Working PI Magazine - Issue 9

Pr ivate In vestigato rs

Spring 2025, Vol. 9

STATE OF THE PROFESSION: PI SURVEY RESULTS

A PI’s Worst Nightmare:

Surveillance Goes Terribly Wrong

The Private Investigator’s New Partner:

Artificial Intelligence

Death, Taxes and Bad Police Reports Working PI Magazine 6353 El Cajon Blvd, Suite 124-605 San Diego, CA 92115-2600

[ Now Reaching 25,000+ Private Investigators With Every Issue ]

Here’s to the Entrepreneurs.

You’ve Worked Hard to Build Your Business...

We Built OREP to Protect It. Insurance for Professional Investigators

Whether you’re out in the field, or doing background research from your office, OREP’s got you covered.  General Liability and E&O Coverage in a Single Policy  Includes Independent Contractors at No Extra Cost  Attorney-Prepared Engagement Letter and Subcontractor Agreement  Coverage Includes Security Consulting and Executive Protection  Blanket Additional Insured Endorsement  Wanted Persons Investigations

Apply Online in 5 Minutes Visit OREP.org/PI or Call (888) 347-5273

OREP Insurance Services, LLC. Calif. Lic. #0K99465 Member Benefits part of OREP Membership. Min. Membership fee of $30. Membership products available for purchase separately.

PUBLISHED BY

Serving Private Investigators

Spring 2025, Vol. 9

4 5

We Know Insurance | OREP.org

Publisher’s Note

by Isaac Peck, Publisher

Contributors

6

A PI’s Worst Nightmare: Surveillance Operation Goes Terribly Wrong

by Isaac Peck, Publisher

14 16

6

The Private Investigator’s New Partner: Artificial Intelligence

by Jim Nanos, Senior Contributor at Working PI

Death, Taxes and Bad Police Reports: Realities of the Criminal Justice System

by Kevin Stonebarger, Analytic Investigations

20

14

16

COVER STORY: State of the Profession—PI Survey Results

by Kendra Budd, Editor

26 30

Defending the Defender

by Kelly E. Riddle, Kelmar Global

26

DNA: Do Not Assume (Evidence is Not Always As It Seems)

by Deborah Stonebarger, Analytic Investigations

34

Handling Car Accident Investigations

38

by Michael R. Depew, TCS Consulting

Privacy and Your DNA

34

by Misty Gillis, Genetic Genealogist at BirthParentFinder.com and Jay Rosenzweig, CEO of BirthParentFinder.com

Mission Working PI is published to help readers build their businesses, reduce their risk of liability and stay informed on important technology and industry issues.

Write Us at Working PI Comments and letters are welcome. All stories without attribution are written by the Editor.

Publisher Isaac Peck | isaac@orep.org Marketing & Design Manager Ariane Herwig | ariane@orep.org Editor Kendra Budd | kendra@orep.org

Working PI 6353 El Cajon Blvd., Suite 124-605 San Diego, CA 92115 (888) 347-5273 subscription@workingpimag.com WorkingPImag.com Like Us on Facebook!

Facebook.com/workingpi

Working PI is published by OREP Insurance Services, LLC (Calif. Lic. #0K99465) and mailed to 25,000+ private investigators nationwide.

The ads and specific mention of any proprietary product contained within are a service to readers and do not imply endorsement by Working PI. No claims, representations or guarantees are made or implied by their publication. The contents of this publication may not be reproduced either in whole or in part without written consent.

2

Working PI | Spring 2025

PUBLISHER’S NOTE

Big Changes in 2025 I am FIRED UP about this issue and the new updates we’re bringing private investigators in 2025!

For starters, myself and the whole team here at Working PI are incredibly excited about the participation of nearly 900 private investigators in the Nationwide Survey for Private Investigators that just closed on January 31, 2025. Organized in collaboration with industry leaders Kelly Riddle of PI Institute of Education (piinstitute.com) and Matt Spaier of PI Perspectives (pi-perspectives.com) and Investigator’s Toolbox, this survey reports on key business metrics for private investigators nationwide. Our hope is that the survey can serve as an important resource that investigators can use to create benchmarks and set goals for their own individual businesses.

I was incredibly honored to be invited on Matt Spaier’s podcast, PI Perspectives, to discuss the results of the survey alongside Kelly Riddle. To listen to the podcast, visit WorkingPImag.com/SurveyPodcast.

Secondly, I am absolutely thrilled to announce that Jim Nanos, the former co-owner and publisher of PI Magazine, has joined Working PI as a Senior Contributor.

Jim Nanos is a titan in the private investigation field, an incredibly experienced and influential investigator who is a renowned speaker at national PI conferences. He currently serves as the President of the New Jersey Licensed Private Investigators Association (NJLPIA), and he’s also an expert on PI tools and tradecraft.

Having Jim join the Working PI team as a Senior Contributor further solidifies our position as the premier publication for investigative professionals and the number one source of news for PIs nationwide (Visit pg. 33 for the details).

With Working PI reaching over 25,000 private investigators in print, and nearly 18,000 via email, we couldn’t be prouder to be connecting PIs across the country with news, information, tools, and techniques that they need to thrive and grow their businesses.

If you’re not already signed up for Working PI’s FREE digital newsletter, please subscribe today at WorkingPImag.com/Subscribe to stay up-to-date on the latest news.

To your success!

Isaac Peck Publisher of Working PI and Senior Broker at OREP Insurance

4

Working PI | Spring 2025

CONTRIBUTORS Isaac Peck

Deborah Stonebarger D eborah Stonebarger is a licensed investigator and owner of Analytic Investigations. A former Senior Criminalist with the California DOJ, she is an expert in crime scene analysis, evidence collection, DNA, controlled substances, and forensic alcohol and firearms analysis. Certified in Comprehensive Criminalistics by the American Board of Criminalistics, she serves as Secretary of the Arizona Association of Licensed Private Investigators. Her email is Deb@analyticinvestigations.com.

Misty Gillis Misty Gillis is a nationally re cognized Genetic Genealogist specializing in adoptee, NPE, and law enforcement cold cases. With 15+ years of genealogy experience, she has helped hundreds reconnect with biological relatives and assisted 20+ agencies in solving cases. She works at BirthParentFinder.com and Parabon NanoLabs and is a member of the Vidocq Society.

Kelly E. Riddle Kelly E. Riddle is the President of Kelmar Global Investigations and has more than 41 years of investigative experience. He earned a Bachelor of Science degree in Criminal Justice from the University of North Alabama. He was chosen as the “PI of the Year” by the National Association of Investigative Specialists, while PI Magazine named Mr. Riddle the #1 PI in the U.S. Kelly is the past President of the Texas Association of Licensed Investigators and is on the Florida Association of Private Investigators Advisory Board. He has published 16 books, over 40 articles, and spoken at over 650 events.

Isaac Peck is the Publisher of Working PI magazine and the President and Senior Broker of OREP.org, a leading provider of E&O and liability insurance for private investigators. Working PI is the most widely read print magazine for investigators nationwide, reaching over 25,000 PIs. PIs who become OREP Members enjoy an 8-hour CE course at no charge (Visit OREP.org/PI-Members for details). Reach Isaac by email at isaac@orep.org or by phone at (888) 347-5273. CA License #4116465.

Kevin Stonebarger Kevin Stonebarger is a retired California police officer with 17 years of experience in patrol, K9 handling, tactical leadership, and narcotics.

He spent 15 years as a police academy instructor specializing in firearms, use of force, and controlled substances. Now a Subject Matter Expert in police policy, use of force, controlled substances and impaired driving, he co-owns Analytic Investigations in Maricopa County, Arizona, with his wife, Deborah. He can be reached at Kev@analyticinvestigations.com or by calling (480) 662-9935.

Jim Nanos Jim Nanos is a licensed private investigator in New Jersey and Senior Contributor to Working PI magazine.

He offers training on ChatGPT and AI assistance in 2-, 4-, and 8-hour classes, including live use of the tool. Nanos can be contacted for conferences and speaking engagements by visiting The PI Coach website, www.ThePICoach.com, or through his private investigations firm, Apple Investigations, www.Apple Investigations.com.

Jay Rosenzweig Jay Rosenzweig, who specializes in Locating Individuals, Background Checks, and Finding Birth Relatives, is the founder and CEO of Bir thParentFinder.com. He was named “Investigator of the Year” by the California Association of Licensed Investigators (CALI) in 1995 and served as elected President in 1997. While at CALI, he established a volunteer program for licensed investigators to assist a nonprofit group in their efforts to locate missing and abducted children. He was honored with the Distinguished Achievement Award from CALI in June 2021.

Kendra Budd Kendra Budd is the Editor of Working PI magazine and the Marketing Coordinator for OREP Insurance. In her fourth year with OREP Insurance, Kendra also assists the Education Division at OREP as Education Coordinator. She graduated with a BA in Theatre and English from Western Washington University, and an MFA in Creative Writing from Full Sail University.

Michael R. Depew Michael R. Depew is a forensic engineer and accident reconstructionist with TCS Consulting in Houston, Texas. He has over 36 years of experience in accident reconstruction, forensic testing, and expert consultation. As a licensed private investigator in Texas, Louisiana, and other states, Mr. Depew has presented at conferences and continues to follow his passion for writing in his profession to help others learn.

Spring 2025 | Working PI

5

A PI’s Worst Nightmare:

Surveillance Operation Goes Terribly Wrong

by Isaac Peck, Publisher

“I was taking a lot of days off. I was concerned they might come after me physically.

Or picket outside my house. I had police at my son’s bus stop.

This was so far beyond anything I could have envisioned happening.”

S

urveillance in private investigator work is absolutely necessary and extremely challenging. Maintaining discretion while monitoring subjects is critical; any detection can compromise the investigation, since subjects will drastically change their behavior if they know they are being watched.

Investigators have to blend into various environments and handle unexpected situations that could expose them. PIs also need to know the law, so they can make sure they don’t break it (and understand the risks if they do). Long hours and varying conditions require a lot of grit and determination.

ing too many chances means attracting unwanted attention and unravelling hours, days, or weeks of work.

Investigators are always balancing the need for detailed observation with the risk of being noticed. If the PI is too cautious, potentially vital discoveries will slip through their fingers. But tak-

This is a story of something going terribly wrong. The PI who experienced it has asked us to tell it as a cautionary tale. It begins with a snap logistical decision: having wrapped up a case

6

Working PI | Spring 2025

There are also risks beyond mere information loss or compromised surveillance. People do not like being watched, and investigators are always at risk of encountering dangerous or irate subjects.

While common sense can mitigate many risks, there are no guarantees.

Ideally, surveillance is mostly boring.

“Excitement” can signal a major breakthrough, but it can just as easily indicate that something has gone terribly wrong.

in one part of the city, our PI would get a jump on his next one, an insurance investigation with a surveillance subject in the same part of the city.

What followed—physical assault, online harassment, frivolous lawsuits and more—was a nightmare no investigator should have to experience.

Here are the chilling details of this harrowing tale.

A Routine Job Derek* has been an investigator for several years, runs his own PI firm and is recognized as a leader in the profession.

Seeing an opportunity to save some time and travel, Derek made the snap decision to do some preliminary surveillance, page 8

Help With Navigating The Search For Biological Family Connections

• Do you receive inquiries from individuals seeking to locate their biological family members?

• Do you require support in locating missing heirs for an estate?

• Do you need help interpreting AncestryDNA or 23andMe results?

• Are you facing challenges in tracking a Subject through conventional investigative databases?

• Do you need to confirm vital details such as the place and date of death for a Subject?

BirthParentFinder.com is equipped to address all these needs and more!

