The ability to conduct surveillance/stake outs is by far one of the most important and lucrative skills a private investigator and process server can possess. Surveillance/Stake outs can also be one of the most difficult, tedious, challenging, yet rewarding tasks performed. It is a skill-set that requires concentrated practice built upon a solid foundation of time-tested fundamentals. This course is written to give you the information needed to successfully obtain and report video-based evidence that can withstand the scrutiny of litigation and give your clients the edge they need.

This course, written by L. Scott Harrell, teaches course participants the most important aspects of surveillance: how to prepare for a surveillance assignment before leaving the office, detailed diagrams describing the surveillance set-ups and investigator positioning used by veteran investigators, using today’s technology in throughout every aspect of surveillance operations, preparing professional surveillance reports and understanding the many legal aspects affecting video evidence obtained through covert surveillance.

This course is approved for 10 hours of continuing education for process servers in Arizona. An exam will be administered upon the conclusion of the program. If the candidate passes with a score of 75% or better, a certificate of completion will be issued in accordance with state licensing authority standards.

Arizona Private Process Server Continuing Education Policies

Pursuant to the Arizona Code of Judicial Administration §7-204: Private Process Server,(hereafter referred to as “Code Section”) all certified private process servers must complete continuing education every twelve months.

For more info see: http://azcourts.gov/cld/PrivateProcessServer.aspx

About PIeducation.com

PIeducation.com has provided continuing education to private investigators, process servers and bail enforcement agents via the Internet and distance learning opportunities since July 1, 2002 and is the undisputed market leader in this industry segment. As of January 2012, the company has conferred over 61,000 CE hours to over 5,800 licensees in among the following states Arizona (CE for Private Process Servers), Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Oregon, North Carolina,  South Carolina, Tennessee and Texas.

The on-line format makes continuing education (CE) affordable, flexible and practical. Students no longer need to bear the high expense of travel and time away from work. Completing courses is easy and done at the student’s own pace. All courses can be downloaded for off-line reading rather than staying connected to the Internet the entire time. Students can log out and back into their courses whenever they want and pick up where they last left off at any time. If students choose to download the course material then they can finish studying at their leisure before logging back in to take an online, open book, final exam that is submitted via a simple browser-based form.

PIeducation.com is a division of CompassPoint Investigations, private investigators in Pensacola, FL.

That process serving companies are more accurate, serve process faster and have higher customer satisfaction ratings than the deputies!

Proper service of process is an essential step in most litigation whether criminal, civil or administrative.  This certainly would include summons, subpoenas, court orders and various other documents necessary to provide sue process notice to the parties of an action at bar.  Poor or improper service can change the outcome of these proceedings sometimes resulting in extreme and/or irreversible detriment to those seeking justice or provide a procedural escape route to another not so deserving.  A very simple example is the trial subpoena that either is not served timely or not at all on a critical witness.

This place the attorney in the position of arguing to have a deposition admitted as testimony, should a deposition had been take, or arguing under the evidence code pursuant to witness not available all of which is a very slippery slope (and, picking up that “five hundred” pound phone and placing Lawyers Mutual on notice of an impending claim).  Proper preparation is critical as to the pleadings and timing of the service.  However, the one factor that is not under definitive control is the availability and location of witnesses when they are needed for testimony or to be served with documents bringing the under the jurisdiction of a particular court or administrative body.

First Things First

Communication with legal counsel is extremely important. The proper name address, appearance date, time and location should be double checked.  It is the policy of many investigative services organizations to review the service package before delivery.  Many times it is the investigator that was involved in the research relating to the case serving the documents as they know the witnesses and parties, what they look like, as well as their attitudes concerning willingness to testify.  They know the facts of the case and can certainly review a subpoena duces tecum for the requested documents and point out items that may be missing.

A current address is certainly of great value.  How many times have we all made multiple  trips to a residence only to find on the eve of trial that the witness has moved leaving no forwarding address?  This is exactly why an experienced investigator will ask for a contact or relative as part of the interview process.   Sadly, missing witnesses are not found in a timely manner which can have an effect as set forth above. Thus, it places the investigator into a skip trace setting that becomes somewhat frantic and expensive at the last minute. The number one rule is to compel counsel to start early on getting witnesses or parties under the jurisdiction of the court.

First Time Contacts

So, the investigator has never had contact with the witness or party.  The first visits to an address, home or work may be fruitless. The investigator should note vehicles, license plate numbers, state where licensed.  Vehicles can tell many stories. There may be signs or stickers denoting a place of employment or self employment.  Documents, paper and things in plain sight can-disclose employment, children and if there is a spouse.  This would mean the children and spouse may be around early in the morning departing for school. How old are the children? The toys, size of bicycles and footprints are of value.  It does seem that children that are older are much more likely to be involved in after school activities and therefore the parent(s) just might not be home in the evenings.

Animals are a very good clue because they must be provided care daily.  Evening service is best in these situations.

Tire tracks are helpful if available. They depict the type of vehicle such as a truck, comings and goings, how many vehicles and how fresh the tracks are will disclose how often and when the party is coming or leaving home.  This works very well in rural settings, dirt roads and snow country.

How about rural areas?  Skillful investigators will check for a forwarding address at the local post office on the trip back if no contact can be made.  Sometimes these rural postal clerks will voluntarily talk about the party and provide a place of employment, new address and so forth.  Not rural?  A trip to the post office that handles forwarding addresses for a particular zip code should be visited.  It is best to telephone the post office first because in congested cities there can be several postal annexes for one zip code, but only one provides forwarding addresses.  Make sure to bring the service documents to show the postal clerk along with the proper request form in compliance with your state’s statutes the Code of Federal Regulations 39 CFR. 265.6(d)(5)(ii).

We all have been faced with the dreaded post office box number as the only address. A request under 39 CFR 265.6(d)(5)(ii) will allow an investigator to obtain a physical address for the purposes of service of process.  Once the physical address has been obtained, some investigators have another form filled out for a forwarding address on the physical address just provided to be extra cautious as at times, the physical address is not current.  A box owned by a business is fair game and the information as to the physical address is far easier to request – verbally and asking to look at the application.  If the physical address is not current, the investigator can simply return to the postal clerk and ask that mail be held while an update notice is placed in the box by the clerk. If the clerk is cooperative, they may even call the investigator when the new information is provided by the box holder.

Another way to catch a witness is to call the local sanitation service for the address being worked. Then the investigator can wait either in the evening or early morning for the party to exit the residence to set out the trash bin. Of course, some of these methods assume that the person is avoiding service – which we all know how uncommon that is!

Tricky Situations:

Gates

One at times has to be part mountain goat to access some properties these days.  However, a simple three step folding ladder can overcome many situations. The law is clear on these matters, and a person legally authorized to serve civil or criminal process has an absolute privilege to enter property to deliver legal documents. A “no trespassing” sign is not valid.  However, a sign some crazed human being posts stating “the use of deadly force is authorized” should be eyed with appropriate caution.  Perhaps waiting for someone to exit would seem more prudent.

