those people to ignore.

Did I get that right?

[regurgit8]

Joe Blow has a crush on Ms. X. Maybe even a mild obsession with her. He wants to find out anything he can about her. He knows she has filed bankruptcy in the past few years, and that she got a divorce around the same time. Because, trustingly, she mentioned these things to him in casual conversation as acqaintances sometimes do.

Joe Blow goes to the courthouse, goes through the PUBLIC RECORDS, finds what he is looking for. The jackpot is Ms. X's Soc. Sec. Number.

Now, the world is his oyster. With Ms. X's SSN, he can access (on the internet) her employment records (he's *quite* computer-savvy), her health records, her private e-mail. Everything he unearthes gives him more information to allow him access to even more information. I'm not talking about these (puzzlingly legal) internet services where you pay a fee and get all that stuff. I'm talking about playing around until he can, unauthorized and undetected, view much of Ms. X's personal correspondence and history.

Where was the line from legal to illegal crossed? *Was* it crossed? Does Joe Blow know? Does the *law* itself know? It doesn't, because these problems are so new that the laws, as I mentioned above, have failed to keep up with them. Meanwhile Ms. X knows what's going on because he drops many hints, but she has no proof and absolutely no (legal) recourse.

There's got to be a better way to protect the public. Anyone who would defend the present state of affairs strikes me as questionable.

[regurgit8]

As a ninth-grader, I had a major crush on my math teacher. Sometimes, I would circle his block many times in hopes to get a glimpse of him. The teacher noticed me walking past his house repeatedly and he felt harassed (which, in hindsight, I can't blame him for).

My parents were called and I was told in no uncertain terms to quit walking past that man's house. My protestations that it was a PUBLIC STREET and that I had done nothing ILLEGAL, although technically correct, did not fly. There was no room for loopholes, gray areas, and rationalizations. I was harassing that teacher, I was to quit it instantaneously, or else. The fact that it was a public street did not impress anyone.

This is the type of ETHICAL conduct we should follow when we "follow" people through information available on the internet and in courthouses. Just because it's there does not necessarily make it okay to use. I do know that most DECENT human beings know this instinctively.

[Bill H.]

This is a total hijack of a very interesting thread. You really should open a relevant thread in a relevant forum, such as GD or the Pit. I'm sure many will be interested in commenting. Including me.

[stypticus]

I wasn't defending the present state of affairs, regurgit8, merely questioning your logic in calling for "more laws". For the most part I agree with you that the law hasn't kept up with technology, particularly in the arena of privacy. The advent of online databases makes it all too easy to share information that would, pre-digital, have required visits to various institutions such as the courthouse you mention, along with a lot of time at the photocopier. Certainly the private public needs protection in the digital age.

Do you think we need more laws all around, or just in areas, such as digital technology, which have changed recently? The one I'll agree with, the other I wouldn't. Though I'd choose a different word than "more". More laws do not equal better legal protection.

Finally, I'm going to have to ask for cites on Joe Blow's internet sources. I'm quite computer savvy myself, and I have no idea where I could find a person's employment records, health records, or personal email, unless I had physical access to that person's computer (covered at least by tresspassing laws and probably only useful for the email) or hacked into it (covered by existing laws? I don't know but would assume so). Where, legally or illegally, would one find that information? (Do your best to answer without violating the board's policy on facilitating illegal activity, please!)

[regurgit8]

I don't think so. I'm awaiting a response from the P.I. to my questions. I'm sure he'll get around to it. But if you want to open a topic on privacy and the internet, ethical concerns, don't let me stop you.

[regurgit8]

The above was addressed to Bill H.

[stypticus]

Sorry about the hijack, Bill. I was looking for discussion on some of regurgit8's comments but you're quite right that they're a digression from the original point.

Back to your regularly scheduled thread...

[stypticus]

Sorry, it's a digression.

[Lissa]

Originally posted by stypticus
You speak of the many affairs you've uncovered, providing crucial proof to allow a substantiated accusation. Have you ever turned up antiproof? Ever prove that a person wasn't bonking the trainer, screwing the inmate, ripping off the company, whatever? In the case of emotional issues such as affairs, how did the clients handle it when you told them that the wife is really, as she says, just an avid aerobicist?