BirthParentFinder.com was founded by Jay Rosenzweig, an award-winning licensed private investigator from California with over four decades of experience in this field.

BirthParentFinder.com collaborates with skilled genealogists who possess extensive experience in reconnecting lost relatives and uncovering essential vital records information.

With access to all major genealogical platforms and specialized knowledge in analyzing DNA results, BirthParentFinder.com can assist you in providing your clients with clear and accurate information to resolve lifelong questions.

Call (818) 704-9925

Or email Jay directly at jay@birthparentfinder.com

page 6 although he only knew the most basic information about his subjects and if he’d had more time, he’d have done some additional pre-surveillance research.

On its face, there didn’t seem to be anything exceptional about this new case; t he subjects were t wo adults (Mike* and Marsha*) and two children, who’d been involved in a car accident. Derek (our investigator) drove to the neighborhood where the subjects’ address had been listed. The street where they lived looked like a tight fit, with little-tono extra street parking and no place to discreetly hang out to observe the house.

This meant that Derek might be driving around a little more or park in front of a neighbor’s house, which could make the neighbors suspicious. This led the PI to his second quick decision: he would go to the local police station to check in and let the police know he was working in the neighborhood. “I gave the police a sheet with a copy of my state private investigator ID card, my vehicle registration, my cell phone number, and the times I would be in the neighborhood,” Derek said.

During the investigation, Derek discovered another possible residential address nearby. His research also revealed a wealth of other information regarding the subjects. For instance, Mike was a violent felon convicted of attempted murder and had served just under 10 years in a state prison. Derek also learned that Mike and Marsha were currently engaged in a lawsuit against the school board of the town in which they lived.

According to news articles, Mike and Marsha were upset about some reading material that the children had access to within the school. As they expressed their outrage, they became angry and aggressive at several public meetings. On one occasion, Mike was excluded from an executive session. In response, he aggressively banged on the glass windows where the meetings were taking place, recording video with his phone while screaming at the committee members through

8

Working PI | Spring 2025

Mike boasted that he “had connections” and had run Derek’s plate, obtaining all his personal information.

the glass. This behavior was so disruptive that the school committee, with the assistance of the local police, banned Mike and Marsha from the school grounds, leading to the lawsuit. In the news articles, Mike described himself as bipolar and loud, attributing his abrasive communication style to his ethnic heritage.

Derek drove to the neighborhood of the second address he’d found, arriving at a dead-end road with the residence located at the end of the street. The house was concealed by a six-foot fence. Derek drove to the dead-end and executed a three-point turn in the street. During that turn, he noticed a vehicle parked at the house that matched what the couple was driving during the accident. Derek drove some distance away from the home and settled into a space that allowed him to monitor the dead-end road.

After an hour of surveillance from this position, he observed a female leave the house, get into the car, and drive away.

A Disturbing Escalation Derek discreetly followed the car until it arrived and parked outside a chiropractic office. He pulled over into a small parking area off the side of the road, approximately 300 yards behind the vehicle he was observing, hoping to document the operator exiting the vehicle. For nearly 40 minutes, Derek watched as the operator did not leave the vehicle. Then suddenly, a white Chevy hatchback aggressively pulled into the area where Derek was parked, boxing him in between a telephone pole and a fire hydrant.

A male, later identified as Mike, quickly exited the driver’s seat, recording video with his phone, and began pounding on Derek’s window. He yelled, “What are you doing here, who are you following, why are you sitting here?”

Derek partially rolled down the window

and told Mike he was taking a call. Mike then opened Derek’s door and wedged himself in a way that prevented Derek from closing it. Continuing to record video and yell, Mike leaned over Derek and asked why he had a clipboard and why there was “spy stuff” in the back seat. Derek repeatedly told Mike to get away from him and his car, attempting to close his door over a dozen times.

Seeing that remaining in his vehicle was not resolving the situation, Derek stepped out. Mike was unaffected by this and continued yelling despite Derek’s repeated requests for him to leave. Derek created space between them, retreated back into the car, and was finally able to close and lock the door. Mike continued to attempt to enter Derek’s vehicle.

Eventually, Derek was able to depart the area and drove directly to the police station less than a mile away. He asked to speak with a desk sergeant. In a closed room just off of the lobby, he described the events to the sergeant, as well as a lieutenant who had joined them. The officers were both very familiar with Mike and Marsha.

During their discussion, Mike also arrived at the police station and stated his intention to file a report. After Derek described the events to the sergeant and lieutenant, they escorted him out of the rear of the department to his vehicle and said they would be in contact with him regarding the report.

About 15 minutes after departing the police department, Derek received a call from a number he did not recognize. He answered the call, and it was Mike. In a loud voice, Mike boasted that he “had connections” and had run Derek’s plate, obtaining all his personal information.

He continued his aggressive tone and told page 10

page 8 Derek to come to his home so he could answer any further questions. Mike then called Derek two additional times and left voicemails when Derek did not answer.

Derek subsequently contacted the police to report that Mike had told him he had run his plate and obtained all his personal information.

Then, at approximately 7:30 PM, Derek received a notification from Facebook that a review had been posted on his business Facebook page. The review stated: Definitely wouldn’t recommend or hire.

Horrible private investigator. Derek’s cover was blown within an hour. First, he was caught on our surveillance cameras coming down our dead-end street in his very noticeable dark car with dark blacked-out windows. Then he parked in an open parking lot with no other cars outside our street in his 2019 black Toyota Rav4. I noticed him immediately and pulled over. He then pulled over about 40 yards away. We both just sat there for 40 mins. I called my husband who came and confronted him in his car, asking why he had spy gear in his backseat.

Everything was on camera, including Derek opening his car door and pushing my husband twice. That was the absolute worst private investigator skills I’ve ever seen. Derek, my husband is still waiting for you to return his call and tell him what you wanted. I can do a better job at following people. Call me if you’re hiring!

Derek reported the post to the police.

That rough first day would set the tempo for the next several weeks, and things started to get scary.

Unexpected Allies The police advised Derek that they did not find any record of his plate being run. If they had found such a record, it would have been through CJIS, a law enforcement-exclusive database. After viewing the video Mike had made during the encounter and listening to his version of events, they ultimately wrote up a report that confirmed Derek’s account. The police department also con-

10 Working PI | Spring 2025

For Derek, “these were the most invasive parts of the whole ordeal,” constituting direct threats to the people he loved the most.

tacted the department in the town where Derek resides on their own initiative.

They were concerned enough about Mike and Marsha’s history of behavior to advise the other department to perform routine patrols and keep them informed of any events.

Later, an area resident, “SR,” contacted Derek, offering valuable information about Mike and Marsha’s daily activities. SR’s insights allowed Derek to finalize his strategy and continue with the assignment, with Mike and Marsha remaining unaware of his presence.

Not wanting to lose several thousand dollars in business, Derek devised a plan to complete the assignment safely and discreetly, which he successfully executed. He informed his client of the events and his plan to continue, which they approved. Derek’s general plan involved allowing some time to pass and conducting extensive additional research to understand the subjects’ daily routines better, enabling him to conduct further surveillance without starting in their neighborhood. He also planned to utilize a different vehicle.

Extreme Escalation Mike’s physical and verbal aggression towards Derek, his claim of being “well-connected,” and his histor y of public outbursts seemed to have abated; but Marsha’s actions were just beginning and t hey would cross a new, extreme line—the kind of actions that make private investigators leave the profession.

Derek also realized the importance of allies and informants in revealing details that are not accessible through traditional surveillance. This network enhances the investigator’s ability to gather comprehensive intelligence, corroborate findings, and ensure safety.

Collaboration wit h informants and allies significantly amplifies the investigator’s capabilities and chances of success, making investigations more efficient and effective.

Fortunately, by this time, Derek had learned that many people had come into conf lict with Marsha and Mike, and some very heated disputes had happened. It became clear that the events Derek experienced with them were commonplace. Derek gained access to a Private Facebook Group, where the couple was regularly discussed. He learned that Mike was running for a seat on the school board whose meetings he’d been legally restrained from attending.

She accessed Derek ’s socia l media accounts, posting pictures of his family—his wife and children—on a new Twitter/X account. The post included inappropriate comments. Then, after contacting Derek’s client in an attempt to discredit the investigation, Marsha sent a “get well” card to Derek and his family at their home address. Like the post, the card contained inappropriate comments about Derek’s family, and also referenced his alleged lack of skills.

For Derek, “these were the most invasive parts of the whole ordeal,” constituting direct threats to the people he loved the most. “It took an emotional toll on me and my family,” he said.

Marsha continued to contact Derek through various means, including his website, and made multiple calls to the state Licensed Private Detectives Association. When questioned by police, Marsha admitted to most of these actions (she did not admit setting up the Twitter account or sending the card to his home, even though the language in both was unmistakably hers) and was

warned about potential harassment and witness intimidation charges. Despite this, she then immediately posted a negative review of Derek’s firm on the Better Business Bureau website. That was when the police informed Derek that they were charging Marsha with witness intimidation and harassment.

Witness intimidation is a very serious felony charge, punishable by up to 10 years in prison even if no physical threats are made.

Following Marsha’s actions, Mike forma lly charged Derek wit h assault.

Derek, who had initially decided against filing a criminal complaint himself, now hired an attorney and filed complaints against Mike for assault and breaking and entering of a motor vehicle. The matter was referred to a magistrate’s hearing to determine if there was enough evidence to issue formal criminal charges against either party.

Besides coming to the hearing with a copy of the original police report from the incident, Derek’s attorney had subpoenaed Mike to produce the video he had recorded of the confrontation (Mike had responded by inadvertently calling Derek’s attorney, expressing his dislike for Derek before realizing who he was speaking to). On the day of the hearing, Mike appeared in casual attire and initially claimed not to have the subpoenaed video. When pressed for the video later, Mike presented it in court. The video showed Mike pounding on Derek’s car, forcing it open, and leaning in while Derek repeatedly asked him to leave.

The confrontation video supported Derek’s account. Derek’s attorney told the magistrate that he’d never seen anything like this case in 30 years— where someone accusing someone else of assault had so clearly instigated and

committed assault themselves. The video also revealed numerous instances of Derek asking to be left alone, important proof that he hadn’t committed any assault.

The magistrate asked Mike if he had contacted Derek after the incident. Mike initially denied this but admitted to it on further questioning. He claimed he had acquired Derek’s cell phone number by “Googling it,” and that he’d also Googled Derek’s license plate number. This could not have been true, since accessing personal details linked to a license plate requires law enforcement authority or some legitimate legal reason, and public databases and search engines do not have access to such information, according to Derek.

The magistrate told those assembled that he would render his decision and page 12

Spring 2025 | Working PI 11

page 11 then the court would inform the participants by mail. As everyone was leaving, the magistrate took the attorney aside and advised him that Derek would not be charged. Unsurprisingly, Mike was then charged with breaking and entering of a motor vehicle and assault.

“I don’t want to say this financially devastated me,” Derek said.

“But $7,000 in a short amount of time is a lot for someone to come up with—and just to protect my name.”

Derek had paid his lawyer $3500, and the matter seemed to be over. With both Mike and Marsha now criminally charged, and Derek having successfully wrapped up the investigation without incident and made his client happy, it was time to move on.

What Have We Learned?

Derek shared his perspective with Working PI on the incident with Mike, reflecting on the challenges faced during the investigation and some of the mistakes he’d made.

The Thing That Wouldn’t Die A few months later, while Derek was still waiting to hear about the cases against Mike and Marsha, a Police Sergeant knocked on his door in the evening. The officer presented Derek with a Temporary Restraining Order (R.O.) from the state’s Superior Court. It stated: “The Defendant is hereby restrained from interfering with, molesting, harassing, threatening, annoying or contacting the Plaintiff in any manner, directly or indirectly.”

