Colorado Private Investigators | Denver Investigations

On January 23, 2012, the US Supreme Court issued a ruling in the case of the United States vs. Jones which will likely set the precedence for future legislation of the use of GPS tracking devices. The ruling reversed a prior conviction against Respondent Antoine Jones. In the ruling, the Supreme Court noted the admission of evidence obtained by government agents was obtained without a valid warrant, and thus violated the Fourth Amendment.

This recent ruling raises the question of, “What does this mean for the private sector?” Private investigators, process servers, and private individuals for that matter are unlike law enforcement and government agents that have the ability to obtain warrants, so this ruling doesn’t impact the private sector, right? Actually, this recent ruling begins to lay the foundation for how the use of GPS tracking devices will be allowed for both government and private sectors. The term ‘Big Brother’ from George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four is a synonym typically used for the abuse of government power, and particularly when describing the government’s use of surveillance. It is the responsibility of professional investigators to not allow this term to become associated and perpetuated by the media to the use of surveillance in the private sector.

Let’s take a look at a worst case scenario, yet a very typical phone call that a private investigator receives from a private party. If you are an investigator who offers domestic, infidelity, or child custody investigations you have no doubt received this type of call. The potential client, in this case a male, requests to have a GPS tracking device placed on his girlfriend’s vehicle, perhaps because of the suspicion of infidelity. At this point, there should already be red flags, or at the very minimum, questions that should concern you and compel you to find out more. The experienced investigator will likely see the potential pitfalls on the backside of this case. However, at this point I will limit the topic of this article to focus primarily on the use of GPS tracking devices. So the inexperienced investigator accepts the case and proceeds.

The inexperienced investigator subsequently finds out the client’s girlfriend does not reside with the client. She actually resides in a house with a driveway, and she happens to park her vehicle outside in the driveway. The instructions from the client are to keep this assignment completely covert, as he is attempting to determine if his infidelity suspicions on the part of his girlfriend can be confirmed. Also, the client has only authorized a few hours of investigative time, and at this time the client only wishes to document the comings and goings of his girlfriend from the convenience of his home computer. The client has, however, dangled the carrot by indicating there is the potential to authorize surveillance depending on what the GPS tracking documentation reveals.

The inexperienced investigator, eager to please his/her client, proceeds to devise a plan of action. The investigator will wait until late at night and place the GPS tracking device on the underside of the vehicle of the client’s “girlfriend”. (Notice I have now placed the word girlfriend in quotations as the investigator is under the assumption that his client is telling the truth). The investigator successfully places the device on the vehicle by crawling under the vehicle at night without being seen. The investigator has now left himself / herself susceptible to being charged with trespassing as well as tampering. However, at this point in time, the investigator doesn’t have the slightest idea of the consequences that are to come.      

The investigator, excited to have completed the assignment within the hours of authority, notifies the client. The client then proceeds to document the whereabouts of the vehicle that the GPS tracking device has been attached to. The client immediately notices the vehicle is spending time at a particular location, in this case a private residence where a male who the client is familiar with is known to reside. The client goes on to make accusations and threats against his “girlfriend” and goes as far as to tell her that he knows where she is going because he had Mr./Ms. Inexperienced Investigator place a GPS tracking device on her vehicle.

The “girlfriend”, extremely emotional and distraught, goes on to file charges against the investigator’s client. The investigator is also ordered to appear in court and is slapped with trespassing, tampering, and harassment/stalking charges. In court proceedings the inexperienced investigator finds out that his/her client and the “girlfriend”, who at this point will be referred to as the subject, are no longer involved in a relationship. The subject only briefly dated the client, never lived together, and in fact broke the relationship off due to control issues the client exhibited. The client went on to continue harassing the subject, compelling her to file a restraining order against him, all prior to the investigator being hired to place the tracking device on the subject’s vehicle.

Regardless of the outcome of the charges brought against the investigator, the PI knows that he/she undoubtedly faces an immediate future of several thousands of dollars in legal fees, not to mention time off work to attend to court matters.

To make matters worse, the client finds out that the GPS tracking device only tracks what it’s been placed on, in this case a car registered to the subject. During court proceedings, the client finds out the subject’s sister had recently moved in with the subject and was borrowing the subject’s vehicle and driving it to the residence of the male the client is familiar with. The client, in his haste and anger, realized he had prematurely jumped to conclusions and assumed the subject was at the male’s residence simply because the vehicle was there.