Of course. There were many times that I caould not prove that the person was doing anything wrong. I always assure clients that I will just gather information, I cannot make the subject be guilty. Some people get frustrated when you cannot prove what they think, but once again, I always say that if you are so unhappy with the person, why don't you just walk away.

As for my job, I consider my responsibility to not only catch people doing wrong, but also clear those who are wrongly suspected. Always go for the truth.

The clients sometimes are relieved, others get angry. Once a guy refused to pay the balance of the bill. This is why I collected most of it up front. I always tried to maintain a professional attitude and tried not to let clients leave in a fit of anger or passion. I always tried to get them to talk about what they are going to do. My biggest fear was someone doing something rash.

"Mr. Lissa"

[Lissa]

Originally posted by regurgit8
Having waded through most of this thread, and skimmed only occasionally, I have a question for the P.I.

What about ethical concerns? Do you take just any assignment and take the client's word for it when they tell you a legitimate-sounding reason they are hiring you? Do you have a don't-ask-don't tell policy? In other words, if someone hires you to spy on another person, unearth their past records and whatnot, claiming the subject (victim??) is an ex-lover who owes them child-support, for instance, do you verify this?

The reason I'm asking is that people do not always hire P.I.'s for totally legitimate causes. Do you (meaning P.I.'s in general) make it your policy to make sure that the client's concerns are above board? What if the client is a stalker who wants to find out as much as possible about the subject (victim) for not-so-kosher reasons? And, if you inadvertently help out a stalker who misuses the information you unearth for him, will you accept responsibility? Can the law force you to do so?

Secondly, I have a few general comments regarding this entire subject of privacy. I find it a little disturbing that some people apparently take the attitude of, "It's public information, therefore I'm within my rights to dig around in another person's private affairs." My opinion is that just because something is legal does not automatically make it ethical. I think it is severe rationalizing to say that once something is out there on public record, it's fair game and anything goes.

This is just more proof that we don't have too many laws, as some people always claim, but not enough laws. This is proof that people will literally do anything they can legally get away with, rationalizing that it is "legal". I have no doubt that some people who take this stance will have no trouble overstepping the increasingly blurry line between the simply unethical to the downright illegal.

Sure, much information is public. But if you have to sneak around behind the subject's (victim's?) back to get it, that is a red flag. If your motives are entirely innocent, you can simply ask the subject whatever it is you want to know rather than spying on them behind their back, wouldn't you all agree? And, if they don't want to tell you, leave it at that.

Sure, in certain legitimate instances, such as hunting down the activities of wanted criminals or deadbeat parents, just to name a couple, it's okay to check up on someone. But, with the ease of availability of information, many do research on people they know for pure entertainment and out of curiosity. This is more common than many realize. Not to mention there is more personal information out there on people than many realize, the reason being that most sane people do not think about spying on others, much less engage in it. But, as we all know, the world has its fair share of nuts, stalkers and lunatics.

I personally feel that people other than law enforcement officals spying on others is a violation of somebody's space, no matter how legal. If a person wants to keep certain aspects of their history, background, current situation, etc. private because it is not part of the image they want to present to the world, we should respect that.

I think the proliferation of electronic databases (via the internet), coupled with easy access for anybody, brings out the worst in human nature. We need stricter laws to deter stalkers and hackers. Obviously, the legal system has not kept up with the new host of potential crimes that have come into existance largely during the internet age.

You make some very poignant statements about privacy. I will address those later. As for the ethics, I must say that there is a diversity of individuals who are PI's and as I am sure you can understand, each one of them is different in their own way. I typically made the client explain the whole situation to me. You can usually determine whether or not there is a legitimate connection between the information and the need. Many PI's will try to maintain a professional distance and just do their jobs, but I concur with your assertion that there must be caution exercised with the use of information. Information is power and with great power comes great responsibility. I never had a "don't ask, don't tell" policy. They had to tell me why they wanted the particular information. In other words, I just did not go out and "spy" on people without a particular mission. If in the hypthetical case you gave me, child support, they would have had to show me the papers and tell me how much they owe, where they think the money is, etc... I never just spied on people.

As for the question of helping out a stalker, I just don't know the law on this. But, I will say, that any person, acting in a professional position who exercises deliberate indifference is, and should be held, liable by not only civil, but criminal courts. Stalking is a serious crime, IMHO, and I would have taken every step when I was a PI to avoid this. A don't ask, don't tell policy will eventually get you in trouble, which is why I did not practice it.