In more urban settings, the investigator may be faced with the community that uses remote control devices or punch in key pads to activate a gate.  In these cases, it is best to wait until a resident enters and follow them right on through with the car.  Anytime after 5 p.m. is typically a good time due to the amount of traffic and the server can just slide in with the traffic flow. Then of course there is the situation of the full fledged guarded premises with a uniformed chap waiving vehicles to stop. In this case, explain the law, if such exists in that particular state and the purpose of the visit is to deliver official court process. Unfortunately, the guard may call the resident asking for permission to allow access or make the call after to warn the homeowner of what is approaching. California Code of Civil Procedure 415.21 et. seq. sets fort that that a (manned) gated community must allow access to a registered process server or one that is
a licensed private investigator in keeping with California Business and Professions Code Section 22350 et. seq.  In the same respect, federal law relating to appointed and other process servers cannot be interfered with can be found at 18 U.S.C 1501.

As a last resort, look for a way in other than the gate.  A stream or lake may be a good point of access or a hiking trail.  One enterprising investigator recently served a very wealthy man living a few doors from John Elway (Denver Broncos, retired QB) by turning off of a road in the maintenance area for the golf course, picked up and drove at night on a golf path, turned onto a paved road and drove right up to the house. Take note, this defendant was purposely evading service. The investigator was dressed in dark clothing and waited across from the residence near a lake.  The key was not to move around. The human eye does not perceive colors and shapes as well as slight movement.  A short time later, the defendant walked out to start his barbeque and was served.

Sometimes driving up to guard in a BMW or a Mercedes gets a cursory waive through as the investigator appears to belong there.

Animals

Certainly the most frequently encountered animal is going to be a dog. Multiple dogs are even worse. An old trick is to utilize dog treats, which seems to work well, but do not run out of “Beggin’ Strips” or the lunch menu could change quickly. Never touch an animal as most will perceive this as a threatening action.  Fast movement or running away seems to incite trouble. Certain breads of dogs are bad news. Ranch dogs seem to be friendly enough, but a fenced
yard sporting a couple of pit bulls is a bad omen.  Find a different way by waiting or utilize the trash pick-up maneuver or newspaper in the morning technique.

Do I have the right house? If you have a phone number, one can telephone while at the door.  Can the ring be heard inside?  A check with the neighbors can be helpful, especially when homes are rural.  Apartment dwellers are tough to serve at times.  Most renters do not stay put in it particular place, usually a matter of months…oftentimes they never seem to be home and the neighbors never seem to know each other.  These types of problems are better researched ahead of time with database searches such as IRB (http://irbsearch.com/) – pay particular attention towards motor vehicles so you can conduct a motor vehicle search.   If the vehicle is there, it is safe to say they still live there.  Think the property manager will disclose whether or not a person lives in a particular apartment? Guess again…most likely not.  Informing the manager you already know the party lives there can be helpful with the manager’s cooperation; the manager may confirm the facts you have obtained and identify or confirm the apartment number.

Sticks

Seems like there are some cities where the residents are all just dead set constructing cages around the entry ways of their homes. San Francisco is a classic example. In this situation the big question seems to be – how does one ring the door bell or knock on the door?  In my experience I have found a simple broom stick solves the problem.   It can be fished through the bars or cage to knock or press the button.

Tricky Tricks

In order to ascertain whether or not someone is coming and going from a residence, buy a newspaper, put a rubber band around it, and leave it on the door step. Another alternative is leave the door mat ajar and see if it gets moved back into place.  Try taking a digital photo to use on the next trip. Has the position of the curtains or drapes changed? How about the lights? Lastly always take note of the positions of any automobiles? Have they changed since your first trip to the location?

Record Keeping

An investigator/process server should always document all dates, times and addresses regarding service.  Due diligence may be required for substitute service  and information regarding service attempts are necessary for the construction of an Affidavit of Service, Affidavit of Non-Service, Affidavit of  Due Diligence, or due diligence via  publication.  Publication policies of courts and jurisdictions vary.  Generally, a motion and order are needed to publish a summons.  The motion will likely need an affidavit setting forth the activities of the investigator/process server’s efforts to obtain personal service. There are some courts that require information on whether or not the subject is still residing at the particular address.  This may require motor vehicle records, voter information or a postal forwarding address request form marked as “good as addressed.”  If you get suck on all the requirements, a call to the clerk is always beneficial or taking a look at a successfully published file in court records works too.

Further Services

The attorney should be asked if an interview is desirable at the time of service.  Of course, the party should be asked if they are represented by a lawyer relating to the proceeding before commencing. The investigator can then gather important information and serve the witness or party when done.

About the Author

Craig Wesley Rimer, C.L.I., J.D  is the current President of Cardinal  Pointe Pretrial and Investigative Services located in  Denver, Colorado.  Mr. Rimer has been a licensed California Investigator for        twenty-four years.  He is one of one hundred twenty-five Certified Legal Investigators practicing in the United States and is certified as a financial investigator by the National Association of Certified Investigators.  He is published both in hardback and softback in the area of pretrial preparation and has been on the teaching staff of the University of California at Davis.  As an investigator, Craig Rimer has conducted in excess of eleven thousand civil and criminal investigations throughout the United States and many cases in Europe, on the Pacific Rim and South/Central America.

Craig Wesley Rimer, C.L.I., J.D
President, Cardinal Pointe Pretrial and Investigative Services
Littleton, Colorado
303-801-2239

http://cardinalpointe.com/

Credit: @FEARtheSERVER

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

CONTACT:
Larry Yellon
(516) 248-8270

New Regulations Allow New York City Process Servers to Continue Service Legal action dropped against DCA

July 20, 2011 (NEW YORK CITY) – Professional process servers in New York City will continue providing quality services to city residents following the settlement of a lawsuit Tuesday, July 19, 2011, with the New York Department of Consumer Affairs (DCA) that had seriously jeopardized their existence.

The agreement, which simplifies record-keeping for licensing, resolves many conflicts that had threatened process servers and agencies from going out of business, said Larry Yellon, president of both the National Association of Professional Process Servers (NAPPS) and the New York State Professional Process Servers Association (NYSPPSA). NYSPPSA is a chartered state association of NAPPS.

“NYSPPSA and DCA now have a shared goal of providing quality services to the legal system and ultimately justice for those who engage the system within city limits,” Yellon said. “We applaud DCA for recognizing the need to amend rules that were confusing and restrictive. The new rules are based on common sense and fairness, and will help agencies and process servers maintain compliance without upending their business practices.”

As part of the settlement, NYSPPSA agrees to drop all legal action against DCA. In late March, NYSPPSA was granted a partial restraining order to allow the two sides to continue negotiations over the new regulations. Prior to the court filing, NYSPPSA and the City had been negotiating in good faith and were making progress ahead of a March 21 deadline. NYSPPSA chose court action only after a request to extend that deadline was denied.