So can a private investigator, process server, or any private individual use GPS tracking devices for any type of case? There are many uses for GPS tracking devices, and without going into the endless numbers of scenarios for their use, I’ve broken them down into 3 categories, with increasing risk of legal implications. Remember, these categories will describe the uses of GPS tracking devices for the private sector, where there are no warrants issued by a judge.

In the first category of use, all parties, to include the individual(s) whom the vehicle is registered to and driver(s) of the vehicle are aware of and consenting to the use of the GPS tracking device. In essence, it’s a completely overt use of the tracking technology. The most typical examples of this would be in the case of an employer tracking the use of company vehicles used by employees, or a concerned parent tracking a vehicle being used by their teen son/daughter. These drivers would be likely to consent to the use of a GPS tracking device because they are borrowing and operating the vehicle of the owner. Since all parties are aware and consenting of the use of the GPS tracking technology, the chances of any negative legal action taken against the client or the investigator are minimal. However, keep in mind a GPS tracker cannot be continued or discontinued on-demand the way physical surveillance can. A GPS tracking device cannot determine if the individual is proceeding from public property onto private property. Also keep in mind the registrant(s) or driver(s) of the vehicle can potentially retract their consent during the time the GPS tracker is being used.

In the second category of use, all of the registrant(s) are consenting. However one or more drivers of the vehicle are non-consenting to the use of the GPS device. In this category, there is an element of covert tracking. The typical example of this scenario is in the case of a married couple, where one person owns the vehicle and suspects the other of infidelity. The owner of the vehicle might confidently believe they have every right to know the whereabouts of their property without the driver’s consent. However, the driver(s) of the vehicle could potentially claim their privacy was invaded. The investigator must be aware of messy pending divorce situations where one party has moved out of the client’s residence, or where there is a history of domestic violence, restraining orders, harassment/stalking charges, etc. Since the use of the technology is covert, it can also bring into question whether the driver is being tracked on private property, and thus having his/her expectation of privacy violated. For the investigator as well as for the private party, the legal liability for placing and/or using the GPS tracker under this type of category begins to increase.   

In the third category of use, and the one with the most pitfalls for any private party involved with the placement of the GPS tracking device, one or more of the registrant(s) is non-consenting to the use of the device. Again, this falls under covert use of the technology. The worst case scenario used earlier in this article is an example of this type of use. It typically involves the boyfriend/girlfriend scenario, but can sometimes involve married parties, where the client’s (or user of the GPS tracker if done without hiring a PI) name is either not on the vehicle registration, or is only one of the names on the registration. Note that in this scenario, I didn’t mention the consent/non-consent of the driver as it becomes irrelevant. The driving, and thus critical factor for this category isn’t the non-consent of the driver(s), it’s the non-consent of the registrant(s). In the rare case that the client/user of the technology IS the driver, there are more effective ways to utilize GPS tracking, such as with a cell phone or other device that can be worn/carried on that person. Also note this category can include the scenario where all of the registrant(s) are non-consenting. A common request that fits this scenario is when an employee wants to have a GPS device placed on the vehicle of a co-worker, or an employer who wants to have the device placed on the personal vehicle of the employee. The use of GPS tracking devices in the tracking of claimants in worker’s compensation cases typically fits in this category. I highly recommend that any investigator who values their license and career not use GPS trackers that fall in this category. 

I will likely hear of scenarios that will challenge whether there should be more than three categories, and I certainly welcome them. For example, some investigators have probably already thought, “What about the client who hires the PI to place a GPS tracking device and conduct surveillance on a spouse who rents a car at an airport?” If the investigator did not obtain the consent of the car rental company, this scenario would fall under the last and riskiest category of use. If the investigator was charming enough to convince the rental car company of consent, the use would fall under the second category of use. Taxis, leased vehicles, etc. all fit in one of the 3 categories listed above.

In conclusion, it is the responsibility of the user of the GPS tracking technology, whether a private investigator, process server, or the private party, to know and understand the risks associated with the different uses of GPS trackers. Particularly in states such as Colorado where there are no current state laws regarding the use of this technology, the waters are still murky. The recent Supreme Court ruling clearly indicates government and law enforcement agents can’t carelessly use this technology for any or no reason at all. With GPS tracking use, the old saying, “Err on the side of caution” certainly holds true.

This article was originally written for inclusion in the Professional Private Investigators Association of Colorado’s PPIAC Quarterly Newsletter. For more information, please click on the following link: http://ppiac.org/newsletter

Attention Attorneys, Paralegals, Insurance Professionals, and Anyone who Relies on Open Records Access. This may affect due diligence and records retrieval on your cases! 