Now, your privacy points. You are correct in many assertions, but you fail to take into account one important fact: You are a member of a society. If you wish to move out into the hills and live an isolated life, then you have privacy. But, if we partake in the benefits of society, we must also partake in the follies of society. The very definition of "public records" is that they are open to the public. I cannot see how this can be construed as unethical in that context. Your quote "It's public information, therefore I'm within my rights to dig around in another person's private affairs." is an oxymoron. In the first part of the sentence, you assert that the information is public, but then you call it a private affair. If it is public, it is public, you cannot switch the fundamental nature of the subject.

Furthermore, to infer that a person who follows the laws will eventually become a criminal
"This is proof that people will literally do anything they can legally get away with, rationalizing that it is "legal". I have no doubt that some people who take this stance will have no trouble overstepping the increasingly blurry line between the simply unethical to the downright illegal."
Is also a little shady in the logic department. So, that means if I obey the speed limit religiously, I am more likely to speed? As for your point about ethics in this same sentence, I most whole-heartedly agree. Just because something is legal, does not make it right. I argue this is the reason we have legislatures and from these lawful proceedings, laws can be passed. For example, with the advent of new technology, there were many things others could do that were perfectly legal because the laws had not "caught up to the times". This did not change the fact that those actions may have harmed others. Basing your life on the notion that if it is not against the law, it is ok, is indeed a true reality for too many people in this world and it makes our entire existence less pleasant. However, it is truly the price of freedom. The sad reality in America is that it is not illegal to be a jerk. However, if we start regulating the "jerks" by enacting laws, we start to see the folly of this logic. In other words, who determines what is the behavior that makes someone a "jerk". This is dangerous when you give government this power.

This part of your argument

"Sure, much information is public. But if you have to sneak around behind the subject's (victim's?) back to get it, that is a red flag. If your motives are entirely innocent, you can simply ask the subject whatever it is you want to know rather than spying on them behind their back, wouldn't you all agree? And, if they don't want to tell you, leave it at that. "

is really a bit naive. People are willing to lie about small things like their weight. Just imagine how much they will lie to protect the betrayal of their spouse or to evade criminal prosecution for a crime. Remember, is not the husband/wife who is being betrayed "behind their back" also a victim and do they not have some right to know the truth?

If people wanted to "keep their actions private" and "project a certain image to the world" they should not have committed the acts that would have made those deeds public or would have soiled that public image. What you are advocating is allowing people to committ a lifetime of fraud. In a society, you are accountable to others. This is the fundamental nature of a society and I would much rather live in a world of truth than fester in a world of deceit.

I concur with your final assertion that we must protect ourselves from hackers and stalkers. I think this point of yours brings out the most important fundamental fact about ethics. Motive is extremely important in determining whether or not an act is unethical. There should always be an ethical motive attached to any action. Just because you can legally do something, does not absolve you of the responsibility to be ethical.

I appreciate your comments and I would like you to know that many of your opinions I share. This is one of the primary reasons I am not a PI anymore. I firmly believe that my skills are better utilized protecting people and communities from individuals whose motives and actions are not only illegal, but unethical.

"Mr. Lissa"

[Bill H.]

regurgit8, in case you didn't read the topic, it's "Ask the Private Investigator". Not "Tell the Private Investigator". And certainly, it wasn't "Tell the Private Investigator about my personal beef which has absolutely no relevance to anyone else who might actually be reading this thread and consuming 4 or 5 pages worth of screenspace in the process."

Capice? It's an interesting subject you propose. So go propose it elsewhere.

[Lissa]

Originally posted by ralph124c
I have LOADS of questions:
-do you have lots of friends in the local PD? Would any police detective friends ever allow you access to a crime scene (as in "CHINATOWN"?
-do you chain smoke?
-do you hang around bars to get info on people?
-do you wear sharp 3-piece suits (like Sam Spade and Philip Marlowe did)?
-do you have contacts in your local mafia/underworld?
-do the local cops pass you tips?
-finally, do you live in fogbound SF?

These are all answers from when I was a PI:

1) Yes I have lots of friend on the police force. But no, they would not let me onto a crime scene. Furthermore, that notion is wholly created by Hollywood and I am sure it almost never happens. I never have the stand off with the former boss who is chomping on a cigar and telling me to get the hell outta his crime scene.