The settlement requires process servers to “conduct their activities within the confines of the new regulations, and notify the city if they fail to carry out their duties in a competent and lawful manner.”

In return, the amended city rules will clarify the record-keeping requirements in the following manner:

• Reporting requirement – Changes 24-hour reporting requirement to within two (2) business days after the last event recorded occurred.
• “Traverse” (contested service) – Modifies the reporting and research obligations for process servers and agencies when reporting the results of a traverse to DCA. The new rule significantly expands both research and reporting timelines and more definitively defines the search process.
• Filing process – The process server and agency only have to keep the file date of the affidavit if they physically filed it.
• Certified mailing – The process server will only have to keep the record number of a certified mailing only if they physically did the certified mailing.
• Record keeping – The amount of time process servers need to keep paper records is reduced from 7 years to 3 years.
• Digital records – The third-party option to maintain digital records have been changed. Now they can be generated at the time of request as long as the records are kept by a third party in a manner that the process server or the agencies are not able to edit them.
• Corrections & edits – The new rule adds a method for licensees to correct typographical errors in or inadvertent omissions from an entry into an electronic format.

Yellon stressed that NAPPS and NYSPPSA members are committed to being accountable, reliable and valuable to legal clients and city regulators. “NAPPS members follow a code of ethics and professional conduct, and as an organization we feel very strongly about the oversight and regulation of our own members,” he said. “This is a win-win for everyone involved.”

TIMELINE OF EVENTS / NYSPPSA vs. CITY OF NEW YORK DCA:

April 2010 – New York City Council passes and Mayor Bloomberg signs law regarding new regulations for Digital Record Keeping for Licensed Process Servers and Agencies; authorizes New York Department of Consumer Affairs (DCA) to promulgate rules.

December 2010 – DCA files new rules and holds initial hearing. New York State Professional Process Servers Association President Larry Yellon testifies in opposition to new rules, saying they go far beyond the intent of the law passed by the council.

February 2011 – NYSPPSA enters into negotiations with DCA seeking amendments to the rules
as proposed.

March 2011 – NYSPPSA files lawsuit seeking to stop implementation of rules as proposed by DCA. New York State Supreme Court, County of New York Justice Cynthia S. Kern grants NYSPPSA a partial injunction prohibiting DCA from implementing or enforcing “that portion of the Regulations which require that the security settings for the converted PDF are set so that no edits or changes may be made to the document.”

May 2011 – DCA publishes proposed amendments to Digital Record Keeping for Licensed Process Servers and Agencies rules.

June 2011 – Hearing on proposed amendments. DCA files “reply memorandum of law.” Oral arguments scheduled for July 20, 2011.

July 19, 2011 – Settlement reached and filed in court.

####

The New York State Professional Process Servers Association (NYSPPSA) works as a unifier in the state to improve the professionalism of our members and communication with the rest of the legal community. For more information about NYSPPSA, visit www.nysppsa.org

The National Association of Professional Process Servers (NAPPS) is a worldwide organization founded on the principles of professionalism and high ethical standards. For more information about NAPPS, visit www.napps.org

When will this bill be enforced?

The New York City Process Servers  Licensing Bill has not even been signed by the Mayor yet.  After it is signed, it will not be enforced for at least six months.  During that time the DCA will have to set up proper guide lines for all process servers to follow.  NYSPPSA plans on being a big part of that process and will be informing our members of the progress along the way.  The Bill also gives the DCA an extension on the initial 6 months for parts of the bill like the GPS.

My company sends out service to NYC all the time but I am located outside of the city boundaries, do I still need to get an Agency License?

If your company uses independent licensed contractors to serve in the city, than according to the new law you WILL have to apply for an agency license.  If you forward your work to a licensed agency you will NOT need to be a licensed agency.   This was changed at the last minute prior to the change any company that forwarded work to an agency or process server would have to be licensed.  Now you have a choice.  You could get an agency license or forward the work to a licensed agency.

I am getting phone calls from software companies telling me I need to sign up  for a GPS system now to be prepared, should I?

Since the GPS process of this bill has not been set by the DCA it would be premature to sign up for a system.   There has not been a system that has been approved and the DCA, and they have informed us that they want the system to be cost effective.  NYSPPSA will be working hard on evaluating all new systems and will be informing our members on the pros and cons.  We ask our members to wait to hear from us prior to purchasing or signing up for a GPS system.  Again we have time, so let’s use this time to get it right.

Should I apply for a bond today in order to be prepared for tomorrow?

Again, the DCA has not set up the requirements for the bond, as of yet, and we have been informed that the bonding companies will not be able to bond process servers until those requirements are set.  NYSPPSA will be contacting Bonding agents to try and get the best deal for our members.  So as the committee decides the proper requirements we will be working with the bond companies.

After I get the bond, should I drop my E & O insurance?

In the case of a law suit, it is important to understand that a bond of any amount does not protect the process server nor an agency.  What a bond does is simply guarantee payment of a judgment.  The bonding company will pay the recipient of that judgment and then go after you to pay them back.  E & O insurance will not only pay if a judgment is issued against you but will also defend you in that law suit as well. So E & O insurance does have value, the final decision is up to you but NYSPPSA wants to make sure that you know the difference.

Is it true that I can now be found liable to the recipient if found guilty of improper service?

It is stated in the new bill that a process server and its corresponding agency can be sued directly by the recipient if notification was done improperly. Many of us believed that you were susceptible to a law suit prior to this bill, the only difference is now it is writing.  You will only be held liable for punitive damages if it is proven that you willfully lied about service.  Meaning you threw the service away and lied about on an affidavit. For this reason, the City council made the bonding mandatory to ensure payment if you have a judgment against you.

The NYSPPSA Proposed Substitute Bill

Read the New Bill

Support the NYSPPSA

Posted by Stephanie Mitchell, a Pensacola Process Server, Reprinted with permission by Larry Yellon, President of the NYSPPSA (Reprinted with Permission)

The U.S. Secret Service, backed up by three studies over a period of 15 years and published in the FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin (3/06), indentified the following visual cues indicating a person may be carrying a concealed weapon:

Behavioral Traits

In all three aforementioned studies, none of the criminal offenders interviewed used a holster and male offenders reported regularly carrying handguns in the middle torso area; more specifically they tended to tuck the firearm into their right front waistband, between their navel and hip, in order maintain the gun’s accessibility.  One researcher noted that, “They see guns put there in the movies, it’s ‘cool,’ and they can easily show their buddies or enemies that they’re armed.”  One city law enforcement agency conducting their own study noted that of the 1,301 guns confiscated from suspects, only seven of them were wearing holsters.  The second most common hiding place is the small of the back – but it is a distant second place.

Concealed firearms tend to be carried on the person’s “strong side,” which is to say on the same side as their dominant hand.  Is the subject left-handed or right-handed?  Typically, wristwatches are worn on the weak arm and, generally, people use their strong hand for most actions like lighting cigarettes, shoving someone, holding or moving objects, etc.  Even in the absence of confirming visual clues, you can count on approximately 85% of the people in the world being right handed.  Knowing a person’s strong side gives the observer a better chance of locating a hidden gun quickly.