“There’s a lot of debate about whether PIs should check in with the police,” Derek noted. “But none of this would have happened if I hadn’t.” By “this,” Derek referred to the negative outcomes that followed his initial confrontation with Mike. He suspects that someone at the police station may have inadvertently shared his information with Mike. This highlights a contentious issue within the PI community. Some investigators feel that notifying local police can compromise their cover, while others believe it is necessary for safety (and it’s absolutely necessary when working on open criminal cases, which Derek wasn’t).

In Superior Court, Marsha had accused Derek of creating the fake Twitter/X account and of sending a typewritten letter to her home. She was afraid for her and her children because of how much Derek knew about them. She provided no proof, police reports, or other documentation, but because the court only needed a preliminary complaint in order to issue the temporary R.O., it had been granted pending a hearing, whose date had been set in a document accompanying the R.O. Derek wrote his attorney a check for another $3,500 and prepared to fight the latest round against Mike and Marsha.

“I don’t want to say this financially devastated me,” Derek said. “But $7,000 in a short amount of time is a lot for someone to come up with—and just to protect my name. My credibility is my most important credential. Regardless of any other license I have, if I have an assault charge, a restraining order against me that actually takes hold? I’m toast, man.

I look like shit, and people will always question the evidence that I gather.”

12 Working PI | Spring 2025

Some states require PIs to check in with the police, arguing that it protects the investigator and conserves department resources. When this is the case, it’s crucial for police to uphold privacy protections. Although PIs like Derek are asking their state legislatures to create better legal safeguards, police errors presently remain beyond their control.

Derek focuses on two areas he believes he could have managed better: personal safety and online exposure. He emphasizes the importance of maintaining safety protocols for surveillance, such as always leaving a buffer and locking car doors. He points out that his car doors had automatically unlocked when he parked for the surveillance of the chiropractor’s parking lot, and locking them could have prevented the confrontation with Mike almost entirely.

Regarding online exposure, Derek acknowledges the difficulty PIs face in managing their social media presence, given the need to advertise one’s services and be seen as part of the community. He advises caution in sharing personal information, noting that his family’s privacy was compromised.

Derek has since removed references to his child from social media and made his account private to protect his family.

There are broader issues, such as whether licensed PIs should have easier access to background information or if liability insurance should cover instances where investigation subjects use criminal charges to harass PIs. Derek suggests professional organizations create a defense fund, financed by members, to cover the expenses and loss of income from these kinds of retaliatory attacks. “My credibility is my most important asset in this business. Making sure it stays intact is of the utmost importance.”

But in this instance, Derek was lucky that Mike recorded the confrontation and that both Mike and Marsha admitted their wrongdoings multiple times.

Not all subjects will be as willing to document their actions, underscoring the unpredictable nature of PI work.

Episodes like this can wear an investigator down and hurt their business, Derek says. “I was taking a lot of days off. I was concerned they might come after me physically. Or picket outside my house. I had police at my son’s bus stop. This was so far beyond anything I could have envisioned happening.” Stay safe out there.

* We have changed the names of all three people in this story.

The Private Investigator’s New Partner: Artificial Intelligence

by Jim Nanos, Senior Contributor at Working PI

“What once took hours and hours of proofreading and sometimes re-writes can be completed in seconds, and often with a much higher level of accuracy.”

A

s private investigators, we live in an era of rapidly advancing technology, where leveraging the right tools and technologies can significantly enhance efficiency, accuracy, client satisfaction, and profitability of our business (after all, we are operating a for-profit business!).

Among these tools, artificial intelligence (AI) has emerged as a game-changer, particularly ChatGPT—a language model developed by OpenAI. ChatGPT offers a range of benefits to private investigators, from streamlining report writing to assisting in various components of research, client communication, and case analysis.

Gone are the days when the “new” IBM Selectric II electric typewriter “WITH CORRECTION” was space-age technology and left many of us speechless (yes, I’m dating myself here!). This article explores how ChatGPT can benefit private investigators, with a specific focus on report writing as well as other practi-

14 Working PI | Spring 2025

cal applications. We will, however, only scratch the surface of the many uses of this incredible tool. Here are some practical uses and considerations: Report Writing Even seasoned investigators can struggle with grammar, spelling, or sentence structure when drafting reports under tight deadlines. I’m a private investigator, not an English major—and sometimes it shows!

Often, we read and re-read our reports so many times we begin to miss those mistakes seemingly so obvious to others. Up until recently, I had been seeking the help of one of my adult daughters who are both schoolteachers to help proof those large, complicated reports.

But ChatGPT can proofread and enhance your drafts, ensuring they meet high professional standards and are free of errors. The investigator can literally copy and paste the report narrative into ChatGPT and in seconds, the report will

be proofed, checked for grammar and restructured if needed into a final product. What once took hours and hours of proofreading and sometimes re-writes can be completed in seconds, and often with a much higher level of accuracy.

Supporting Investigative Research and Techniques Another valuable application of ChatGPT lies in conducting investigative research.

While ChatGPT cannot access live or private databases, the tool can help describe in a clear, professional return, what you may have unsuccessfully been trying to explain.

Think about a cohabitation investigation, for example, where you conduct extensive surveillance, documenting where your target’s motor vehicle is parked overnight. While as investigators we know the importance of documenting where one’s car is as it relates to where the individual may “be,” how do we explain this in understandable terms?

We know the importance and connection, if you will, between an individual and their car’s location. A few simple lines into the tool and an easy-to-read and understandable paragraph is returned that can be used in every report moving forward. It’s that easy!

Tools are being developed, and are actually available now, allowing us to input hundreds of hours of video into the tool and set the parameter to, for example, “create a list of the dates and times the red car arrives and leaves the residence” with the tool returning the list. Think about how this can be expanded. While the tools available right now for video review, for example, are not 100 percent reliable and dependable in my opinion, we will get there soon—and I don’t mean years when I say soon!

Assisting With Marketing and Business Operations Running a private investigation business involves more than just investigative work and reports. ChatGPT can support your business operations and marketing efforts in several other ways.

Maintaining a professional online presence is crucial for attracting new clients in the private investigation industry. ChatGPT can assist by drafting blog posts or articles showcasing your expertise in areas such as surveillance, cohabitation and criminal defense investigations. Additionally, it can create engaging social media content to market your services and develop email newsletters to keep clients informed about industry trends and updates regarding your business.

“Maintaining a professional online presence is crucial for attracting new clients...” staff or outsourced writing services. Enhanced professionalism is evident through well-written reports and polished client communications, which boost your reputation and client satisfaction. Scalability is also improved, as ChatGPT’s handling of repetitive tasks enables you to take on more cases without compromising quality.

Conclusion ChatGPT is a versatile tool that can support private investigators in numerous aspects of their work. From streamlining report writing for surveillance, cohabitation and criminal defense investigations for example, to enhancing client communication and business operations.

The AI tool offers significant advantages and by using ChatGPT responsibly and ethically, private investigators can improve efficiency, maintain high professional standards, and grow their businesses in an increasingly competitive industry. As technology continues to evolve, embracing tools like ChatGPT ensures that your investigative practice remains at the forefront of innovation. The future is here—partner with it and grow your PI business!

Administrative duties can be time-consuming, but ChatGPT can streamline these tasks by writing professional responses to client inquiries, generating contracts or service agreements, and assisting with scheduling and reminders through clear and concise communication.

Some Concerns While ChatGPT offers many benefits, it’s important to use the tool responsibly. Private investigators handle sensitive and confidential information, so it’s essential to avoid inputting private data. Never share personally identifiable information (PII) with ChatGPT, to ensure compliance with privacy laws and ethical standards. Always verify AI outputs, as ChatGPT is highly capable but not infallible. Fact-check its suggestions or content before using what it returns in your reports or communications.

We should maintain professional judgment by using ChatGPT as a supplemental aid, not a replacement for your expertise and critical thinking skills. In true 1960s TV superhero talk—only use the tool for good and never evil!

For established private investigation businesses, integrating ChatGPT into your workflow can lead to significant advantages.

Time savings can be achieved by automating routine tasks like report drafting, email writing, and research, allowing you to focus on more complex investigative work. Cost efficiency is enhanced by reducing reliance on additional administrative

Your one-stop shop for all investigations in Mexico We are a team of dedicated professionals with broad experience in providing a variety of effective solutions.

www.piservices.mx email: info@piservices.mx

Tel: +52 (55) 8860 8835 Iguala 12 Bis, Col. Roma Sur México City, C.P. 06760

Spring 2025 | Working PI 15

Death, Taxes and Bad Police Reports: Realities of the Criminal Justice System

by Kevin Stonebarger, Analytic Investigations

“There must be a standardization of training for report writing in the academy setting that involves realistic situations to write about. Leave the PB&J for grade school lunches.”

How many times have you been reviewing a discovery, specifically police reports, and asked yourself: “Didn’t anyone read this before it was finalized?”

The answer to that question will likely take you aback: Probably not.

There are multiple factors to this, and I will try to flesh out as many of them as I can and dispel some of the myths of police report writing. Obviously, all agencies are different, but while you review these reports you will find a common thread among them: They commonly contain multiple typing errors, multiple spelling errors, and grammar has been completely lost in the process.

Here are some of the most likely causes of those bad reports and an explanation for why such errors are extremely significant to the PI and even to the experts working on the case for the defense.

Training (or the lack of) in the Police Academy Setting Would it surprise you at all that while I was a police officer and academy in-

16 Working PI | Spring 2025

structor in California, I noticed that report writing training generally only occurs in a very small percentage of the academy? If that doesn’t scare you, I will share a story with you. During the early 2010s, I attended a session on the different Learning Domains in the police academy, one of which was report writing. A well-known report writing instructor had come up with a “brilliant” idea on how to better teach report writing by boiling it down to its most basic principles: by making a peanut butter and jelly sandwich and having students write about it. As I watched this, I was in complete disbelief. California law enforcement training was some of the best in the US and all we could come up with was making a PB&J?

ored shirt and a baseball hat, and while I was teaching my other class, come into the theater style classroom at the main entrance. I had given her a very large, black revolver that contained dummy rounds. She then came into the classroom and “fired 3 shots” from her revolver and then fled back through the same door. I stopped my class and gave them 30 minutes to write a report on exactly what they saw. It was unbelievable how many of the students missed things like the color of the shirt, the color of the revolver, physical descriptors of the “suspect” or even how many “shots” were fired. More than a third of the class didn’t even recognize the “suspect” even though they had seen her on and off in the academy office for months.

One day in one of my classes, I decided to test this “training process” and see if the students had actually learned anything from it. I asked one of the secretaries, who the students had seen dozens if not hundreds of times, to assist with my test. I asked her to wear a bright col-

There must be a standardization of training for report writing in the academy setting that involves realistic situations to write about. Leave the PB&J for grade school lunches. page 18

Take Your Business to the Next Level Toolkit for Professional Investigators 1 Hone New Skills 2 Expand Your Business 3 Increase Your Income

OREP is more than just another Insurance Agency. As an OREP Member, you get access to an unrivaled training suite of products to help you build your skills and grow your business (at no additional cost).

Learn from the Best—Training, eBooks, and Contracts from experienced attorneys and industry-leading private investigators (Kelly Riddle and Mark and Wendy Murnan).

The Art of Surveillance

Conducting surveillance correctly is truly an art. This eBook shows you how to avoid common mistakes, use proper equipment and different concealment techniques; includes a section on international investigations.

Secrets of a PI Agency: Marketing and Management

Things They Didn’t Tell You (About Starting a PI Business)

Subcontractor Manual

Investigator Procedures Manual

Good investigation techniques will only get you so far. Learn from one of the leading investigators in the nation how to grow your agency like any other business by utilizing savvy marketing techniques and business skills.