2) No, smoking is bad. I use lollipops. Just kidding.

3) I go wherever the information is. If that means hanging in a bar for hours, I will.

4) No, I wear jeans and knit shirts.

5) No, no contacts in the mafia. But as for former criminal informants, absolutely. Their names were not "Izzy" and "Bear", but they could point me in the right direction sometimes. Especially in regards to people using drugs. If you knew that a person had a problm with drugs, you would know where to find them.

6) You must understand that as a PI I never investigated a criminal action. One missing persons case was it. But I did get some info when i needed it from police contacts.

7) Nope. I live in a city where it is always raining and dark and sexy women walk into my office everyday.

"Mr. Lissa"

[stypticus]

Bill, easy on the vitriol. regurgit8 and I layed off of the privacy debate after your penultimate post, and Mr. Lissa answered regurgit8's questions well. regurgit8 declined your offer to open a new thread but hasn't brought up the matter further in this one; I am of the same mind. Why is it still a problem?

[stypticus]

...Back to the task at hand.

Ever make a mistake? Hand over incriminating evidence, then realize you misinterpreted or missed a crucial detail? Ever have to go back and change your story?

Thanks for all the great replies.

[Lissa]

Originally posted by stypticus
...Back to the task at hand.

Ever make a mistake? Hand over incriminating evidence, then realize you misinterpreted or missed a crucial detail? Ever have to go back and change your story?

Thanks for all the great replies.

Absolutely. I have made mistakes, just like anyone else. However, I have always tried to verify information before I file a final report. I cannot tell you how many times, after a case is completed, new information comes in and I slap my head saying I cannot believe I missed that. Most of the time, this is extra data, that just added to the reality of my case. I remember one case where I went to arrest the suspect. He asked if he could put a ring on his finger and take it with him. At the time, I said "no", and I seized it as potential evidence. What I did not do, however, was notice the ring already on his finger. I interrogated him and he appeared to cooperate by admitting to quite a few things, including an affair with a correctional employee (he was an inmate). He asked me for the ring back during the interview, after cooperating. He said it was his wedding ring and his wife was asking why he was not wearing it during the visits. Since he cooperated, I gave the ring back, because I had really no reason to keep it. After I fired the employee, I learned that the ring was actually given to him by the staff member. If I would have been more astute, I would have seen him wearing the ring when I took him into custody.

As for having to go back and change the actual conclusion of an investigation, I have been lucky enough to not be wrong yet about the "big picture". Sure I missed some crucial data, but I have always been lucky enough to get the whole story right. This is not to say that I will not make a mistake at some point in my career. But, I realize the gravity of my actions. I am effecting peoples' lives here and I must use great caution with the power given to me.

There are quite a few professionals (judges, lawyers, arbitrators) who trust me because I have established the fact that I base my conclusions upon evidence and good logic. If I ever fail, I will lose that trust. I would much rather allow guilty to go free than lose that credibility, so I exercise great caution when making my conclusions.

I am training a new investigator right now and I have taught him about an important philosophy I call the "slam dunk". You do not make a move until you have the "slam dunk" AND, it is a lot better if you have the reverse, behind the back, between the back slam dunk. An investigator should not rest just because they have the slam dunk. You should follow every single lead and make sure you are totally ready to take someone down. You are not only taking their job, but you may also be placing them in prison. No man/woman should lose that much without being given the most thorough investigation possible by an individual who has enough integrity to claim it was objective.

This was especially true as a P.I. I NEVER gave the client a report that was full of "educated guesses". I could not sleep at night if I knew that I helped perpetrate a fraud or broke up a good marriage over some circumstantial evidence.

BTW- I appreciate all of the inquiries and the nice comments. I am glad I could give some insight to the individuals on this board since I am consistently impressed by the knowledge espoused by many of my wife's peers on this board.

"Mr. Lissa"

[stypticus]

We're glad you could too. Thanks again for the discussion.

I don't know about this espoused knowledge, though. I'm an empty cup, a dribble glass if you will. Fill me with knowledge and I'll leak some down the front of your shirt when you least expect it. Watch out, it might stain.

That metaphor turned out to have a lot more potential for symbolism than I anticipated.

[Lissa]

Originally posted by stypticus
We're glad you could too. Thanks again for the discussion.