Walking with a concealed, unholstered handgun requires subjects to occasionally touch their firearms to prevent the gun from moving or to adjust the weapon after it moves.  This movement is often referred to by law enforcement instructors as the “security feel” and becomes most notable whenever individuals change body positions, such as standing, sitting, or exiting a car because the unholstered gun tends to shift, causing the subject to adjust or reposition the weapon to the preferred position.  When a subject runs, their actions may appear more pronounced; constantly gripping the handgun to maintain control.

An academy instructor for the U.S. Secret Service uniformed division recently shared the following tip online, “Closely related to the security feel is what I call ‘protective body movement.’ This is particularly noticeable when an armed subject is running or moving abruptly; he holds his arm against the concealed weapon, either stiffly or with a very restrained swing. Even if the suspect is just walking, you may see that he takes a full stride with his opposite-side foot but the gun-side stride will be shorter, almost like a limp in some cases because he’s trying to clamp the gun in place and minimize its slipping or its risk of falling out. The arm may also come in against the gun as a protective movement when people start getting close to the suspect.”

“Watch females who are with bikers and other street gangs,” one police officer cautioned, “many times they carry for the male members, capitalizing on the fact that too many people tend to dismiss females as a threat.”

The studies also concluded that “the majority of female offenders who carried their own weapon preferred small-framed revolvers or automatic pistols. Their preferred place of concealment was in a pocket of their outer clothing, with quick retrieval as their primary concern. Females often carried a weapon for a male companion prior to or after criminal activity. But, interestingly, no female offender reported giving her weapon to anyone to carry for her.”

Basic law enforcement training teaches officers to keep their gun-side away from individuals during street contacts or interviews.  It is widely accepted that armed criminals do the same in encounters with law enforcement professionals to ensure concealment and easy access to their firearms.  As one offender in the study noted, “If they’re on that side of me, they can’t see it. I can also get to it quicker if I need to. Because they can’t see what I’m reaching for, I get that extra second.”

Additional physical behaviors may include “palming,” which is most often observed in subjects concealing edged weapons but occasionally seen with gun wielders, too.  The knife holder may run the blade of the weapon up along the arm or behind the leg to conceal it from frontal view. Just before a target is attacked, an attacker will also typically have his or her eyes fixed on the intended victim.  Palming behaviors often indicate imminent risk to the recovery agent!

I remember one situation in particular when I found a gun in the coat pocket of a fugitive I was chasing through a house that I distinctly heard the sound of the gun hitting a door frame and then coming to rest on a countertop when I had him leaned forward and placing him in handcuffs.  It was obvious by the heavy, solid thud that there was a large metal object in his pocket.

Clothing Indicators

The most obvious giveaway is the telltale bulges in a subject’s clothing.  A gun is not flexible and doesn’t conform well to the shape of the human body, so it may reveal itself in the form of a protrusion.  While the entire firearm may not be outlined, tight clothing may reveal bumps that relate to a hammer, grip or muzzle.  This distortion of the subject’s silhouette is often referred to as “patterning” or “imprinting.”  When trying to conceal a shotgun, rifle or submachine gun under a coat while walking, the butt of the weapon will often cause a noticeable bulge behind the armpit. Additionally, the jacket does not move naturally because it is supported by the outline of the weapon.  When someone wears a shoulder holster or straps on a sawed-off rifle, shotgun or submachine gun under his or her arm, a bulge in front of or behind the armpit will often be visible.

Specific observations regarding a person’s attire may indicate that the individual is armed.  These may include, but are not limited to, what individuals are wearing during various weather conditions, as well as accessory items and unconventional weapons designed and manufactured for concealment that they may carry. Clothing concealment techniques are used by people to hide firearms and other weapon; for example, an un-tucked shirt or buttoned sports jacket are two examples of techniques used to conceal dangerous objects with clothing.  These characteristics may not always be obvious though as casual dress with un-tucked shirts is quite common.  Even though an un-tucked shirt may hide a firearm, in and of itself, it is not a good indicator.  An investigator must judge the concealment characteristics in the context of the environment they are in. With clothing, visual screener need only simply ask, “Does what I see match the surroundings?”

Warm Weather Conditions

Is the individual dressed inappropriately for existing weather and temperature conditions?  A person who attempts to conceal a weapon may wear or carry additional clothing other than that which is required or appropriate considering the outside temperature and humidity.  This suspicious behavior is particularly observable in warm weather.  Why would an individual wear a jacket, sweatshirt, sweater, raincoat, or overcoat on a bright sunny day when others are dressed in short-sleeved shirts?  Is the individual wearing multilayered clothing, such as two shirts or a pair of sweatpants over a pair of jeans, on a hot day?  Similarly, why does a man wearing a shirt and tie, suit pants, and dress shoes have his shirttail hanging out?  Less obvious are individuals in casual attire with their shirttails outside their pants.  Such inappropriate apparel can cover areas of the body where criminals frequently conceal firearms.

Obviously, it is easier visually detect firearms on individuals dressed appropriately for warm weather.  At-risk individuals should look for unnatural protrusions or bulges in the waist, back, and crotch areas and watch for less conspicuous cues, such as shirts that appear rippled or wavy on one side of the body while the fabric on the other side appears smooth.  Many offenders in the three studies revealed that they purposely transported weapons in their crotch areas as much for concealment as the reluctance of officers to thoroughly search this location.

Cold and Inclement Weather Conditions

Are individuals with a coat, raincoat, or jacket draped over their arms unnecessarily exposing themselves to the elements?  What about those wearing a hooded jacket or coat in the rain or snow without the hood covering the head?  One offender stated that he had several friends who carried firearms in their jacket hoods. Does a loose-hanging hood seem weighted down, causing the drawstring to pucker?  Also, in periods of extremely cold weather, why would people not button or zip up their jackets or heavy coats?  Could it be that they want quick access to a firearm?

When individuals have on jackets and coats, are these pieces of clothing visibly weighted to one side, giving the appearance of an unusually heavy object in the pocket?  Normally, personal items such as wallets, keys, and cell phones do not weigh enough to cause a pocket to hang substantially lower than the one on the opposite side– but large caliber guns favored by street thugs typically do.  When the subject walks or runs, does his coat or jacket bounce off his leg as if something heavy is in the pocket?

Accessories and Other Items Carried

In cold weather conditions, individuals may have a hand warmer attached to their clothing or person in some manner.  If these people appear to have been outside for some time, why are their hands not inside the device?  If they have gloves on, why do they need the hand warmer?  Does it exhibit ripples or waves in the fabric, giving the appearance of containing a heavy object?