Advanced Professional Investigations wants to bring awareness to a bill which will limit open records access in Colorado. HB12-1036 is veiled as a “Clarification” but in reality restricts access defined in the Colorado Open Records Act.

Colorado private investigators and our colleagues nationwide, are concerned about this bill in its current form. There is no provided foundation addressing the need for clarification, and there are no guidelines for denial of records, only at the discretion of the custodian of records. That is dangerous to our profession, and the citizens of Colorado for whom Open Records are designed so that they can be informed and represented by their government.  This bill as introduced does not specify any department, office, or agency for which it applies – and specifically does not mention the AG’s office or limit to an active investigation. The bill gives complete discretion to the custodian of records, which are agents and clerks who are often far removed from those that may have a different intent for the purpose of not disclosing specific records. There is no provision for what would constitute public interest. Moreover, ‘public interest’ is both not defined in any statute, and the concept of open records is expressly for the purpose of ‘public interest’.

Here’s the latest update on HB1036. This bill, which the Professional Private Investigators Association of Colorado has opposed from the onset, was met with resistance at the Senate Judiciary hearing in Denver, CO. Several of the Senate Judiciary Committee members had the same concerns PPIAC has regarding the bill. The committee members questioned the proponents of the bill with these concerns. It seems the concerns were not adequately addressed by the proponents, as the committee Chair Morgan Carroll decided to lay over the vote on this bill while the committee gathers more information and even contemplates amendments.

Keep sending those letters! Make sure you voice your concerns to the committee if you have not already done so. It is making a difference! However, let’s not leave anything to chance. Now that there’s more time to work with before the vote, get the word out. Please send attorneys and media contacts a link to the bill so they are aware of the impacts it will have to their businesses and professions! Here is the link to the reengrossed, and most current version of the bill: http://www.leg.state.co.us/clics/clics2012a/csl.nsf/billcontainers/F910975289BD2B1D87257981007F3A47/$FILE/1036_rn2.pdf

For more information on PPIAC please visit http://ppiac.org

Private investigators all across Colorado and for that matter all across the country continue to anxiously await the implementation of Colorado’s licensing program, which comes closer to becoming reality with each day that passes. Shortly after DORA set the licensing fee at $320, the Professional Private Investigators Association of Colorado met with DORA in Denver to gain an understanding of how the Colorado PI license fee was determined. Thanks to the many who filled out the PI licensing questionnaire (which at last count there are 335 responses) DORA took that information and used it to help set the fee. Setting the licensing fee at $320 is a huge victory for Colorado investigators, as other states have much larger fees and Colorado’s initial fee is one of the more reasonable ones around. DORA indicated if everybody who had previously indicated their interest in a license follows through and obtains their initial license in 2012 when they are available and subsequently renews in 2013, it is possible that the second time renewal fee will be lower. Again, the more people get involved in the program in 2012, subsequent renewals may be lower, but that is very dependent on the early initial applications.. For more information on the implementation of the licensing program, please visit: http://www.dora.state.co.us/private-investigator/index.htm

Please save that link and visit it often, as there will be several important licensing updates that DORA will release from now until July. The DORA website also contains a FAQ tab and other information related to the PI licensing program.

The DORA rules hearing, where testimony was heard with regard to the proposed rules for the licensing program went fairly quickly without a great deal of discussion. The rules were to be adopted on March 9th and have now been released on DORA’s PI licensing web page.

In Denver, Colorado  HB12-1231, concerning DMV records and the licensed PI has passed through both the House and the Senate and was recently signed into law by the Colorado Governor. This is the bill that will bring the Colorado DPPA in line with the Federal DPPA. For those who are not aware of the history, the Federal DPPA recognized the licensed private investigator when requesting records from the Department of Motor Vehicles. This bill will not restrict access to anyone, including a non-licensed PI from obtaining DMV records. What I believe this bill will do, will be to provide the foundation, the building blocks if you will, for licensed private investigators to maintain access to DMV records. Now that Colorado will offer licenses to private investigators, it will be important for the profession to separate itself from being seen as the general public. So while the general public will likely continue to see records access eroded away, licensed and vetted private investigators will be able to hold themselves to a higher level of professionalism and accountability than the general public.

So here I’ve waited close to a year to be able to answer the question, “What value is there in a VOLUNTARY license? Isn’t it just a feel-good license?” In less than one year, and before the licensing program goes into effect, the Colorado Legislature has passed a bill which recognizes the licensed private investigator in terms of records requests. The Colorado Legislature needed a licensing law, and hence a definition for a private investigator in statute, before they could begin addressing the needs of the profession. Ultimately, PIs in Colorado have been getting regulated out of records access without licensure. Colorado PIs have already had several tools of our trade taken away, and the PPIAC Board realized there can’t be any exceptions for what is not defined. Many of us do not like regulation, but living with the alternative is to not earn a living.