I don't know about this espoused knowledge, though. I'm an empty cup, a dribble glass if you will. Fill me with knowledge and I'll leak some down the front of your shirt when you least expect it. Watch out, it might stain.

That metaphor turned out to have a lot more potential for symbolism than I anticipated.

The exchange of knowledge is the greatest expression of the evolutionary wonder that is mankind.

BTW- I am wondering if regurgit8 will respond. I was intrigued by some of her points and I would like to hear her insight.

"Mr. Lissa"

[JayElle]

If you are familiar with the case, what are you feelings on the role of the investigation company in the Clara Harris case?

In a nutshell, Texan Clara Harris hires Blue Moon investigators to track her supposed cheating husband. The agency sights the husband and his mistress going into a local hotel. They call Clara Harris and report his location. Clara drives to the hotel to confront her husband, bringing along his 16 year old daughter. When the husband and the mistress emerge from the hotel, Clara guns her car and runs over the husband. She received 20 years.

Do you feel the investigators did the proper procedure in telling Clara where to locate her husband? What is standard procedure for disclosing unpleasant information to a client? Do you allow that extreme outcomes can result from an investigation?

Obviously, no one is responsible for killing Mr. Harris other than his wife. But could the agency have handled this in a different manner?

[Lissa]

I do not understand why an agency would call and tell the client where to find a person cheating on them. If my client asked me to do that (call them immediately upon spotting infidelity and tell them where to find their spouse), I would seriously question their intentions. There is nothing good that can come from it. This is likely an example of a PI service that does not really care, they only do their jobs.

I have to feel that they have some culpability in this situation, although I would hesitate to consider it criminal. I liken this to my job at the prison. I just had a situation where an inmate was visiting his twenty-year old (newly reunited) son in the visiting room. Another inmate walked in and the kid told his dad, that is the guy who raped me when I was 10. First of all, the man's child was raped by this guy. Secondly, the inmate did not even know his son had ever been raped. Now, this inmate goes to my staff and says he can work through this and he is not going to hurt the guy. Nevertheless, I don't care what he says. Thus, I isolate him away from the other inmate because I would be held liable if I showed deliberate indifference to the life of the other inmate.

Granted, as a ward of the state we have a greater burden to protect an inmate, but I see little difference in this case here. If I used the same circumstances from the story you highlighted and placed them into my situation, it would have been the equivalent of telling the inmate his son was molested, giving him the name of the inmate and where he was currently locking. Or, more accurately, saying he is molesting your son right now and at this location.

IMHO, that is deliberate indifference and grossly irresponsible.

Like I said before, when I was a PI I would bring the client in, try to talk to them calmly about what I discovered and then discuss what their options were (not giving advice, just trying to get them to start thinking clearly in an otherwise emotionally charged situation). PI's who do not do this, in my opinion, are uncaring scum who should be held liable.


"Mr. Lissa"

[Ca3799]

Just a little clarification about the Harris scenario above. I'm pretty sure the investigators did not call Mrs. Harris. I believe I had read that she already knew her husband had been going to that particular hotel and it was a coincidence that the investigator(s) were recording at the time that she also appeared to confront her husband. Mrs. Harris knew alot about the affair- who, when where. The investigators were probably hired to document the affair, as opposed to proving it, because there was alot of money involved. Sorry, no cite. There was alot about it in a small local paper.

So my question is- Do you find that you are more often proving affairs or simply documenting them for the potential future legal battle?

[Lissa]

Originally posted by Ca3799
Just a little clarification about the Harris scenario above. I'm pretty sure the investigators did not call Mrs. Harris. I believe I had read that she already knew her husband had been going to that particular hotel and it was a coincidence that the investigator(s) were recording at the time that she also appeared to confront her husband. Mrs. Harris knew alot about the affair- who, when where. The investigators were probably hired to document the affair, as opposed to proving it, because there was alot of money involved. Sorry, no cite. There was alot about it in a small local paper.

So my question is- Do you find that you are more often proving affairs or simply documenting them for the potential future legal battle?

Ahh, Ok. I knew nothing more than what the poster had stated.

As for your question, I would have to say that majority of cases were for legal purposes, but most of them had an element of curiosity. I believe some of the clients had hoped that it was not true or just had unproven suspicions. Like I said before, many of them had confronted thier spouses, but they just denied it. They wanted solid proof before making lifelong decisions.

"Mr. Lissa"