What about individuals carrying such items as purses, knapsacks, fanny packs, soft briefcases, gym bags, folded-over newspapers, or paper bags that appear out of place?  Do these articles display a protrusion?  Is the outline of the frame of a handgun or a partial contour, such as the barrel or butt, visible?  If a subject seems to have a wallet in his pocket but is wearing a fanny pack, then what’s in the fanny pack?  Does it appear weighted with a heavy object?  Most types of fanny packs can conceal a handgun and many are purposes-built with a draw string or other quick-release closure method added for rapid access to a handgun.

One of the most important concepts of visual weapons screening is behavior clusters; the totality of circumstances will dictate the degree of likelihood of an individual being armed. When evaluating any individual for the possibility of a concealed firearm it is important to take into account their behavior “in context” as well!  Wearing inappropriate clothing could be completely explainable, depending on the circumstances and surroundings. For example, a traveler who just arrived from a colder climate may have on an overcoat on a warm sunny day.  Perhaps, the person has to carry luggage, making it necessary to temporarily wear the coat.  This individual may be near an airport, train terminal, bus station, or subway or in the process of hailing a taxicab.  Under these circumstances, the observation of inappropriate clothing for existing weather conditions probably would not constitute a clear indicator that the person may be concealing a firearm because such behavior could be completely understandable.  Alert investigators, however, may use these indicators as a reason to take a second, closer look and notice a slight bulge or protrusion or other physical behavior trait that confirms their suspicions.

Unconventional Firearms and Disguised Weapons

Fugitive recovery agents need to remain vigilant for a separate class of firearms designed for concealment. Generally constructed without sights, these weapons, referred to as “belly guns,” usually are inaccurate unless fired at a very close range. Manufacturers also have produced handguns and other weapons intentionally disguised as other objects, including pens, pagers, cell phones, belt buckles, and wallets. Thugs have related that they possessed such weapons to use against anyone who may overlook them during arrest or transport situations. The use of a hand-held magnetometer can assist in detecting these types of handguns and other potentially dangerous metal instruments, such as knives and razors.

Click here for a disguised weapons manual circulated among law enforcement professionals.

Click here for a second guide to additional unconventional hidden and concealed weapons.

Click here for real guns disguised as toys.

Studies indicate that there is no reliable profile of the people who carry and use weapons unlawfully; they are white, Latino, Asian every other race and ethnicity. They are male or female. They wear expensive clothing, including tailored suits, and they are from all socioeconomic classes. It is paramount that all subjects under your control, including those of the opposite sex, be searched for concealed weapons using optimum frisking and location techniques. Recovery agents must remain vigilant and constantly remind themselves that a recovery of a weapon from a suspect should never prohibit the continued search of the subject for additional weapons.

Use these tell-tales as a way to make you conscious of your own actions while wearing a concealed weapon as well.  Many investigators who I know carry concealed firearms tend to share many of the same habits, behavior traits and modes of dress discussed in this article. To a knowing individual, you may unconsciously telegraph your armed status in situations where it is best that the presence of a weapon remain concealed such as in an undercover workplace investigation or while conducting field interviews under some pretext.

Knowledge, awareness, clear thinking, and finely honed skills of observation may give investigators an advantage when confronting bail fugitives or their accomplices who may display the specific and unique signals indicating the presence of a firearm or other concealed weapon.  However, the absence of such traits and characteristics should never mean that a bail agent should let his or her guard down while in the presence of the fugitive and his or her associates.  At the end of the day, we all want to go home safely.

Be careful out there.

This article was written by L. Scott Harrell and is posted courtesy IRBseach, LLC.

IRBsearch offers The Most information, The Best data sources, and The Fastest delivery for locating people, businesses, and their assets. With one click you can search billions of records in just a fraction of a second.

The newly passed bill requires all process servers serving process in New York City adhere to the following:

• Obtain a license from the Department of Consumer Affairs (DCA)  and pass an examination on the New York Rules of Civil Procedure;
• Log all service attempts when serving papers with an electronic system (such as a GPS system);
• Maintain records and electronic service logs for a period of seven years;
• Independent process servers must obtain a $10,000 surety bond;
• Process serving companies must obtain a $100,000 surety bond with the city to guarantee compliance with the regulations;
• Provide a statement of employee rights and employer responsibilities to every process server under their employ; and
• Maintain signed documents that employees understand these rights and responsibilities.

The new NYC legislation (Int 0006-2010, Version A) reads as follows:

A Local Law to amend the administrative code of the city of New York, in relation to process servers.

Be it enacted by the Council as follows:

Section 1.  Section 20-403 of the administrative code of the city of New York is amended to read as follows:

a. Process server license. It shall be unlawful for any person to do business as, be employed as or perform the services of a process server without a license therefor.

b. Process serving agency license. It shall be unlawful for any process serving agency to assign or distribute process to individual process servers for actual service in the city of New York without a license therefore.

§2. Section 20-404 of the administrative code of the city of New York is amended to read as follows:

a. A process server is a person engaged in the business of serving or one who purports to serve or one who serves personally or by substituted service upon any person, corporation, governmental or political subdivision or agency, a summons, subpoena, notice, citation or other process, directing an appearance or response to a legal action, legal proceeding or administrative proceedings.

b. A process serving agency is any person, firm, partnership, association or corporation, other than an attorney or law firm located in this state, or city marshal, who maintains an office, bureau or agency, the purpose of which is to assign or distribute process to individual process servers for actual service in the city of New York.

c. For the purposes of this subchapter the service of five or more process in any one year shall be deemed to constitute doing business as a process server.

§3. Section 20-406 of the administrative code of the city of New York is amended by adding a new subdivision c to read as follows:

c. Each such applicant for a process server license or renewal thereof shall be required to pass an examination satisfactorily. Such examination shall be under the supervision of the commissioner and shall test the knowledge of the applicant concerning proper service of process within the city of New York and familiarity with relevant laws and rules.

§4. Subchapter 23 of chapter 2 of title 20 of the administrative code of the city of New York is amended by adding new sections, 20-406.1, 20-406.2, 20-406.3 and 20-406.4 to read as follows:

20-406.1 Bond required.

a. As a condition of the issuance of a process server license, each applicant for such license or a renewal thereof shall furnish to the commissioner a surety bond executed by the applicant in the sum of ten thousand dollars, payable to the city of New York, and a surety approved by the commissioner. Such bond shall be conditioned upon the applicant’s compliance with the provisions of this subchapter and any rules promulgated thereunder, and upon the further condition that the applicant will pay (i) to the city any fine, penalty or other obligation the city imposes relating to a violation of this subchapter and any rules promulgated thereunder, and (ii) to a plaintiff any final judgment recovered in an action arising out of  the violation of any of the provisions of this subchapter within thirty days of its imposition. If an applicant is unable to obtain a surety bond as required by this section, and upon the provision of proof satisfactory to the commissioner of such inability, the  individual applicant may, in lieu of furnishing such bond, deposit an amount of no less than one thousand dollars in a fund to be established by the commissioner to pay (i) to the city any fine, penalty or other obligation the city imposes relating to a violation of this subchapter and any rules promulgated thereunder, and (ii) to a plaintiff any final judgment recovered in an action arising out of  the violation of any of the provisions of this subchapter within thirty days of its imposition.

b. A process server licensed under this subchapter who engages in the business of serving process exclusively as an employee of a process serving agency licensed under this subchapter shall not be required to furnish a surety bond.

c. As a condition of the issuance of a process serving agency license, each applicant for such license or a renewal thereof shall furnish to the commissioner a surety bond in the sum of one hundred thousand dollars executed by the applicant payable to the city of New York, and a surety approved by the commissioner. Such bond shall be conditioned upon the applicant’s compliance with the provisions of this subchapter and any rules promulgated thereunder, and upon the further condition that the applicant will pay (i) to the city any fine, penalty or other obligation the city imposes relating to a violation of this subchapter and any rules promulgated thereunder, and (ii) to a plaintiff any final judgment recovered in an action arising out of  the violation of any of the provisions of this subchapter within thirty days of its imposition.