Marketing to Plaintiff Attorneys

Learn valuable strategies and techniques for marketing your agency to plaintiff attorneys! Many PIs ignore this high-value niche that pays higher hourly rates.

Step up your game when it comes to dealing with subcontractors.

Set clear expectations on how subcontractors should handle confidential information, interact with clients, and navigate insurance requirements.

Business Plan Template

BONUS

Why struggle to get your business up and running when you can rely on the experience of someone who has been in business for more than 40 years?

This book is a road map for anyone serious about starting a PI business.

Use this as a template for the growth of your PI business. Kelly E. Riddle shows you how to set your services apart from others, define what market you serve, the types of services you provide, how you will market the business, its financial history, business expansion, and more.

8 Hour CE Class: “Surveillance Strategies for Success” Learn key strategies and tips to successfully execute surveillance operations as a private investigator.

Shorten the learning curve and increase your own (or your new hire’s) productivity, as well as your agency’s profits! This pre-formatted procedure template helps you build business processes for success.

Engagement Letter

Enjoy a templated Engagement Contract prepared by an attorney and former FBI agent.

Subcontractor Agreement

Prepared by an attorney and former FBI agent.

PI Toolkit

OFFERED BY:

Calif. Lic. #0K99465

Access Available to OREP Members Only Join at: OREP.org/PI-Members

page 16 Failures in the Field Training Officer Program Many field training officers act as if the acronym FTO means “F**k the Others” rather than Field Training Officer. This is a training process where the trainer will tell the trainee to “forget everything you learned from the academy; you are going to do it my way.” “Forget everything you learned from FTO so-and-so” because one trainer didn’t like that particular FTO or didn’t like his/her training methods.

This is also done because FTO Officers are not technically supervisors but are required to “supervise” one officer and they get badge heavy. This is to say that the trainer officers become overly confident and will “lord” over the trainee that they are “in charge” of. I personally experienced this when I moved to my second agency, even though I had nearly four years of experience with my previous agency in a wide variety of assignments.

The purpose of the FTO program is to teach the trainee enough so that they can survive on the streets as a solo officer and also teach them enough “style” from each FTO so that they enact their own “style.” When you are told every 2-4 weeks that you have to start over, by the end of the program you are still back in weeks one or two of the program in report writing because you have had to change your style so many times.

Another technique that is used by FTOs everywhere is the use of “mirroring reports” where the trainee writes a report for a call they handled, and the FTO writes the exact same report for the same incident and then they compare. The issue with this technique is that you are comparing two things that should not and cannot be compared. One is a report by someone who legitimately has no clue what is going on because they are overwhelmed by the job itself and a report by someone who has likely written hundreds of these exact reports. They will never look alike, because they are not alike.

Failures in Supervision As with the above “forget everything you learned” paradox, every passing time period of 2-4 weeks with an FTO brings

18 Working PI | Spring 2025

a change in supervision during that same time period. They are attempting to expose the trainee officer to the most situations possible in as many environments as possible. Just as the trainee officer was getting used to doing something a certain way and getting somewhat comfortable, the rug is pulled out from under them, and they have to start all over again. If they work for a large agency, they will likely find themselves traveling to different precincts, all of which are run in different ways.

The issue with this system is that once the trainee officer has written whatever report they need to write, it is reviewed and approved by their FTO and then sent to the Sergeant or Watch Commander for final approval. Depending on the type of case and urgency, that report may sit in the Sergeant’s box (whether actual or digital) for weeks. The trainee officer will believe that since the report has not been kicked back to them in a short period of time, that it was a great report needing no additions, subtractions or corrections.

Imagine their surprise when weeks later it comes back from the Sergeant and the amount of red pen (whether actual or digital) on it makes it look like the Sergeant was injured and bled all over their report.

The other issue is the polar opposite, where the Sergeant just takes the word of the FTO that they have reviewed and approved the report and takes the stance that “If it’s good enough for them, it’s good enough for me” and signs off on the report without reviewing it. This situation likely happens more than anyone would like to admit. It is caused by the need for one or two sergeants to supervise a large group of officers while they are likely also working on some ridiculous project that management didn’t want to do.

This creates an exponential problem for the trainee when something they wrote about gets some type of publicity by the public, the County attorney’s office or maybe just the Deputy Chief who wanted to check in and see how the new officers are doing by reviewing a report. Instead of finding a polished final product, they

find a report that should have probably been written in crayon due to the exorbitant number of errors. The trainee then doesn’t know what to think or do about their report writing and they are placed into a constant state of anxiety about their reports, sometimes for years.

Failures of Management and/or Human Resources Just about every department these days is short-staffed, sometimes by hundreds or even thousands of officers. If police management isn’t being proactive with the Human Resources department to force them to put on interviews and testing constantly, the issue of understaffed police departments becomes even worse.

Add on top of that the extremely long interview and testing process, and the problem continues to snowball.

At one point in time when I was in law enforcement, it was stated that applicants for large agencies like LAPD and the California Highway Patrol could be in the application process for at least a year before they begin any other portion of the testing. After that, there are all of the other tests that have to be administered like the background, polygraph/ VSA, medical and psychological, and if they pass all of those, it would be another year before the officer is out of the academy and able to work as a solo patrol officer. That equates to a turn-around time of almost two years for every officer who leaves an agency. That amount of time can certainly be shortened. However, any shortcuts would cause problems for the agency down the road.

With the low number of officers being hired, the FTOs or Sergeants may not have time to review any of the reports because they are handling calls as well and running around with their hair on fire every night. That is where the new trainee officer falls through the cracks when it pertains to even simple concepts, like report writing.

Myths of Police Report Writing Not all police officers are bad at writing reports. As an investigator, I have read

some very impressive reports from certain officers and agencies. You can tell just by reading the reports and the details that are placed in them that the officer takes great pride in what they are doing.

Unfortunately, this type of officer is a very small minority.

Not all police officers go through the training program that I have outlined above. Some have gone to agencies in different states that focus their training process on making trainee officers the best report writers they can be. It requires a lot of hard work and dedication on both sides, but in the end, it is worth it. Unfortunately, the process I have described previously has been around for decades and if there was one thing that is a common thread in law enforcement, it is the phrase “This is the way we have always done it.”

I was once told by a seasoned prosecutor that poor police reports lead to

bad case law, large civil payouts, a bad image for the officer and/or their agency and suspects who should absolutely be in jail or prison walking the streets freely.

Not all police officers need a college degree to be good at writing police reports. I can say with absolute confidence that my career as a law enforcement officer and report writer was made easier with English classes and classes in other areas required for my degree. There are some who, because they had a good education growing up, or who were previously in a job that required additional writing skills, do not require a college degree. This group of officers is very much in the minority.

Not all police officers who have advanced degrees are going to be good at report writing, either. I have actually witnessed almost the polar opposite for

officers with BS, MS or even PhDs: As they become more educated, they begin to put way too much thought into each report and what is produced is a long, jumbled version of something that looks like it could be a police report with some serious editing.

Conclusion There is no absolute formula for giving police officers the ability to write better police reports. However, there is absolutely a way to make sure they remain bad and keep getting worse: keep doing things the same way we are now, in most instances.

Police officers will always be overworked, understaffed and underappreciated for what they do. Collectively, however, they need to come up with a standard manner to deal with these failures to keep them from duplicating and becoming even worse.

Spring 2025 | Working PI 19

COVER STORY

State of The Profession: PI Survey Results

by Kendra Budd, Editor

T he field of private investigation continues to evolve, but until now, data about the profession itself has been sparse. Today, the results from a new survey provide critical insights into the state of the investigative profession and give private investigators everywhere data they can use to benchmark their businesses and inspire growth.

Investigator’s Toolbox, and Isaac Peck, Publisher of Working PI magazine. The survey was launched in the fall of 2024 and officially closed on January 31, 2025. After the survey closed, Spaier invited Riddle and Peck to his podcast, PI Perspectives, to discuss the results. Visit WorkingPImag.com/ SurveyPodcast to listen to the podcast.

With over 875 responses from PIs across the United States, the Nationwide Survey for Private Investigators is one of the most comprehensive surveys ever conducted for the profession.

The survey was spearheaded by industry leaders Kelly Riddle of PI Institute of Education, Matt Spaier of PI Perspectives and

The new survey offers a glimpse into private investigators’ use of artificial intelligence (so far), hourly rates, annual income, firm size, and so much more. We hope you enjoy the results and find them useful. (Response counts vary per question because some respondents declined to answer certain questions).

Q5 What % of work is desktop Investigations (research)?

Q2 Are you licensed in more than one state?

Answered: 863

Answered: 877

Skipped: 17

1. Are you licensed in more than one state?

1 State

None

659 187

2-5 States

20

Less than 25%

267

6-10 States

11

Less than 50%

258

11-15 States

0

More than 50%

304

16 or more States

6

100%

0%

10%

20% 30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Skipped: 3

4. What percent of work is desktop Investigations (research)?

90%

100%

28 0%

10%

20% 30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Q6 What % ofare work areInvestigations?

Field Investigations?

Q32.

Do you inina astate requires continuing education? 5. What percent Do youoperate operate statethat that requires of work Field continuing education?Answered: 872

ANSWER CHOICES

2 - 5 States

N/A

6 - 10 States

11 - 15 States

16 or more States

TOTAL

5-10 CE Credits

478 102

11-20 CE Credits

ANSWER CHOICES

RESPONSES Skipped: 8

1 State

76.36%

None

21.67%

187 Less than 25%

Answered: 877

1.27%

Less than 50%11

0.00%

More than 50%0

0.70%

100%

2.28%

6

TOTAL

863

30.44%

None

26

More than 50%

31 or More CE Credits

26

100%

10%

20% 30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

Q1 Are you in a state that requires licensing?

234 411 29

6. Do you use ChatGPT or any other type of AI to Write Answered: 875 Skipped: 5 RESPONSES reports or do research?

3.76% 478

ANSWER CHOICES

RESPONSES

ANSWER CHOICES

N/A

54.82%

None

5 - 10 CE Credits

11.70%

102 Less than 25%

27.52%

240 Less than 50%

21-30 CE Credits

2.98%

More than 50%26

46.86%

31 or More CE Credits

2.98%

100%

26

3.31%

TOTAL

872

11 - 20 CE Credits

TOTAL

847

Yes

31

No

0%

10%

20% 30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

267

3.19%

10% GPT 20% 30% 40%other 50% type 60% 70% 90% 100% Q7 Do you use0%Chat or any of AI80% to Write reports or d research?

100%

3. Are you in a state that requires licensing?

Answered: 878 Skipped: 2

29.42% 34.66%

170

Less than 50%

21-30 CE Credits

0%

33

Less than 25%

240

Skipped:RESPONSES 3

659

100%

19.38%

Yes

184

26.68%

No

691

0%

10%

20% 30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

page 22

20 Working PI | Spring 2025 ANSWER CHOICES

RESPONSES

ANSWER CHOICES

Yes

96.47%

Yes

847

RESPONSES 21.03% 78.97%

100%

Q8 Dopage you20use an online case management system?

Q10 Are you the owner of the PI company you work for?

Answered: 873 7 7. Do you use an online caseSkipped: management system?

Answered: 877 Skipped: 3 11. Are you the owner of the PI company you work for?

281

Yes

592

No

0%

10%

20% 30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Answered: 874 Skipped: 6 RESPONSES 8. How many cases do you typically work per month?