On to HB12-1036, the CORA bill. This bill has moved its way to the Senate, and its first stop in the Senate is in the Judiciary Committee. Updates on this bill will come suddenly and frequently, so keep your eye out for updates.

The Professional Private Investigators Association of Colorado’s Annual Conference has been slated for October 18th-20th at the Antlers Hilton in Colorado Springs. I was driving through Colorado Springs the other day and took a drive by the hotel. It looks like it will be a great location to hold the conference. Be on the lookout for further information. In the meantime, here is the link to the hotel website: http://www.antlers.com/

Professional Private Investigators Association of Colorado Senior Member Ricky Bennett will be the presenter of PPIAC’s first Quarterly Training Session which is scheduled for March 16th, 2012 with a venue in the Denver metro area.  Mr. Bennett will present a day-long class on Interviews. Keep an eye out on VP of Training Tan Smyth’s announcement for further details.
300. Most of us, when we hear this number, the first thing that might come to mind is the blockbuster movie that was released a few years ago. However, that number also holds a great deal of significance to Colorado private investigators. 300 (and counting) are the number of private investigators that are interested in Colorado’s Voluntary Private Investigator License. The spreadsheet with the contact information of the 300 was presented to Colorado’s Department of Regulatory Agencies. Further information can be located at http://www.dora.state.co.us/private-investigator/index.htm
PPIAC is diligently monitoring bills that have recently been introduced at the 2012 Colorado Legislative Session. HB12-1036, which is to provide clarification to the Colorado Open Records Act, was recently introduced and could potentially have a significant impact to private investigators if passed. The two page bill, which seeks to provide clarification of the exemption from the Colorado Open Records Act, might appear to be non-impactful, but it is far from it. In its current form, the bill specifies that the custodian of records may deny the right of inspection, on the ground that disclosure to the applicant would be contrary to the public interest, any records of the investigations conducted by any sheriff, prosecuting attorney, or police department, or any investigatory files compiled for any other civil, administrative, or criminal law enforcement purpose. Can there possibly be a much larger swath of a denial of records at the discretion of the custodian? Keep in mind these files were previously viewable in accordance to the Open Records Act. PPIAC has been working to create exemptions for licensed private investigators. If exemptions for licensed private investigators cannot be achieved, PPIAC will likely have no choice but to oppose this bill in its entirety alongside other opponents. You can read the bill by going to http://www.leg.state.co.us/clics/clics2012a/csl.nsf/fsbillcont3/F910975289BD2B1D87257981007F3A47?open&file=1036_01.pdf
HB12-1231, with regards to the Colorado Driver’s Privacy Protection Act, looks to be a much friendlier bill to the investigative profession. This bill seeks to bring the Colorado DPPA in line with the Federal DPPA. The PPIAC Board has not had the opportunity to review this bill, and thus has not taken an official position on the bill, but I anticipate the bill will receive the support of the association as it recognizes the licensed private investigator when requesting records from the Colorado Department of Motor Vehicles.
In the last couple of years, there has been an ever-increasing concern and focus on privacy, identity theft protection, and limiting access to public records. While legislators may introduce bills with good intentions, many of these bills can quickly go awry if not closely monitored and guided by PPIAC. It’s this type of legislative representation where an association can demonstrate its value and importance to its membership, and it’s this type of legislative representation PPIAC continues to provide for the benefit of the members year in and year out.
Please consider joining PPIAC in March for a Background/Integrity Interviews topic presented by Steve and Erica Davis.

Passing a licensing bill into law was a significant accomplishment for Colorado private investigators, one that was 34 years in the making. After the analysis of all the other PI licensing laws across the country, Colorado private investigators really took an unconventional approach. The approach would be a fist of it’s kind voluntary license. A voluntary licensing program was the best solution that Colorado investigators could put forth to satisfy all the investigative professionals who were involved or potentially affected. For those who desired or needed a Colorado license, they will finally have one available. For those who do not want a Colorado license, they simply need not opt in. For those who strive to be licensed but may not yet meet the qualifications, they are able to continue working toward their goal of qualifying for a license unimpeded.
When I first heard about a voluntary approach, I had a difficult time understanding what this approach would accomplish. After giving a few days of thought to the idea, it struck me how creative and effective this licensing program truly could be. The idea then seemed head-smackingly simple. Colorado will offer a license only to those who want it and qualify for it.
However, it’s important to understand that a voluntary licensing program is actually a leap of faith program. The only way for the program to be successful in the long term will be for enough investigators to sign up and pay the fees necessary to sustain the operational costs needed to run the program. Colorado’s voluntary license was designed to be available not just to Colorado investigators but to anyone else in the US who met the qualifications and wanted a PI license. The eyes of PI’s all across the country will be on Colorado’s licensing program in 2012.