§20-406.2 Responsibilities of process serving agencies.

Every process serving agency licensed under this subchapter shall:

a. Comply with all applicable state and federal laws;

b. Be legally responsible for any failure to act in accordance with the laws and rules governing service of process by each process server to whom it has distributed, assigned or delivered process for service;

c. Provide to each process server employed by such agency a written statement indicating the rights of such employee and the obligations of the process serving agency under city, state and federal law. Such statement of rights and obligations shall include, but not be limited to, a general description of employee rights and employer obligations pursuant to laws regarding minimum wage, overtime and hours of work, record keeping, social security payments, unemployment insurance coverage, disability insurance coverage and workers’ compensation;

d. Keep on file in its principal place of business for a period of three (3) years a statement for each employee, signed by such employee, indicating that the employee read and understood the statement of rights and obligations such employee received pursuant to subdivision (c) of this section.

§20-406.3 Records, Audits.

a. Every process server and process serving agency licensed under this subchapter shall retain records in compliance with section 89-cc of the New York state general business law for no less than seven (7) years of each process served.  Such records shall be retained in electronic form.  Tampering with any such electronic records shall be prohibited.

b. A process server licensed under this subchapter who engages in the business of serving process exclusively as an employee of a process serving agency licensed under this subchapter shall not be subject to  the provisions of subdivision (a) of this section, but shall be required to comply with all other applicable laws.

c. The commissioner may conduct audits of the information required to be kept pursuant to subdivision (a) of this section in order to monitor compliance with this subchapter.

§20-406.4  Educational materials.

The commissioner shall develop educational materials to be provided to all process servers and process serving agencies licensed under this subchapter.  Such materials shall at a minimum identify the laws and regulations pertaining to service of process in the city of New York.

§5. Section 20-409 of the administrative code of the city of New York is amended by adding a new subdivision c to read as follows:

c. Upon application for renewal of a license issued pursuant to this subchapter, applicants subject to subdivision (a) of section 20-406.3 of this subchapter shall certify in writing compliance with the record keeping provisions of such section.

§6. Subchapter 23 of chapter 2 of title 20 of the administrative code of the city of New York is amended by adding new sections 20-409.1 and 20-409.2 to read as follows:

§20-409.1 Violations and penalties.

Any person who, after notice and hearing shall be found guilty of violating any provision of this subchapter, shall be punished in accordance with the provisions of chapter one of this title and shall be subject to a penalty of not less than seven hundred dollars nor more than one thousand dollars for each violation.

§20-409.2 Civil Cause of Action.

Any person injured by the failure of a process server to act in accordance with the laws and rules governing service of process in New York state, including this subchapter and regulations promulgated thereunder, shall have a cause of action against such process server and process serving agency, which distributed or assigned process for service, in any court of competent jurisdiction for any or all of the following relief:

a. compensatory and punitive damages, provided that punitive damages shall only be awarded in the case of willful failure to serve process;

b. injunctive and declaratory relief;

c. attorneys’ fees and costs; and

d. such other relief as a court may deem appropriate.

§20-409.3 Reporting.

Twenty-four months after the local law that added this section becomes effective, the commissioner shall submit a report to the speaker of the council regarding the effectiveness of these provisions on effectuating proper service and improving oversight over the process service industry. Such report shall include, among other things, the results of audits the commissioner has completed of process servers and process serving agencies, including information regarding their compliance with the provisions of this subchapter.

§ 7. Subchapter 23 of chapter 2 of title 20 of the administrative code of the city of New York is amended by adding a new section 20-410 to read as follows:

§ 20-410  Electronic record of service.

A process server licensed pursuant to this subchapter shall carry at all times during the commission of his or her licensed activities and operate at the time process is served or attempted an electronic device that uses a global positioning system, wi-fi device or other such technology as the Commissioner by rule shall prescribe to electronically establish and record the time, date, and location of service or attempted service.  All records created by such electronic device shall be maintained in an electronic database by the process server, or if such process server is acting exclusively as an employee of a process service agency, by the process service agency, for seven (7) years from the date such record is created.

§8. This local law shall take effect one hundred eighty days after enactment provided, however that the commissioner of consumer affairs shall take all actions necessary for its implementation, including the promulgation of rules, prior to such effective date and except that section 20-410 shall take effect sixty days after the adoption of rules promulgated pursuant to such section.

This article is posted courtesy IRBseach, LLC.

IRBsearch offers The Most information, The Best data sources, and The Fastest delivery for locating people, businesses, and their assets. With one click you can search billions of records in just a fraction of a second.

Access to professional databases, then and now, unquestionably give investigators the opportunity to make more money- even if you are one of those complaining about the cost. (You should have been around when the database companies charged you by the record and the time you were connected to their server! I have it on very good authority, that if it had been a slow month they would throttle back the connection speed to that they could charge more money for the time their clients were connected.) Taking 15 years of inflation and economic adjustments into account, a “comprehensive report” could cost as much as $45 in today’s currency.  Eventually, these commercial database providers evolved and acquired staggering amounts of data and technology made the data cheaper to serve then faster to sort through and obtain, which also made data more affordable.

What I didn’t immediately recognize back then was the legal minefields these databases would eventually become…

The days when just about anyone could gain access to data and pull information on friends, relatives, enemies and “lost loves” out of mere curiosity and a touch of voyeurism were short lived!  This fast and unfettered access to shocking amounts of “private information” horrified an unaware American public in a series of highly publicized stories of major data breeches, murders and an alarming rise in identity theft, which were all being connected in one way or another to professional information brokers.  This sudden awakening also gave rise to a new breed of political crusader; the privacy zealots were born.  It wasn’t long before these neo-politicos would begin to curry favor with their constituents by changing existing laws and producing new laws in an effort to protect consumer privacy.  Thankfully, the database and information brokers did form a trade group, Individual Reference Services Group (IRSG), and made earnest attempts to police themselves through what was coined the “IRSG Principles” whose aim was to educate their clients about the use of reference data, improve data quality, limit access to non-public data, improve security of sensitive data and to promote consumer choice in the marketplace.  While the effort was a little too late in coming and the IRSG eventually disbanded, these early attempts at preserving the professional investigator’s access to restricted information paid off.