1-10

441

0%

91.79%

592

8.21%

Under $50,000

243

$51,000 - $75,000

$76,000 - $100,000

121

$101,000 - $125,000

92

51 or more

63

$151,000 or more

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

51

No

579

ore

8 / 30

I wish I did

40%

60%

70%

80%

224 $51,000-$75,000 85 High School $76,000-$100,000

4.69%

41 $101,000-$125,000

2.29%

20 $126,000-$150,000 Degree

7.21%

63 or more $151,000

60%

70%

80%

90%

90%

100%

20.31%

131

14.20%

166

7.16%

10.80%

Associate

19.01%

Bachelor’s Degree

874 TOTAL

50%

50%

9.73%

Doctorate Degree

20% 30%

40%

50.46%

381

Master’s Degree

10%

20% 30%

25.63%

171 0%

10%

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES 13.

What level of education do you possess?

Answered: 879 Skipped: 1 441 28.52% Under $50,000

74

I do everything myself

100%

Q14 What level of education do you possess?

Answered: 875 Skipped: 5 Team?

RESPONSES 9. Do you have a dedicated Sales

Yes

90%

162 0%

Q12 Do you have a dedicated Sales Team?

ER CHOICES

80%

173

$126,000 - $150,000 61

40%

70%

No

873 TOTAL

20% 30%

60%

67.81%

20

10%

50%

Answered: 852 Skipped:RESPONSES ANSWER CHOICES 12.

What is your yearly level of income as28a PI?

41-50

0%

40%

Yes 281

41

31-40

20% 30%

32.19%

85

21-30

10%

Q15 What is your yearly level of income from your PI employment?

224

11-20

72

No

Q9 How many cases do you typically work per month?

ER CHOICES

805

Yes

183 18 0%

100%

10%

20% 30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

11 How many support (non-licensed PI's) work in your company?

Q13 is What your biggest Challenge as Business Owner?

10. How manystaff support staff (non-licensed 14.

What yourisbiggest challenge as a business ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES owner?

RESPONSES PIs) work in

ER CHOICES

did

your company?

Answered: 876

Skipped: 5.83% 4

481

0

erything myself

1- 3

51 High School

Answered: 849

579 Degree Associate

74 Degree Bachelor's solicitation &

19.54%

171Degree Master's

20.82%

875 Degree Doctorate and business

2.05%

New client

43.34%

312

client retention

Balancing work

TOTAL

246

management Report writing 53

4 -7 59 8-15

19

Billing, collections and payroll

16 or more

19

Other (please specify)

ER CHOICES

18.89%

66.17% 8.46%

298

0%

14.90% Skipped: 31

10%

20% 30%

40%

50%

22 Working PI | Spring 2025

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

90 148 0%

10%

20% 30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

RESPONSES

ANSWER CHOICES

54.91%

481 solicitation & client retention New client

36.75%

34.02%

298 work and business management Balancing

28.98%

100%

RESPONSES

Q20 How many licensed PI's are there in your company?

Q16 Do you specialize in one type of case?

Answered: 861

869 of Skipped: 11 15. Do you specialize in Answered: one type case?

1

177

Criminal Insurance

95

Legal/ attorney

144

Skipped: 19

19. How many licensed PIs are there in your company?

478

2-3

202

4 -10

134

10-20

30

Domestic 60 Corporate 50 N/A

186

Other (please specify)

157 0%

10%

20% 30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

Q17 Do you bill by the hour or by the job?

100%

21-30

3

31 or more

14 0%

Answered: 875 the Skipped: 5 16. Do you bill by the hour or by job?

RESPONSES

ANSWER CHOICES

Criminal

20.37%

1

177

Insurance

10.93%

2-3

16.57%

Only as needed

4-10

6.90%

10-20

60

Hourly

481

Domestic

By the job 48

5.75%

N/A

31 or more

Other (please specify)

18.07%

TOTAL

157 Every 3 -4

TOTAL

869

0%

10%

20% 30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

17. Do you charge the client an hourly rate of...?

Answered: 860 Skipped: 20

54.97%

Unknown 49

Only as needed

5.49%

16 / 30

118

Every 1-2 years

39.20%

5 or more years TOTAL

222

$76-$100 $101-$125

173

$126-$150

142

$151-$200

99

10%

20% 30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Q22 Do you listen to or watch Podcasts or training videos?

ANSWER CHOICES

Answered: 875

Business

Product/Database review

50

Answered: 873

$101-$125

20.12%

173 product/database review

$126-$150

16.51%

All of the above

11.51%

TOTAL

6.63%

0%

10%

20% 30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

589

RESPONSES

Yes

90%

17.35% 2.10%

125

No

5.82% 68.57%

142 99

37

I’m not sure 860

100%

6.17%

711

57

80%

Skipped: 7

22. Do you currently carry E&O Insurance for your PI firm?

Computer research118 trends

TOTAL

100%

6.84%

18

Case file review 222

298

90%

149

Case file review

13.72%

No

80%

23.83%

3

ANSWER CHOICES

Over $200

70%

13.34%

Computer

49 Business management

577

60%

Skipped: 21 55.99%

53

875 trends research

25.81%

Yes

50%

48

5.70%

$50-$75

40%

Answered: 859

481

Skipped: 5 RESPONSES

Unknown

20% 30%

above Q23 Do you currently carry E&O Insurance for your Private Investigato 0% 10% 20% 30% 40%firm?

50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

18. Do you listen to or watch Podcasts or training videos?

$151-$200

10%

All of the

Over $200 57

$76-$100

209

years

343 management Every 3-4 years

0.34%

Contingency Fee (if allowed in your state)

0%

0.35%

Q1921.

What type of articles areare youyou interested in learning about to improv What type of articles interested in learning RESPONSES your business/skill set? about to improve your business/skill set?

Hourly

TOTAL

100%

3.48%

117

0%

RESPONSES ANSWER CHOICES

$50-$75

90%

1.63%

100%

ANSWER CHOICES

Both

80%

5 or more years 60

3

Q18 Do you charge the client an hourly rate of -

By the job

70%

15.56%

Every 1-2 years

186

Contingency Fee (if allowed in your state)

60%

23.46%

491

144

21-30

343

50%

55.52%

95

21.40%

Both

40%

RESPONSES

50

Corporate

20% 30%

20. How often do you upgrade Answered:computers, 877 Skipped: 3 cameras, etc?

ANSWER CHOICES

Legal/attorney

10%

Q21 How often do you upgrade computers, cameras, etc?

0%

10%

20% 30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

page 24 ANSWER CHOICES

RESPONSES

ANSWER CHOICES

Yes

65.94%

Yes

577

No

34.06%

No

298

RESPONSES

Spring 2025 | Working PI 23 81.44% 14.32%

page 23

Q24 What is the primary reason your firm carries E&O insurance?

Q28 Do you use international resources to fulfill client requests?

23. What is the primary reason your firm carries Answered: 788 Skipped: 92 E&O insurance?

837 Skipped: 43 27. Do you use internationalAnswered: resources to fulfill client requests?

Required by law or regulation

I have a referral source and let them manage the project

219

Required by clients/contracts

77

To protect the business

170

I either do the work or project manage through resources

282

I don’t accept the assignments

311

409

Professionally endorsed

15

Other (please specify)

68

Other (please specify)

0%

10%

20% 30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

74

Q29 If you subcontract work for60% other you100% offer a 0% do 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 70%PI's, 80%do90% discounted rate?

100%

Answered: Skipped: 22 do you offer a 24. If you do not currently carry E&O insurance, 28. If you do subcontract work for858 other PIs, ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES RESPONSES Q25not?

If you do not currently carry E&O insurance, why not? why discounted rate?

ANSWER CHOICES

Answered: 241

Required by law or regulation

Too Required by clients or contracts

Skipped: 639

33

expensive

27.79% I have a referral219 source and let them project manage the work

20.31%

N/A

33.69%

9.77%

401 my recources 77 myself or project manage through I try to do the work

To protect the business from potential lawsuits

51.90% I don't accept the 409 assignments

Recommended by colleague or professional organization Nota required

1.90%

15 5%-10% Other (please specify)

Other (please specify)

8.63%

TOTAL

59

by clients

TOTAL

37.16%

119

68

11%-20%

142

21%-30%

111

788

Unaware of the benefits 9 Haven’t had the time to research it

33

Other (please specify)

31%-40% 49

107 0%

10%

20% 30%

41%-50% 36

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0%

25. How long have you been a877 private Answered: Skipped:investigator?

3

ANSWER CHOICES

RESPONSES

Too expensive

13.69%

138

Unaware of the benefits

6-10 years

Haven't had the time to research it

11-15 years Other (please specify)

143

41%-50%

9

Southeast

82

107Northwest 241

Southwest

North Central

69

26-30 years

89

South Central

63

Other

65

20% 30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

0%

100%

26. Do you belong to a national or international Answered: 876 Skipped: 4 ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES PI association?

400

16 - 20 years 21 - 25 years

No

26 - 30 years

476

31 or more years TOTAL

0%

10%

20% 30%

40%

24 Working PI | Spring 2025

50%

Northeast Southeast

166

Northwest

116

13.00%

Southwest

114

10.26%

North Central

90

10.15%

South Central

89

18.70%

Other

164

80%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

TOTAL

16.36%

138

18.93%

70%

40%

30. Do you belong to yourAnswered: state 874 association?

Skipped:RESPONSES 6

13.23%

60%

20% 30%

ANSWER CHOICES

15.74%

1 - 5 years

10%

Q26 Do you belong to your state association?

Q27 Do you belong to a national or international PI association?

11 - 15 years

100%

4.20%

TOTAL

164

Yes

90%

5.71%

180

90

6 - 10 years

100%

12.94%

21-25 years

10%

90%

16.55%

272

114

0%

80%

13.87%

33

16-20 years

31 or more years

70%

46.74%

Northeast

31%-40%

TOTAL

60%

RESPONSES

59

21%-30%

44.40%

116

50%

33

11%-20%

13.69%

40%

Answered: 874 in?

Skipped: 6 29. What region of the U.S. are you

5%-10%

3.73%

166

20% 30%

ANSWER CHOICES N/A

24.48%

10%

Q30 What region of the U.S. are you in?

Q4 How long have you been a private investigator?

1-5 years Not required by clients

8.84%

877

ANSWER CHOICES

RESPONSES

ANSWER CHOICES

Yes

45.66%

Yes

400

31.12%

Yes

651

9.38% 20.59% 7.89%

No

7.21%

223

7.44%

0%

10%

20% 30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

RESPONSES 74.49%

90%

100%

Interested in Global Rewards?

Whistleblower Reward Programs by the South Korea Tax Authority (National Tax Service)

v

Tax Evasion Information Reward Program

(1) Key Information: Specific and credible evidence of violation of the South Korea tax laws.

(2) Rewards: 5%-20% of the recovered taxes, up to 4 billion KRW (USD 2.8M), based on your contribution. v

Foreign Financial Account Information Reward Program (1) Key Information: All available documents, including account holder names, account numbers, and account balances.

(2) Rewards: 5%-15% of the recovered penalties, up to 2 billion KRW (USD 1.4M)

For more details, contact: taxkorea@protonmail.com

Defending the Defender

by Kelly E. Riddle, Kelmar Global

“The college refused and the lawyers for the security company then countersued the college to include them as a defendant in the case.”

Our agency was employed by an attor-

ney that represented a security guard company in a negligence lawsuit. The security company had the contract at a college to provide 24-hour on-site armed security. During the college’s registration, a security guard was sitting in a room assisting with taking money as the students paid for their classes. Two men with ski masks entered the building and fired several shots from their firearms.

The security guard was struck in the head and killed instantly.

