Comments on: How to Conduct an Effective Sub Rosa Investigation http://pursuitmag.com/how-to-conduct-an-effective-sub-rosa-investigation/ A Magazine for Private Investigators and other Investigation Professionals Mon, 21 May 2012 18:37:40 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: Scott Stys http://pursuitmag.com/how-to-conduct-an-effective-sub-rosa-investigation/#comment-1099 Scott Stys Fri, 13 Jan 2012 00:42:01 +0000 http://pursuitmag.com/?p=15131#comment-1099 Mike, I'm going to differ with you a little bit in that generally, subrosa in the public domain does not require a reason. When it's a workers' compensation claim, which is the primary focus of this article, an articulable suspicion is required. (at least here in CA). This is pulled from an article, but worth reading further... Civil Code 1708.8(g) requires that there be a "showing" that is supported by "articulable suspicion of suspected illegal activity, violation of an administrative rule, fraudulent insurance claim, or other suspected fraudulent conduct or activity". Business and Professions Code 6521 requires that investigators be licensed. Civil Code 1708(g) would appear to require that the decision to take film or video be based on an articulable suspicion, not simply on a generalized hope that something will turn up in the surveillance. Scott Mike,
I’m going to differ with you a little bit in that generally, subrosa in the public domain does not require a reason. When it’s a workers’ compensation claim, which is the primary focus of this article, an articulable suspicion is required. (at least here in CA).

This is pulled from an article, but worth reading further…
Civil Code 1708.8(g) requires that there be a “showing” that is supported by “articulable suspicion of suspected illegal activity, violation of an administrative rule, fraudulent insurance claim, or other suspected fraudulent conduct or activity”. Business and Professions Code 6521 requires that investigators be licensed.

Civil Code 1708(g) would appear to require that the decision to take film or video be based on an articulable suspicion, not simply on a generalized hope that something will turn up in the surveillance.

Scott

]]> By: Scott Stys http://pursuitmag.com/how-to-conduct-an-effective-sub-rosa-investigation/#comment-1101 Scott Stys Fri, 13 Jan 2012 00:42:01 +0000 http://pursuitmag.com/?p=15131#comment-1101 Mike, I'm going to differ with you a little bit in that generally, subrosa in the public domain does not require a reason. When it's a workers' compensation claim, which is the primary focus of this article, an articulable suspicion is required. (at least here in CA). This is pulled from an article, but worth reading further... Civil Code 1708.8(g) requires that there be a "showing" that is supported by "articulable suspicion of suspected illegal activity, violation of an administrative rule, fraudulent insurance claim, or other suspected fraudulent conduct or activity". Business and Professions Code 6521 requires that investigators be licensed. Civil Code 1708(g) would appear to require that the decision to take film or video be based on an articulable suspicion, not simply on a generalized hope that something will turn up in the surveillance. Scott Mike,
I’m going to differ with you a little bit in that generally, subrosa in the public domain does not require a reason. When it’s a workers’ compensation claim, which is the primary focus of this article, an articulable suspicion is required. (at least here in CA).

This is pulled from an article, but worth reading further…
Civil Code 1708.8(g) requires that there be a “showing” that is supported by “articulable suspicion of suspected illegal activity, violation of an administrative rule, fraudulent insurance claim, or other suspected fraudulent conduct or activity”. Business and Professions Code 6521 requires that investigators be licensed.

Civil Code 1708(g) would appear to require that the decision to take film or video be based on an articulable suspicion, not simply on a generalized hope that something will turn up in the surveillance.

Scott

]]> By: Mike Ledgerwood http://pursuitmag.com/how-to-conduct-an-effective-sub-rosa-investigation/#comment-1098 Mike Ledgerwood Thu, 12 Jan 2012 23:36:46 +0000 http://pursuitmag.com/?p=15131#comment-1098 I agree with this article very well written. However this comment: "Using surveillance arbitrarily is unlawful" is not true. By definition, surveillance is the act of watching someones activities in the public domain. One does not need a reason to place someone under surveillance as no law requires it. Falsifying a reason to obtain things you normally are not entitled to, such as medical records, would be illegal. Randomly placing an employee under surveillance and watching them in the public domain is not illegal. No expectation to privacy exists in the public domain. I agree with this article very well written. However this comment: “Using surveillance arbitrarily is unlawful” is not true. By definition, surveillance is the act of watching someones activities in the public domain. One does not need a reason to place someone under surveillance as no law requires it. Falsifying a reason to obtain things you normally are not entitled to, such as medical records, would be illegal. Randomly placing an employee under surveillance and watching them in the public domain is not illegal.

No expectation to privacy exists in the public domain.

]]> By: Mike Ledgerwood http://pursuitmag.com/how-to-conduct-an-effective-sub-rosa-investigation/#comment-1100 Mike Ledgerwood Thu, 12 Jan 2012 23:36:46 +0000 http://pursuitmag.com/?p=15131#comment-1100 I agree with this article very well written. However this comment: "Using surveillance arbitrarily is unlawful" is not true. By definition, surveillance is the act of watching someones activities in the public domain. One does not need a reason to place someone under surveillance as no law requires it. Falsifying a reason to obtain things you normally are not entitled to, such as medical records, would be illegal. Randomly placing an employee under surveillance and watching them in the public domain is not illegal. No expectation to privacy exists in the public domain. I agree with this article very well written. However this comment: “Using surveillance arbitrarily is unlawful” is not true. By definition, surveillance is the act of watching someones activities in the public domain. One does not need a reason to place someone under surveillance as no law requires it. Falsifying a reason to obtain things you normally are not entitled to, such as medical records, would be illegal. Randomly placing an employee under surveillance and watching them in the public domain is not illegal.

No expectation to privacy exists in the public domain.

]]>