The Fair Consumer Reporting Act (FCRA) was originally enacted in 1970 in an effort to address a growing credit reporting industry in the United States that collected and sold “consumer credit reports” and “investigative consumer reports.”  It was the first official act of Congress to define and place access/use restrictions on “non-public personal information.” Sweeping and substantial amendments to the FCRA were made in the Consumer Credit Reporting Reform Act of 1996 that further limited access to information contained in a consumer credit report through a set of “permissible purposes” that were loosely based upon the IRSG principles of access and would later be adopted by the Drivers Privacy Protection Act (DPPA) and the GLBA.  The FCRA also more narrowly defined how non-public personal information could be used and what disclosures had to be made when adverse information was used to make credit or employment decisions deemed unfavorable to the consumer.  While the FCRA did have a widespread effect on access to restricted data, it had the most chilling effect on private investigators and agencies that were in the business of pre-employment background screening. Background screening and FCRA compliance is a topic best served under a separate title.

The DPPA was passed as an amendment to the “Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994” in reaction to a series of abuses of information contained in State motor vehicle registration and driver’s license databases.  The murder of actress Rebecca Schaeffer in 1989 was paraded as one example of such an egregious misuse of this information. In that instance, a private investigator obtained Rebecca Schaeffer’s address through her California motor vehicle record and sold it to an obsessed fan who used that information to eventually stalk and kill the actress.  The act was amended again in 2000 to provide for even stricter privacy protocols; it more narrowly defined the available permissible purposes used to gain protected records and gave individual states increased power to enact broader protections than those authored by Congress in the DPPA.

A little over 10 years ago Congress also enacted the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Financial Modernization Act of 1999 (GLBA) “to enhance competition in the financial services industry by providing a prudential framework for the affiliation of banks, securities firms, and other financial service providers, and for other purposes.”  These other purposes would famously include comprehensive privacy protection and access restrictions to non-public personal information derived from data obtained, developed and shared by financial institutions.

In the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) article, “Victoria’s Secret and Financial Privacy,” the author wrote, “Outside the Beltway, it is not well known that a Victoria’s Secret catalog is one of the key reasons that Congress included privacy protections for financial information when passing the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLBA). The GLBA sought to “modernize” financial services- that is, end regulations that prevented the merger of banks, stock brokerage companies, and insurance companies. The removal of these regulations raised significant risks that these new financial institutions would have access to an incredible amount of personal information, with no restrictions upon its use…”

“In a session where House Commerce Committee Members “marked up” a draft version of the GLBA, Representative Ed Markey (D-MA) introduced an amendment that would add privacy protections. The Markey Amendment was strongly opposed by the banking industry. It added “Title V” to the Act, giving individuals notice and an ability to control some information sharing…” and “Prospects for privacy protection remained dim despite a series of testimonials by Members who recounted their experiences of having their Social Security Numbers and financial information sold…”

However, critical support for the Title V Amendment came from Representative Joe Barton, a conservative Republican and privacy advocate from Texas, who was outraged and embarrassed that he started receiving Victoria’s Secrets catalogs at his Washington, D.C. residence- the address to which he had only given to his Credit Union.

The article went on to say that, “Barton expressed concern that his credit union had sold his address to Victoria’s Secret. Representative Barton noted that he started receiving Victoria’s Secret catalogs at his Washington home. This was troubling- he didn’t want his wife thinking that he bought lingerie for women in Washington, or that he spent his time browsing through such material.”

On the heels of that experience, Barton supported prohibiting financial institutions from selling their customer’s personal information.  The GLBA, with the newly appended “Title V Privacy” amendment, was then approved by Congress.  It should also be noted that Barton’s ex-wife went on to become a victim of identity theft as well and he has used these issues to further identity theft and personal information privacy legislation.

Thus protecting the privacy of consumer information held by “financial institutions” became the heart of the financial privacy provisions of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Financial Modernization Act of 1999 and there are essentially three principal parts of Title V, the privacy provision in the GLBA: the Financial Privacy Rule, Safeguards Rule and pretexting provisions.  The Financial Privacy Rule regulates the collection and disclosure of customers’ personal financial information by financial institutions. It also applies to companies, whether or not they are financial institutions, who receive such information.  The Safeguards Rule requires all financial institutions to create and deploy safeguards to protect customer information. The Safeguards Rule applies not only to financial institutions that collect information from their own customers, but also to financial institutions “such as credit reporting agencies” that receive customer information from other financial institutions.  Subtitle B of the GLBA titled “Fraudulent Access to Financial Information,” prohibits the practice commonly referred to by private investigators as “Pretexting” in order to obtain personal financial information.  It is important to note that this law also makes soliciting of others to engage in pretexting a crime as well.  In several (very well-publicized) instances the Federal Trade Commission has brought cases against information brokers who engaged in obtaining protected information under false pretense.

So what does the GLBA really mean to the professional investigator as it relates to gaining access to sensitive, non-public personal information on subject’s whom they may be investigating?

Statistically speaking only 458 words out of the over 60,000 words in the GLBA apply to professional database providers and their clients. If an investigator has in the past several years attempted to gain access to GLBA protected data from a professional provider these words should be very familiar as they form the basis of the general exceptions under which non-public personal information can be disclosed to our clients:

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

TITLE V – PRIVACY

Subtitle A – Disclosure of Nonpublic Personal Information

SEC. 502. OBLIGATIONS WITH RESPECT TO DISCLOSURES OF PERSONAL INFORMATION.

Subsection (e):

GENERAL EXCEPTIONS. – Subsections (a) and (b) shall not prohibit the disclosure of nonpublic personal information-

(1) as necessary to effect, administer, or enforce a transaction requested or authorized by the consumer, or in connection with-
(A) servicing or processing a financial product or service requested or authorized by the consumer;
(B) maintaining or servicing the consumer’s account with the financial institution, or with another entity as part of a private label credit card program or other extension of credit on behalf of such entity; or
(C) a proposed or actual securitization, secondary market sale (including sales of servicing rights), or similar transaction related to a transaction of the consumer;

(2) with the consent or at the direction of the consumer;

(3) (A) to protect the confidentiality or security of the financial institution’s records pertaining to the consumer, the service or product, or the transaction therein;
(B) to protect against or prevent actual or potential fraud, unauthorized transactions, claims, or other liability;
(C) for required institutional risk control, or for resolving customer disputes or inquiries;
(D) to persons holding a legal or beneficial interest relating to the consumer; or
(E) to persons acting in a fiduciary or representative capacity on behalf of the consumer;

(4) to provide information to insurance rate advisory organizations, guaranty funds or agencies, applicable rating agencies of the financial institution, persons assessing the institution’s compliance with industry standards, and the institution’s attorneys, accountants, and auditors;