Several students were wounded but recovered from their injuries. As the perpetrators left the building, two additional armed security guards came face-to-face with the perpetrators, who were at opposite ends of the hallway. The security guards were surprised to find guns pointing at them and taking this, along with the safety of other students, into account, elected not to pull their weapons. The two perpetrators exited the building, entered a nearby car and fled the scene.

The security company was subsequently

26 Working PI | Spring 2025

sued by students who were present at the time, alleging that the security guards did not act reasonably in this situation.

Although the security company was a sole proprietorship, the company petitioned the college to have them listed as college employees. This would have enabled the company to be protected due to a government entity having limited liability. The college refused and the lawyers for the security company then countersued the college to include them as a defendant in the case. Obviously, from an investigative standpoint, this limited access to college records and personnel.

In cases such as these, there are several issues that must be overcome for a successful defense to be mounted. These include: (1) foreseeability, (2) crime rate, (3) proper licensing, (4) proper training, (5) adherence to the written contract, (6) reasonable actions of the security personnel, (7) physical access and limitations, and (8) equipment. Although other issues may emerge during the investiga-

tion, these are some of the fundamental building blocks in these types of cases.

Foreseeability: Foreseeability is based on available information from law enforcement agencies, crime statistics, experience, and news sources. An article entitled No Room for Liability, published in the June 1997 edition of Security Management, primarily addresses hotel foreseeability and has implications for the case we are discussing. The article indicates that a hotel in Atlanta was sued after an assault. Initially, the court ruled in favor of the hotel, but the appeals court reversed the decision, finding that the trial court had imposed too narrow a definition of foreseeability.

The article notes that three nearby hotels had suffered more than 400 crimes in their parking lots during the same period. The ruling indicated that the high crime rate in and around the hotel should have been enough to page 28

Learn from the Best + Develop Your Skills Learn real-life investigative techniques to help you grow your business!

Books Sold

Kelmar Global’s book catalog features 14 books written by Kelly E. Riddle. With more than 40 years of investigative experience, Mr. Riddle shares his strategies and standards that have made his firm one of the most successful PI firms in the world.

BUY NOW: www.KelmarGlobal.com/books-video-tapes-software/

Have a case we can help with?

Call (888) 873-1714 License #C05785

Online Education for Private Investigators presented by Kelly E. Riddle

Build Your Expertise

•Website Improved for Easier Use •New Courses and Instructors •Over 7,500 Students Trained •Courses and Seminars (ranging 2-8 hours) •Training for New and Licensed PIs •Complete Course at Your Convenience •Download Certificate Upon Completion 34 Years Providing Professional Training for PIs

Meets State Requirements in Texas, Louisiana, South Carolina, Oklahoma, Florida, and beyond.

Sign up at PIinstitute.com

page 26 warrant extra security. The article continues by stating that security cases hinge on four major elements: Whether the owner owed a duty to provide a safe environment to the injured party, whether the owner breached the duty to provide a safe environment, whether the breach constituted the proximate cause of the injury, and whether the plaintiff suffered actual injury or damage.

The duty to provide a safe environment is pretty basic. In the incident in question, the plaintiffs had a reasonable expectation that they would be safe from such an assault while on campus.

Whether the security company or college breached the duty is more difficult to determine. In Chapman v ESJ Towers (U.S. District Court, Puerto Rico, 1992), the appeals court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, stating the defendant should have had “reasonable foreseeability.”

The court reasoned, among other things, that only one security guard was on duty, working a 12-hour shift without a break, and watching 10-15 CCTV monitors simultaneously. The court also found that cars could get out of the property without going through an access control system. In the case of this incident, there were a reasonable number of security officers on duty at the time of the incident. However, the surveillance cameras were apparently not functioning properly, and no one had been assigned to monitor the cameras.

Additionally, the parking lot area did not have an access control system.

The article points out that “the property owner’s breach of duty must be the proximate cause of the victim’s damages. Inadequate security alone is not enough to warrant a ruling in favor of the victim...”

The article continues by stating that the case laid out other relevant elements about foreseeability, including compliance with industry standards in protecting its premises, the presence of suspicious people around the prem-

28 Working PI | Spring 2025

“Outside of a few burglaries and auto thefts, the area appeared to be free of crime, especially violent crime. We then obtained a breakdown of police calls within a two-mile radius of the college.” ises, and peculiar security problems of the facility, including the design of the facility.

In this incident, contact with other colleges and universities revealed that the security company appeared to operate within industry standards. Most of the colleges and universities contacted revealed that they do not handle registration day any different than any other day as far as security is concerned. In addition, most of their security officers are unarmed.

Crime Rate: The crime rate and crime history in the area of the incident played a role in determining whether the college and security company should have foreseen the probability of an incident such as this. In this situation, the security company did not have access to their reports as they were filed at the college and were not readily available.

Therefore, interviews had to be conducted to determine the general recollection of the crime rate.

Next, we conducted a neighborhood canvass to find out about crimes and the perception of crime in the area near the college. Outside of a few burglaries and auto thefts, the area appeared to be free of crime, especially violent crime. We then obtained a breakdown of police calls within a two-mile radius of the college. There were only 17 assaults, three weapon related calls, seven robberies and 130 suspicious person calls.

We also checked with the local media and the reporters covering the police beat who indicated that they believed the area around the college to be relatively safe. A check of the FBI statistics was then performed, and it was determined that the specific city and those around it had experienced an average decrease in crime of seven percent. Compared to cit-

ies throughout the U.S. with similar populations, the crime rate was even lower.

To take this a step farther, our investigators contacted other colleges and universities in the state to determine if they had experienced any similar incidents and their crime rate. None of these had reported any incidents where there was a victim of a robbery and/or physical assault with a weapon.

A review of current written material related to the topic of foreseeability was conducted. In a 1998 court case, Timberwalk Management v Cain, 972 S.W. 2d 749, the Texas Supreme Court stated: “Crime may be visited upon virtually anyone at any time or place but criminal conduct of a specific nature at a particular location is never foreseeable merely because crime is increasingly random and violent and may possibly occur almost anywhere...” In the incident in question, the incident was “specific in nature” as it was obviously a predetermined act of assault and robbery. In addition, the act was “specific in location” and could not have been a random act that could have been foreseeable based on related crime in the approximate area.

In this same case, the court continued by stating: “A duty exists only when the risk of criminal conduct is so great that it is both unreasonable and foreseeable.

Whether such risk was foreseeable must not be determined in hindsight but rather in light of what the premises owner knew or should have known before the criminal act occurred.” In the incident at the college, “the risk of criminal conduct being both unreasonable and foreseeable” did not appear to exist. Further, there was not any information or other indicators that would have prompted the security company to foresee an event such as this.

Proper Licensing: In this case, a check with the State Board revealed the secu-

rity company was properly licensed and insured. In addition, the security officers were properly licensed at the time of the incident.

Proper Training: At the time of the incident, the security officers in question had completed the training required by the State Board. In addition, each were also properly trained and licensed to carry a weapon on duty.

Adherence to Contract: A review of the contract between the security company and the college revealed that the contract was weak, and little was specified about the actual duties and responsibilities of the security officers. The security company was found to not only have complied with the contract but exceeded it when appropriate. According to the contract, the security company was only required to have two officers on duty for registration. The security company, however, elected to have three officers present.

Reasonable Actions of the Security Officers: According to the author of Trial by Fire, published in Security Management in May 1998, a San Diego State University student shot and killed three instructors on August 15, 1996.

The University’s security personnel approached the shooter and were able to take him into custody. According to the author, “legally, they could have done so, (shot the student), but in the University’s view, the additional bloodshed was not necessary, because the officers were in full control of the situation and would have been able to react to any threatening movement. The officers responded appropriately, displaying judgment and sensitivity while maintaining proper officer safety techniques. Had the officers been unarmed or poorly trained or supervised, the events following the shooting could have escalated an already tragic incident.”

Accordingly, as noted in this article and Keeping Crisis Cool, the manner in which security officers react to a potential threat will have a direct bearing on how the situation escalates. In the

incident in question, the security officers who were not wounded reacted in an appropriate manner by not drawing their weapons. In the interior of a building composed of brick and concrete, any bullets missing their mark would have ricocheted and may have hit innocent bystanders. Additionally, the security officers reacted properly by not attempting to cut off the escape route once the robbers attempted to flee.

Physical Access and Limitations: According to the authors of the textbook Introduction to Security, building design should be considered as a part of security. The authors state, “The cause of security can be furthered simply by making it more difficult (or to be more accurate, less easy) for criminals to get into the premises being protected. And these premises should then be further protected from criminal attack by denying ready access to interior spaces in the event that exterior barriers are surmounted by a determined intruder.”

The authors continue by stating, “Yet few such buildings are ever designed with any thought given to the steps that must eventually be taken to protect them from criminal assault. A building must be many things in order for it to satisfy its occupant. It must be functional and efficient; it must achieve certain aesthetic standards; it must be properly located and accessible to the markets served by the occupant; and it must provide security from interference, interruption, and attack.”

In the incident in question, the perpetrators were able to access a parking lot next to the registration building as there was no type of controlled access for the parking lots. The perpetrators parked within 20 feet of the door to the building where the cash was being held.

Once out of their vehicle, there were several small trees that prevented anyone from observing the door. In addition, the door was set back in a recessed area. The building where the registration was being conducted did not have any windows. A combination of these

factors made access into and out of the property virtually undetectable.

Equipment: According to the contract, the college was supposed to supply all equipment for the security guard company to use at the college. This included CCTV cameras with a monitoring room.

However, the contract did not provide for a security officer to monitor the cameras. Additionally, many of the cameras were not functional.

The investigation revealed that the security company provided the right amount of manpower, training and equipment as required by the contract and industry standards. The actions of the security guards were found to be reasonable and prudent and may have actually prevented additional injuries. The evaluation of the college revealed that they did not adhere to the contract responsibilities, failed to limit access to the college, did not have adequate lighting, and had landscaping and other building design issues that prevented observation of criminal activities.

By the end of the investigation, the security guard company was provided with a capable defense, while at the same time, demonstrating that the real liability rested on the college.

Stay Informed Working PI is the only magazine available to all PIs at no charge in print and online!

Receive every print issue AND get the latest PI news via email.

Opt-In for the Digital News at WorkingPImag.com The latest news—delivered right to your inbox twice a month.

Spring 2025 | Working PI 29

DNA: Do Not Assume

(Evidence is Not Always As It Seems)

by Deborah Stonebarger, Analytic Investigations

“Although DNA analysis is considered one of the most powerful evidence tools, its increasing ability to detect DNA can introduce more doubt.”

I

nvestigators: If there is DNA evidence or firearm evidence in your case, make sure your clients and attorneys hire an expert to review the data and results. Do not assume that the reported results are as damaging to the client’s case as you may have previously believed. The justice system has begun to recognize that some testimony by forensic scientists regarding the results of their evidence analysis can be misleading to the jury.

Jurors usually give heavy weight to evidence analysis results. Jurors and courts aren’t scientists, and it can be difficult

30 Working PI | Spring 2025

to properly educate them during a trial regarding limitations of the significance of forensic evidence analysis results. The use of a qualified expert to review laboratory analysis can ensure that you, the defendants, the attorneys, and the juries have a proper understanding of what analysis was performed, what the results were, what the results mean, and how they can be interpreted.

More on DNA Analysis DNA analysis has come a long way over the last couple of decades. Analysts now have the ability to obtain partial or full DNA profiles from minute quantities of

DNA/cellular material, and indications are that DNA analysis will be able to be performed on ever-decreasing quantities of DNA/cellular material in the future.

Although DNA analysis is considered one of the most powerful evidence analysis tools, the increasing ability to obtain DNA from minute quantities of cellular material can actually leave more room for doubt with regard to the significance of the findings and rendering the tool less powerful in certain situations.

