Private Investigator News and Information

It’s been more than two and a half years since former FBI agent Robert Levinson vanished in Iran. Levinson was working as an independent contractor for London-based Global Witness, an international non-governmental organization, in March 2007 when he was sent to Kish Island on a 24-hour assignment in connection with a cigarette smuggling case. Fox News Reports

Police ceased evidence from private investigators in South Carolina who located the remains of a missing person they were hired, by counsel, to find. The Post and Courier reports. The attorney has filed suit against the police

ISPLA’s Chairman Peter Psarouthakis and Bruce Hulme, Director of Government Affairs, were joined by ISPLA Executive Committee members, Nicole Bocra, Al Cavasin, Jim Carino and Jim Olsen at a conference recently held with Federal Trade Commission representatives of the Division of Privacy and Identification Protection. 

The FTC was presented with industry position statements concerning several bills pending in Congress, which. if passed, will severely curtail our profession’s access to database information which we routinely rely upon during the course of our handling investigations.  Also provided to the FTC was a 2007 “white” paper previously submitted by ISPLA Legislative Director Bruce Hulme. That paper had been prepared in connection with the President’s Identity Theft Task Force recommendations in 2008.

ISPLA was also asked to consider participating in December at an upcoming FTC roundtable discussion to explore the privacy challenges posed by the vast array of 21st century technology and business practices that collect and use consumer data.  Such practices include social networking, cloud computing, online behavioral advertising, mobile marketing, and the collection and use of information by retailers, data brokers, third-party applications, and other diverse businesses.  We were advised that the goal of this forum is to determine how best to protect consumer privacy while supporting beneficial uses of the information and technological innovation.

The roundtable discussions will consider the risks and benefits of information collection and use in online and offline contexts, consumer expectations surrounding various information management practices, and the adequacy of existing legal and self-regulatory regimes to address privacy interests.  Roundtable participants will include stakeholders representing a wide range of views and experiences, such as academics, privacy experts, consumer advocates, industry participants and associations, technology experts, legislators, international representatives, and others.  

The FTC was advised of our concerns with HR 3126, the Consumer Financial Protection Agency Act, which would establish a new agency to regulate the manner in which the financial services industry deals with consumers.  They were aware that it contained a provision that would transfer jurisdiction from the Federal Trade Commission to the proposed new Consumer Financial Protection Agency.  ISPLA, working with other professional associations, has expressed hope that non-financial businesses won’t fall under CFPA jurisdiction.  ISPLA had previously held a meeting with Representative Barney Frank, the bill’s sponsor, and conveyed our preference that issues affecting private investigators who may be compiling consumer investigative reports remain under the jurisdiction of the FTC.  It is our hope that any new draft of Congressman Frank’s bill will allow for our concerns.

For information about Investigative & Security Professionals for Legislative Action please go to: WWW.ISPLA.ORG

Colorado legislators are considering whether to make it harder for workers comp insurers to use video surveillance to ferret out suspicious injury claims. Legislators on an interim committee are looking into the state’s largest comp insurer, contending Pinnacol Assurance’s anti-fraud video surveillance was excessive. Pinnacol says its surveillance is legal and often is the key evidence in landing convictions for fake injury claims. One proposal that may come before the 2010 legislature would require insurers to show “probable cause” before being allowed to use video surveillance.

Investigative & Security Professionals for Legislative Action – Political Action Committee presents its first two PAC checks to lawmakers in Washington D.C.

ISPLA, through its newly formed nonpartisan ISPLA-Political Action Committee (PAC), has provided another “first” for Investigative and Security Professionals.  On Wednesday, September 23, 2009, ISPLA-PAC presented its first two PAC checks to longtime supporters of our professions.

ISPLA-PAC was officially organized on July 2, 2009 to support members of Congress that support the investigative and security professions.  With our PAC, ISPLA’s impact on legislation is strengthened by the added ability to support candidates whose positions are aligned with ISPLA’s goals.

These ISPLA-PAC donations are but a small expression of our thanks to these two members of Congress who understand the needs of investigative and security professionals.

For more information regarding this release or ISPLA go to www.ispla.org.

From DelawareOnline.com, Letters to the Editor

August 12, 2009

I take umbrage at the comments of Georgetown Police Chief William Topping that private investigators are “there to prove their client’s case. There’s no impartiality or neutrality. They get their orders from their employee.” (“Milton defends its private eye hiring,” Aug. 6)

Nothing could be further from the truth. Professional private investigators always advise our clients that we are looking for the truth, and the truth may not be what they see, want or hope it to be. A client who has an agenda other than finding the truth is a client who is turned away. Period.

I write this as a professional private investigator of 30 years experience who has proudly testified truthfully in hundreds of cases; as a past president of the Delaware Association of Detective Agencies, and as a founding member of, and now first Vice President of, the World Investigator’s Network (founded in Delaware, and now boasts members from 54 countries).