(5) to the extent specifically permitted or required under other provisions of law and in accordance with the Right to Financial Privacy Act of 1978, to law enforcement agencies (including a Federal functional regulator, the Secretary of the Treasury with respect to subchapter II of chapter 53 of title 31, United States Code, and chapter 2 of title I of Public Law 91–508 (12 U.S.C. 1951–1959), a State insurance authority, or the Federal Trade Commission), self-regulatory organizations, or for an investigation on a matter related to public safety;

(6) (A) to a consumer reporting agency in accordance with the Fair Credit Reporting Act, or
(B) from a consumer report reported by a consumer reporting agency;

(7) in connection with a proposed or actual sale, merger, transfer, or exchange of all or a portion of a business or operating unit if the disclosure of nonpublic personal information concerns solely consumers of such business or unit; or

(8) to comply with Federal, State, or local laws, rules, and other applicable legal requirements; to comply with a properly authorized civil, criminal, or regulatory investigation or subpoena or summons by Federal, State, or local authorities; or to respond to judicial process or government regulatory authorities having jurisdiction over the financial institution for examination, compliance, or other purposes as authorized by law.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Generally speaking, private investigators should really be more concerned about running afoul of individual state privacy breach laws that have far-reaching civil and criminal implications.  Data breach laws are vastly different from state to state and some have provisions in them allowing state agencies to pursue enforcement actions against violators located well beyond state lines.

This new reality means that someone with access to GLBA protected data has to be extremely careful when considering whether or not they really have a “permissible purpose.” In an age when information returned in database searches are most probably obtained from sources outside of the state in which the investigator is conducting his or her investigation, it is entirely possible to run afoul of several state data breach laws if not extremely careful.  For example, did you know that it is against North Carolina data breach laws to even speak about protected, personally identifiable information with someone who is not authorized to be in possession of that data?

Generally, the GLBA affects professional investigators in the following three ways:

1.  The GLBA reaffirms, reinforces and then expands upon the FCRA’s definition of “non-public personal information;” most importantly, the GLBA limits access to credit headers because they are a part of the consumer credit report, which is information developed by financial institutions. Credit header information forms the basis of almost all of the information contained in “people search” products and is the foundation upon which all “comprehensive report” database products are built!

Information in the header, or top most portion, of the consumer credit report was once not considered to be derived from financial information because it did not include banking information, credit accounts or financial profiles, per se. The credit header only contained personal identifier information, (name, aliases, date of birth and social security number) current reported address and a list of previously reported addresses. That changed in 2002 when the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia affirmed rulings in TransUnion v. FTC, No. 01-5202 (D.C. Cir. 2002) and in IRSG v. FTC, 145 F. Supp. 2d 6, No. 00-1828 (D.D.C. 2001) when both TransUnion, one of the top three consumer reporting agencies, and the IRSG were both unsuccessful in lawsuits against the FTC that were filed in their efforts to overturn GLBA privacy regulations and to have certain data (i.e. credit header information) excluded from the Financial Privacy Rule and the Safeguards Rule specifically.

2.  The GLBA requires those who possess GLBA-protected data to secure and prevent the unauthorized distribution of that data unless the intended receiver is also permitted by exception under the GLBA.

3. The GLBA provides severe civil penalties for unauthorized access to data (a data breach) and those who access the information in contravention of the GLBA.  States also have the power to provide for broader protection of non-public private information and to further define what constitutes a data breach and the “reasonable risk of harm” to their citizens.

Why is GLBA compliant data more expensive to obtain than non-GLB compliant data?

It’s better. Plain and simple- you get what you pay for.  The difference between the investigator barely making it and the one who is successful in his or her own business comes down to the quality of their tools.  The investigator using the $.50 “people search” or the $1.00 “criminal history search” is using the same information being marketed and sold to the average consumer.  I have never purchased data at cut rate prices and not expected to get stale, outdated data.  It is more expensive for the top-tier, professional data provider to obtain fresh updates to the information I need and I understand that.  Using data sourced from a professional provider, I can find the lead that will close those cases that others cannot.

I also want access to non-traditional sources of information.  Professional database companies are actively out looking for data from other “buckets of information” in order to be the best database provider in the industry.  This creatively sourced data is usually only available to companies with the financial capital to afford it.

Ultimately, I want access to billions of records updated everyday… not hundreds of thousands updated once a year and only the top-tier companies can manage that- they also happen to be GLBA compliant.

Database providers have become the convenient, if not vogue, coat hook on which the privacy hawks have hung their hats lately.  It will not be long before they begin to target the consumers of that data as well.  So, the bottom line for me is this:  I choose professional, top-tier GLBA data providers because…

1.  I have a PI license.  I had to go through a great deal of effort and expense to get and keep that license and it is valuable to me.  I want access to information not available to the public and I want to do a better job than my competition.  There are permissible purposes that allow me, as an investigative professional, access to non-public personal information and I understand that I will have to prove that I run a legitimate company, which will mean extra paperwork and time getting properly vetted before being approved for access.  I don’t want to do business with a company that is double-dealing while trying to compete with me by playing both the “business to business market” (me) and the “business to consumer market” (John Q. Public) at the same time.

2.  I need to know where my data comes from, where it was sourced and when it was last updated.  If (when) I am called to court to justify the findings of my investigation, I expect that the foundation upon which I built my investigation is solid. An established professional database provider knows where, when and how his or her data is sourced and takes steps to make sure that it is not collected or shared contrary to the law.  Cut-rate providers don’t usually know exactly where their records are sourced- are they GLB-protected or not? I NEED to know in order to stay out of trouble.  Who will be there to stand behind their data if called upon to do so?  I want to know more about where my data comes from, too, and a professional is not afraid to share that information.

3.  Professional database providers take the time and effort to train me to be a better investigator and how best to use their product and gain maximum advantage over non-clients, while potentially saving some money on my monthly search bill.  I respect the professional database provider that will tell me that his or her product is not the same as other database providers and helps me understand the strengths and weaknesses of each so that I can use the right tool for the job.  My database providers of choice each regularly tell me that I need to subscribe to multiple sources of information.

4.  I am not an expert on the GLBA, FCRA, DPPA, FDCPA, HIPPA, the Identity Theft Act of 2004 or the data breach laws of 50 individual states; when I have compliance questions I can call someone who understands complex compliance issues.  Professional database companies spend a great deal of time and money to educate their clients.  I expect that level of quality customer service and that if I use their service as prescribed that I will not get into trouble.

5.  Professional database companies materially support the investigation industry.  National and State industry associations do very important work and need the financial support of sponsors.  Database providers contribute to important causes and fund the ongoing fight to preserve my access to the information vital to the success of my business.  I will support those who support me.

This article was written by L. Scott Harrell and is posted courtesy IRBseach, LLC.

IRBsearch offers The Most information, The Best data sources, and The Fastest delivery for locating people, businesses, and their assets. With one click you can search billions of records in just a fraction of a second.