To submit your interest in Colorado’s licensing program, please visit http://licensing.ppiac.net

Recent Colorado medical marijuana legislation passed at the Denver Capitol has caused a rise in the use and abuse of that drug in the workplace. Drug use in the workplace is a type of misconduct that employers should curb, as this type of behavior can be costly down the road. Drug use, to include illegal drugs, alcohol, and even the abuse of prescription drugs can impair an employee’s ability to perform their work functions in a safe manner. An employee who is impaired is more likely to suffer an injury in the workplace, and can subsequently claim worker’s compensation benefits as a result of the injury. Impaired employees are also a danger to others around them, which increases liability to the employer. Impaired employees in general can be less productive and less efficient than those who are not.
Other behaviors which could fall under employee misconduct include falsely claiming sick days, falsely claiming FMLA ( Family Medical Leave Act ), claiming lack of transportation, inaccessible roads, involvement in vehicular accidents, breakdowns, and other forms of excessive absenteeism.
Of course, surveillance is only one part of the equation. Employers need well written policies and procedures. Legal advice from an employment attorney will help the employer ensure that the professional investigator’s documentation is used in measures and resolutions that are compliant with labor laws.

Do you suspect one of your employees of misconduct? Let Advanced Professional Investigations of Colorado be your surveillance specialists in verifying and documenting misconduct so you don’t continue to experience losses in your company! Our office is conveniently located between Denver and Colorado Springs, with investigators located throughout the Denver metro area.

Do you know if your employees are stealing fuel at your company’s expense? Employees with company vehicles typically have company credit cards for gasoline purchases. This is another potential area of major losses for employers, particularly with the $3-4 / gallon fuel prices. Fuel theft can occur when the employee simply uses the credit card to fill up a personal vehicle. Sometimes, unscrupulous employees use the card to fill up the company vehicle and have a friend or family member line up at the gas pump before the transaction is closed to fill up or casually place a few gallons of gas in a personal vehicle to prevent large purchases which could arouse suspicion. Employees might also keep gas cans which are filled up and then emptied out into personal vehicles. Though not they are not large losses per occurrence, frequent fuel thefts can cumulatively cost employers tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands of dollars over the span of a dishonest employee’s career.
Time theft is another area that should be of concern to employers. Field employees and delivery drivers are often not under the supervision of an employer. Time theft can occur when the employee ends the work day early while charging for the hours, running personal errands during work hours, or even missing an entire day of work while claiming to have been at work. Similar to fuel thefts, theft of time can quickly have a cumulative effect with an individual employee, and the effect can be compounded with other employees involved in the same behavior. Some employees tend to emulate the behavior of one or two employees who are not being identified and disciplined.
Do you suspect one of your employees of misconduct? Let Advanced Professional Investigations of Colorado be your consultants in verifying and documenting this behavior so you don’t continue to experience losses in your company!

With the downturn in the economy, many corporations, small business owners, and even government entities are looking for ways to keep their businesses and work places running efficiently and maximize profits. One method for achieving this goal is to examine the productivity, honesty, and integrity of a company’s employees. Often, dishonesty, illegal activity, and unscrupulous behavior start as an isolated incident, or with one employee. However, problems can quickly escalate with an employee and can even spread to other employees if they believe everyone else
is “getting away with it.”

In recent years, there has been a growing trend of employers installing security and video surveillance systems in offices and company property as a way to create a safer work environment, to limit liability, increase productivity, cut down on losses, and as an investigative tool when an issue arises. So how can an employer monitor his/her employees when these concerns arise outside of an office or company property? The answer is through physical surveillance provided by a professional private investigative agency, and specifically one that specializes in surveillance.

Do you have increasingly missing or unexplainable losses in company equipment? Many companies, particularly construction and similar industrial related businesses have valuable equipment which is used by employees on field locations away from company property. Surveillance investigators pick up where stationary surveillance cameras drop off. Surveillance investigators are more mobile, more flexible, and can even be more covert in the ability to document equipment theft.