|
The flyer mentioned earlier goes on to point out that an investigator using these devices can monitor two or more vehicles at any time. It would be an easy matter for an unethical investigator, who is monitoring three of these devices (without the knowledge or consent of the clients), to charge all three clients the regular hourly rate for surveillance.
Reports covering these three "surveillances" would be distorted--falsified actually--unless they clearly stated that they were electronic monitoring operations--not legitimate surveillances. Since in some venues, a client's knowledge and authorization of the use of such devices in non-consent situations could expose him or her to criminal conspiracy charges, the method of the operation would likely not be shown in the "surveillance" report. In the case where a vehicle didn't leave a particular location, a "surveillance" report indicating that the subject of the investigation didn't leave would be patently false.
Most private investigators are exceptionally professional, scrupulously ethical and provide honest detailed reports. But like in every occupation, there's always the 1% that operate strictly on the greed principle. In one high profile case, an unethical (or perhaps just an extremely ignorant and careless) private investigator provided information to a walk-in client who used this overpriced information (reportedly marked up 50 times its cost) to locate and murder a young television actress.
At L.P.C., Ltd., we feel the growing use of these devices by novice private investigators is rapidly creating a climate where there's another high profile incident about to happen, quite possibly a fatal incident.
From what we can gather, these devices are used primarily by wannabe individuals rather than legitimate private investigators. However, the media can be quite cavalier when referring to such self-styled sleuths as investigators and our overall image is, unfortunately, less than sterling without such distortions.
There is only one way to conduct a proper surveillance operation and that is by being physically present to personally observe the activity and movements of the subject of the surveillance. We suggest that private investigators who find traditional surveillance to be emotionally stressful or fatiguing might do well to consider a less demanding occupation.
Business clients, attorneys, insurance companies and others who give assignments to private investigators are encouraged to ask their investigators whether they use such devices in non-consent situations. I suspect that in 99% of the cases the investigators will not only honesty deny using such devices, but also agree wholeheartedly with the message of this warning.
For more information on this subject and surveillance in general, please click on the Article Index button below on this Web Site.
|
|