Jurors and prosecutors love to have DNA results to rely on. Both groups of people tend to think that if the suspect’s DNA is

present, then the crime in question was committed. Prosecutors take comfort in the fact that juries hear about DNA evidence and trust it regardless of whether they should because they can have the mindset of “I don’t understand a lot of what that forensic scientist just said on the stand, but I know DNA evidence is ‘good’ evidence.” However, placing too much significance on the DNA evidence and failing to carefully consider possible alternative interpretations of the DNA evidence can be grossly unjust to the defendant.

There are two specific DNA evidence analysis concepts that courts are taking notice of. One simply has to do with the ability to obtain a DNA profile or partial DNA profile from extremely small samples, samples that amount to the equivalent of a couple dozen or fewer cells.

When DNA results are obtained, the analyst cannot state what type of bodily fluid or cellular material it came from without doing additional testing such as looking

for amylase which indicates the presence of saliva, looking for spermatozoa which indicates the presence of semen, or further testing to confirm the presence of blood. Many labs don’t routinely perform these additional tests without a specific request from the prosecuting agency or the law enforcement agency.

Prosecuting agencies are all too happy to allow the jury to infer the type of bodily fluid or material present based upon the alleged circumstances of the crime. For example, there is a reported sexual assault history that the suspect licked the victim’s breast, the suspect’s DNA was found on the breast swab, therefore the DNA came from the suspect’s saliva, which validates the victim’s reported history and testimony and the State’s theory of the crime. However, very small quantities of detectable DNA can be more indicative that a bodily fluid such as semen or saliva was not present. Those bodily fluids have so many cells and are so rich in DNA that the DNA

laboratory would expect to find greater quantities of DNA present. Additionally, if one considers that they don’t know the source of the DNA and that a very small amount of DNA was detected, one must take into account that the DNA could be on the swab or evidence item due to indirect transfer as opposed to direct deposit.

This is especially true in instances where the victim and the suspect cohabitate, and it may be possible to find DNA from all household members on swabs from a person’s body due to secondary transfer.

A further illustration would be sharing of items such as bath towels and toilet seats which can transfer someone else’s DNA from the towel or toilet seat onto a person’s body or sharing of adult bed/ bedding by a young child which could easily transfer the adult’s DNA on the bedding onto a child’s skin or clothing.

No inappropriate intimate contact has been made, yet juries may leap to the page 32

Spring 2025 | Working PI 31

page 31 conclusion if they aren’t given the proper information to consider while weighing the DNA evidence.

The other significant DNA analysis concept has to do with the ability to interpret complex DNA mixtures with numerous contributors to a DNA mixture. A common example of this is finding a firearm believed to have been used in a crime with four, five, and six DNA contributors to the evidence. It appears that firearms used in gang-related crimes in particular are frequently handled by more than one user.

Laboratories use software to help determine the number of contributors or DNA profiles in a sample, particularly in samples with more than three contributors. They also use software to determine statistics such as likelihood ratios and random match probabilities.

These statistics are used in an attempt to quantify the significance of finding a suspect’s DNA profile among the possible profile combinations observed in a complex DNA mixture.

Being able to determine the number of contributors and whether a suspect’s profile is in the mixture does not inform the courts and juries which one of the contributors (if any) used the firearm in commission of a crime, since it is possible to have an additional user who wore gloves. It was once thought that the person with the strongest profile who deposited the most cellular material would have to be the person who most recently used it, with previous or older users’ cellular material being less prominent due to time and handling of the firearm.

However, this has recently been proven not to be the case. There are several factors that can contribute to how much DNA is left behind by an individual, but the bottom line is that DNA analysis cannot determine when the DNA was deposited on evidence.

United States v Francisco Ortiz is an example of a recent ruling where DNA evidence was excluded based upon the reliability of DNA software to be able to

32 Working PI | Spring 2025

“There are instances where some firearms lab analysts call an identification on a piece of firearms evidence, when it should be considered inconclusive.” accurately determine the number of contributors to a sample. State of Minnesota v Exavier Lloyd Porter is another example of a ruling where a motion to suppress one item with DNA was granted due to it being a complex mixture from five or more contributors, and for a second item due to the low quantity of DNA present.

Firearms Analysis in the Courts There are a couple of reasons why you should always recommend your attorneys and clients arrange an expert review of the firearms analysis in your case. One reason is that what constitutes an identification (“match”) is ultimately subjective, even though experienced firearms examiners will often agree with one another on an identification conclusion. The reason it is ultimately subjective is that there is currently no method or procedure that can quantify what constitutes an identification over an inconclusive conclusion, and there is no statistical software that can be used to describe the level of certainty in an identification.

There are instances where some firearms lab analysts call an identification on a piece of firearms evidence, when it should be considered inconclusive. This may be due to the inherent bias in crime labs (almost all of which are associated with law enforcement and prosecution), lack of proper training and experience, lack of proper supervision, and/or lack of proper lab procedures. Even if it seems like it is a “battle of the experts” over firearms conclusions, it is worth putting forward to the jury and may be enough to cause reasonable doubt, which will benefit the defendant.

Another reason to have an expert review of the firearms analysis is to ensure that the limitations of identification conclusions are worded correctly. Some

courts have made rulings limiting the way an analyst may word their testimony. Statements such as “the bullet (or cartridge case) was fired from the suspect’s firearm to the exclusion of all other firearms” or “only the suspect’s gun could have fired the bullet” are no longer allowed in some courts, as discussed in United States v Marquette Tibbs or People v Tidd of the California appellate courts.

These decisions are, in part, related to the previously discussed subjectivity of conclusions and lack of proper statistical data to support a spent bullet or cartridge case could only have been fired in one specific firearm when it is not possible to compare every firearm ever made to the evidence in question. Opinions such as “the bullet is consistent with being fired in the suspect firearm,” “the bullet cannot be excluded as having been fired in the suspect firearm,” or that “the bullet was likely to have been fired in the suspect firearm” or similarly worded opinions would be considered more acceptable.

Conclusion Clients are always entitled to the best defense possible. The best possible defense will include the use of experts to review discovery materials, especially when it comes to DNA and firearms evidence analysis. While the lab work and conclusions of the lab personnel may be acceptable or accurate, using an expert to ensure that the significance of the results are explained properly to the defense team and in court is beneficial to the defendant.

Additionally, if these types of results continue to be properly challenged in court, there will be a growing number of legal opinions regarding forensic evidence analysis that prevent undue prejudice to the defendant.

PRESS RELEASE

Industry Veteran Jim Nanos Joins Working PI as Senior Contributor January 29, 2025 — Working PI magazine, the most widely read publication for private investigators nationwide, is proud to announce that Jim Nanos has joined its editorial team as a Senior Contributor. Jim Nanos, a highly respected figure in the private investigation profession, brings decades of experience and insight to the pages of Working PI, further solidifying its reputation as the premier publication for investigative professionals.

Nanos is no stranger to the world of private investigation media. As a former co-owner of PI Magazine, he has long played a pivotal role in shaping industry discussions and delivering valuable content to private investigators nationwide. His extensive career in the investigative field makes him an invaluable addition to the Working PI team.

sations within the private investigation community. His experience as a private investigator, entrepreneur, and former publisher gives him a unique perspective that will resonate with our readers and elevate the content we provide.”

Jim Nanos’ career spans over 25 years in the investigative profession, with expertise in surveillance, fraud investigation, corporate security, and law enforcement support. He is a soughtafter speaker at industry conferences, known for his engaging and practical advice on the tools and techniques that private investigators need to succeed.

As a Senior Contributor to Working PI, Nanos will pen regular columns, provide in-depth feature articles, and offer practical insights that empower investigators to grow their businesses, enhance their skills, and stay ahead of the curve in an ever-evolving industry.

Isaac Peck

“I am honored to join the team at Working PI, a publication I’ve long admired for its dedication to the private investigation profession,” said Nanos.

“As someone who has been deeply involved in this industry for most of my career, I’m excited to contribute to a platform that reaches so many investigators and plays such a vital role in shaping the future of our field.”

“We are absolutely thrilled to welcome Jim Nanos to Working PI as a Senior Contributor,” said Isaac Peck, Publisher of Working PI. “Jim has an exceptional track record of not only providing expert analysis and thought leadership but also fostering meaningful conver-

The addition of Jim Nanos to Working PI aligns with the magazine’s ongoing commitment to delivering the most relevant, timely, and actionable content to its readers. With a readership that spans over 25,000 investigative professionals across the United States, Working PI aims to reach over 70 percent of all PIs across

Jim Nanos the country—beyond paid subscription models or association ties.

Nanos is also excited to be launching his new PI equipment company, SpyGearPro.com and his mentoring business, ThePICoach.com and accompanying podcast, both in the first quarter of 2025.

Nanos’ first column as Senior Contributor appears in this issue (see pg. 14) of Working PI magazine (Spring 2025; Vol. 9).

For more information about Working PI or to subscribe, visit https://workingpimag.com/.

Handling Car Accident Investigations

by Michael R. Depew, Accident Reconstructionist

“Without knowing how to properly preserve a scene, or understanding what to look for, you could easily cause more harm than good and find yourself out of your depth of experience.”

Whether you have been an inves-

tigator for twenty years or you are just starting out, there’s a good chance that you will encounter a car accident investigation. It might even be a friend or family member who was involved in an auto accident and is now facing a lawsuit or insurance dispute or both. If you find yourself in this situation, it is important to keep in mind that these cases must be handled in a specific way in order to best preserve evidence and protect your client.

It’s not as simple as reading the DPS report and taking it as “fact.” Often there are crucial evidentiary pieces that get overlooked, destroyed or neglected.

Without knowing how to properly preserve a scene, or understanding what to look for, you could easily cause more harm than good and find yourself out of your depth of experience.

In my 36 years as an accident investigator and reconstructionist, I’ve specialized in working alongside plaintiffs’ attorneys, defense attorneys, trucking companies, and families of individuals

34 Working PI | Spring 2025

involved in fatal auto accidents. They all want the same thing: the truth. Finding out what happened and how it happened is my job. I’m writing this article for other investigators who are interested in the pursuit of truth so that you can approach your next auto accident case with a clear framework to help piece together the fragments and tell the story.

Understanding the Scene The very first step in your auto accident investigation, as with any other investigation, is to speak with the client. Unfortunately, this is rarely where reliable, factual evidence will be found.

Accidents happen quickly, and human recall and perception at high rates of speed is incredibly unreliable. Of course, you still want to speak with the client to get their perspective and any information they can offer, but it is imperative that you visit the scene of the accident as quickly as possible after the accident has occurred.

At the scene, take pictures. Anything you see is potentially probative evidence.

In particular, look for debris, tire/skid marks, damaged road signs or railings etc. Your job is to gather puzzle pieces.

Make careful documentation. As you survey the area, meticulously record your observations, and capture the layout of the scene, the positions of vehicles, and the presence of any debris. Note the orientation of the vehicles. Are there any signs of impact such as crumpled hoods, broken headlights, or tire marks? Every detail, no matter how seemingly insignificant, could hold a vital clue in reconstructing the accident.

Pay close attention to tire tracks, skid marks, and any visible damage. Note the length and depth of the tire marks and any distinctive patterns. These markings can provide crucial insights into the vehicle’s speed, braking distance, and direction of travel.

Debris could include pieces of broken glass, plastic fragments, tire rubber, or even clothing. Each piece of debris offers a fragment of the puzzle, potentially revealing the impact zone, the se-

quence of events, or even the identity of a vehicle involved.

Note the condition of the road surface, as this also plays a significant role in understanding the dynamics of the accident. Pay attention to the surface type, whether it’s asphalt, concrete, gravel, or dirt. You also check for any irregularities, such as potholes, uneven surfaces, or debris. These factors can influence vehicle handling, braking, and the overall dynamics of the collision.

Conducting Witness Interviews “But Mike—you said witnesses are unreliable.” Well, yes. And no.

While the scene tells the most reliable story, there are still valuable perspectives to be gleaned from eyewitness statements. Your job is to gather all the information and perspectives

from anyone involved. Sometimes witness accounts differ entirely. Other times, witnesses are able to offer only part of the story while other witnesses can offer complimentary pieces that corroborate it. This is partially due to the speed at which most accidents occur and the resulting trauma that colors the event.

In the initial stages, it is important to remain objective when interviewing witnesses and resist any tendency toward confirmation bias. Approach witness interviews with a critical eye, recognizing the potential for memory distortions, biases, or even deliberate misrepresentations. Always introduce yourself to witnesses, creating a rapport that fosters trust and open communication, and ask open-ended questions, encouraging them to recount their observations in their

own words, avoiding leading questions that could influence their responses.

Examples of open-ended questions for witnesses include: “Can you please describe what you saw just before the accident occurred?”

“What were you doing at the time of the accident?”

“How did the vehicles involved in the accident appear to be moving?”

“What did you observe about the conditions of the road and weather?”

By asking open-ended questions, you’re giving the witness the freedom to recount their story in their own words, minimizpage 36

Spring 2025 | Working PI 35

page 35

Document everything. Record it if possible, with permission of course. Maintaining detailed notes, capturing the verbatim statements, any hesitations or inconsistencies, and any emotional responses can be valuable as you consider other evidence in conjunction with the testimony.

with another vehicle, object, or surface occurred. They are often characterized by dents, creases, or punctures. The impact points on a vehicle can provide insight into the dynamics of the collision. For example, a front-end impact with significant deformation to the front bumper and grill suggests a head-on collision, while a side impact with damage to the driver’s side door might indicate a T-bone collision.

vehicles. Examining scratches and abrasions on the vehicle’s surface can be useful in understanding the sequence of events. Scratches on the side of a vehicle, for example, might indicate that the vehicle was struck from the side and then slid along the surface. The direction and depth of the scratches can provide valuable information about the nature of the contact and the relative motion of the vehicles.

By meticulously collecting, documenting, and analyzing evidence, you create a comprehensive picture of the accident.

This meticulous approach forms the foundation for your investigation, laying the groundwork for uncovering the truth and determining liability.

By examining the impact points, investigators can often determine the direction of the impact, the point of initial contact, and the relative positions of the vehicles involved. This is called PDOF— Principle Direction of Force—but this is a topic for another day.

Your task is to decipher the clues, to unravel the dynamics of the collision, and to coalesce a compelling story based on the evidence you have gathered.

Deformation: This refers to the bending, twisting, or crushing of the vehicle’s structure due to the impact forces.

Deformation patterns can indicate the direction of the impact, the severity of the collision, and the points of contact.

Deformation patterns are another indicator of the severity and nature of the crash. The way a vehicle deforms can reveal the direction of the impact, the force applied, and the areas of contact.

A crushed front end indicates a highimpact collision, while a bent fender might suggest a glancing blow.

Tire Marks and Skid Marks: These can reveal the direction of travel, braking distances, and the speed of the vehicles involved. Skid mark analysis involves more than just measuring the length of the marks. Investigators carefully examine the patterns and characteristics of the marks to gain a complete understanding of the vehicle’s movements.

ing the risk of introducing biases or influencing their recollections.

Analyzing Physical Evidence The first step in analyzing the physical evidence of a car accident is a comprehensive assessment of vehicle damage.

This involves meticulously examining the collision points, deformation patterns, and the overall extent of damage to each vehicle involved. Every dent, scratch, and tear tells a story, providing valuable clues about the forces at play during the collision.

The thorough examination of vehicle damage is a critical aspect of any accident reconstruction. It allows you to determine the nature and severity of the collision, the sequence of events, and even the potential speed of the vehicles involved. By studying the damage patterns, impact points, and deformation, you can piece together a detailed picture of what happened.

So, what types of damage should you look for? There are several types, but for purposes of this article, let’s focus on just a few main ones.

Impact Points: These are the areas of the vehicle where the initial contact

36 Working PI | Spring 2025

Fractures: These are breaks or cracks in the vehicle’s frame, body panels, or other structural components. They suggest significant impact forces and can provide clues about the forces involved.

Fractures in the vehicle’s frame, body panels, or other structural components can reveal information about the impact forces. A fractured frame can indicate a significant impact that exceeds the structural integrity of the vehicle. By analyzing the location and severity of fractures, investigators can gain insights into the direction and magnitude of the forces involved.

Scratches and Abrasions: These can indicate sliding contact or dragging, providing information about the sequence of events and the relative motion of the

Straight skid, curved skid, yaw marks, scuff marks and tire tracks all have different implications and formulas we use in the field. Don’t worry too much about this, just take good photos and then call me!

Final Thoughts A thorough understanding of the scene, collecting witness statements, and examining vehicle damage are essential elements for any accident investigation.

This includes detailed photographs and measurements of the scene, documentation of the witness statements, and collection of damage details to all vehicles involved, as well as written descriptions of the deformation patterns, impact points, and other observed features. A comprehensive report can be compiled from the data and used in legal proceedings or for future reference.

It is important to handle these types of investigations with an eye toward detail, patience, and passion for uncovering the truth. The layers of evidence, both scientific and circumstantial, can sometimes take months to fully evaluate in order to determine what really happened. But despite the sometimes-overwhelming aspects of this field of investigation, it remains one of the most rewarding.

Privacy and Your DNA

by Misty Gillis, Genetic Genealogist at BirthParentFinder.com and Jay Rosenzweig, Founder/CEO of BirthParentFinder.com

“For maximum anonymity, consider creating a completely new username that is not indexed by search engines, ensuring it cannot be traced back to you.”

A

significant concern for many potential clients revolves around the privacy implications of submitting their DNA to testing services such as the two major test services, Ancestry and 23andMe. We will also discuss Family Tree DNA (FTDNA), My Heritage DNA and Living DNA. We will explain how these platforms handle your DNA and the measures you can take (or your clients can take) to safeguard privacy during the testing process.

Starting with AncestryDNA (with over 25 million users in its DNA network), the company prioritizes your privacy by anonymizing your data once your sample is dispatched to their third-party laboratory. They adhere to a strict policy of not sharing any identifiable information associated with your genetic or health data with external parties unless you provide explicit consent.

What does this mean for you?

Your data, or your client’s data is anonymized using a unique identifier, which is not linked to your name or address.

Consequently, the personnel handling

your sample in the laboratory remain unaware of its owner. If you wish to enhance your anonymity further, consider registering under various options.

For those primarily interested in connecting with biological relatives, using your birth name (if known) is advisable, as it will only be recognized by your biological family. Alternatively, you can register using your initials or a username, which adds an extra layer of security to your personal identity. For maximum anonymity, consider creating a completely new username that is not indexed by search engines, ensuring it cannot be traced back to you.

We encountered a situation involving an individual who shared the common concerns expressed by many regarding privacy. To address this, we advised him to register his DNA kit using the birth name listed in his non-ID, a name known only to his biological relatives. Remarkably, this name was recognized by his top match on Ancestry, who turned out to be a half-sibling searching for their adopted brother. This connection allowed him to engage with her immediately, bypassing

the need to determine their relationship, and he successfully removed his sample from Ancestry the following week.

Ancestry, like 23andMe, prohibits law enforcement from accessing their database. If you have concerns about your DNA being utilized in legal matters, these two platforms are the most suitable options for testing.

What about the privacy issues associated with 23andMe? 23andMe (with over 15 million users) adheres to stringent privacy policies akin to those of AncestryDNA. They do not disclose genetic or self-reported information to employers, insurance providers, public databases, or marketing firms without your explicit permission. This means you maintain control over what information you share and with whom. Additionally, like AncestryDNA, you are not required to use your full name at account creation.

FamilyTreeDNA (FTDNA) FTDNA (with over six million users) also adheres to a stringent privacy policy.

Your sample is de-identified when added page 40

38 Working PI | Spring 2025

Grow Your Business and Your Revenue with TheProfitablePI.com Do you struggle with the “cash flow” part of your business?

Are you ready to grow your business but don’t know the mechanics of working with subcontractors or employees?

Want to develop a more consistent work product?

Want to market your business to attorneys but not sure how to go about it?

These are GOLD! Using these manuals takes the guesswork out of the expectations for a quality investigator.

- Dorothy Grutzner Vandergrutz Investigations Agency

If you’re better at investigating than running a business, you’re not alone.

The Profitable PI’s series of Books and Manuals help you supercharge your marketing and streamline your business operations, so you can increase your profit margin.

Download Book or Manual

These fantastic manuals provide a long overdue need for private investigators to set up their businesses for success.

- Kim Ridding, CDS, CDI-FTER

Apply Learned Skills to Grow Your Business

Enjoy the Rewards from Higher Profits

Earn More Now at:

TheProfitablePI.com “Investigators in Cars, Drinking Coffee” On YouTube: @InvestigatorsInCars

page 38 to the database, and the only identifying information shared is what the user chooses to share (name, e-mail address).

They do allow Law Enforcement access to the database but allow users to ‘optout’ of Law Enforcement access.

MyHeritage DNA MyHeritage (with over six million DNA kits in its database) again follows a stringent privacy policy, they also prohibit Law Enforcement access to their database.

Their TOS (Terms of Service) explicitly state that Forensic profiles cannot be uploaded to their database. The only information shared with other users is what is provided by the user holding the account.

Living DNA Living DNA (300,000 users) follows the same type of privacy policies as the other databases, and they also restrict Law Enforcement access. Their TOS states that they will only comply with Law En-

40 Working PI | Spring 2025

forcement access through a court order, subpoena or warrant.

What is GEDmatch?

GEDmatch is an open database where individuals who have taken direct-to-consumer tests (My Heritage, AncestryDNA, 23andMe, FTDNA etc.) can download their Single Nucleotide Polymorphism “SNP” data and upload it GEDmatch for a more extensive match list. It’s free, and users can create an account, upload their SNP data, and be compared to users who have done the same on other testing platforms. There are a variety of tools to examine DNA matches, view admixture, and other useful research tools. It should be noted that every kit uploaded into the GEDmatch database is automatically opted-in to Law Enforcement access for Unidentified Human Remains cases (John or Jane Does). The user does have the option of opting out of Law Enforcement matching for violent offender cases (mur-

der, rape, etc). The most useful part about GEDmatch is that if a person has tested at one specific DNA site, such as Ancestry, they can upload their raw DNA and compare it against other individuals who have tested on sites such as FTDNA. What if you find your family and no longer want your DNA online?

The great advantage of both platforms is the ease with which you can delete your DNA file from their databases. If you have achieved your goals or simply reconsidered your decision, you can remove your kit at any time.

Taking a DNA test can be daunting for some individuals, but this article aims to clarify common privacy concerns and demonstrates that it need not be a frightening experience. Your clients have full control over their DNA sample and can delete it whenever they choose, along with the option to remain anonymous.

Industry-Leading Insurance for Professional Investigators

Few Programs truly specialize in Investigator Insurance.

We Do. It Matters.

Whether you’re out in the field, or doing background research from your office, OREP’s got you covered.

General Liability and E&O Coverage in a Single Policy Includes 25K in Business Personal Property Coverage Includes Independent Contractors at no extra cost Comes with Blanket Additional Insured Includes Security Consulting and Executive Protection

Over 14,000 Professionals

Trust OREP with Their Insurance Visit OREP.org/PI Today!

Calif. Lic. #0K99465