By the way, one of our former presidents is now a judge in the Justice of the Peace Court – in Georgetown.

Caryn Gloyd, P.I., Hockessin

Important article from the Washington Post

Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, August 11, 2009

The Obama administration is proposing to scale back a long-standing ban on tracking how people use government Internet sites with “cookies” and other technologies, raising alarms among privacy groups.

A two-week public comment period ended Monday on a proposal by the White House Office of Management and Budget to end a ban on federal Internet sites using such technologies and replace it with other privacy safeguards. The current prohibition, in place since 2000, can be waived if an agency head cites a “compelling need.”

Supporters of a change say social networking and similar services, which often take advantage of the tracking technologies, have transformed how people communicate over the Internet, and Obama’s aides say those services can make government more transparent and increase public involvement.

Some privacy groups say the proposal amounts to a “massive” and unexplained shift in government policy. In a statement Monday, American Civil Liberties Union spokesman Michael Macleod-Ball said the move could “allow the mass collection of personal information of every user of a federal government website.”

Full article

Private detectives working for the parents of missing British girl Madeleine McCann have released a sketch of a woman they believe may know something about the child’s disappearance.McCann family spokesman Clarence Mitchell and David Edgar, a retired police detective heading the search for Madeleine, held a news conference in London on Thursday.

Edgar said the woman, described as having short, dark hair and a resemblance to former Spice Girl Victoria Beckham, spoke to two British men in a Barcelona bar on May 7, 2007 — three days after Madeleine went missing in Portugal.

CBC News Reports

The Califonia Supreme Court issued an interesting opinion on August 3rd in Hernandez v. Hillsides, Inc. The ruling takes a sensible, practical approach, finding that employees have a reasonable expectation of privacy at work, but that hidden video surveillance may be ok where an employer has “legitimate business concerns.”

Justice Marvin Baxter wrote for a unanimous court, “Activation of the surveillance system was narrowly tailored in place, time and scope, and was prompted by legitimate business concerns . . . Plaintiffs were not at risk of being monitored or recorded during regular work hours and were never actually caught on camera or videotape.”

Good story found in USA Today written by Byron Acohido

Excerpt:

Corporate espionage using very simple tactics — much of it carried out by trusted insiders, familiar business acquaintances, even janitors — is surging. That’s because businesses large and small are collecting and storing more data than ever before. What’s more, companies are blithely allowing broad access to this data via nifty Internet services and cool digital devices.

The NJ Appellate Court issued a decision last month in Stengart v. Loving Care, http://74.125.93.132/search?q=cache:http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/opinions/a3506-08.pdf that will have a major impact upon how you draft employee privacy clauses in company handbooks, and more importantly, how you use evidence collected by your IT department or computer forensic experts during internal investigations and litigation. The issue in Stengart was whether a company could retain emails sent between an employee and her lawyer via a company-issue laptop (but using her private email account). They were located in the forensic image of the laptop and some of them were produced in discovery. When the employee’s counsel asked for their return, the employer refused, claiming they were company property because she used the company computer to send/receive them. The trial court sided with the company, but on appeal, the Appellate Court overturned the decision. It determined the company’s handbook (in which the computer usage policies were contained) was ambiguous at best, and that public policy trumped it anyway. It found the communications were privileged and property of the employee, not the company. Even more troubling was the fact that the Court remanded the case to chancery court for a hearing on whether the law firm was to be disqualified because it read all the emails and did not follow RPC 4.4(b). From our perspective, this decision goes beyond attorney-client communications–they can be easily carved out of from anything produced and the issue of their existence taken up with opposing counsel later. What is of greater interest is the Court’s commentary that employees do many things on their work-issued computers that are personal in nature, ought to remain private, and do not affect any legitimate business interests of the company other than a claim that the employee was not attending to his duties.

For Immediate Release

July 27, 2009

Investigative & Security Professionals for Legislative Action (ISPLA) is proud to announce that their exclusive, first of its kind, and real-time state and federal legislative tracking system for the investigative and security professions is now open online to all for a limited time.

To view and use this great system, go to Legislation Tracking

This is a live system that is updated daily. You will now be able to stay on top of the ever-changing legislation that occurs in your state and around the country.  Just click on the interactive map to choose the state with which you are concerned.

What we have created on the ISPLA website is a first for the investigative and security professions and has never before been provided by any other professional organization. The ISPLA website is the definitive location for up-to-the-minute legislative activity.  For a limited time only, the state and federal legislative tracking system will be available free of charge to all who visit the ISPLA website. In the future, this system will be accessible only to members.

ISPLA continues to move forward and be proactive. In the past few months, ISPLA representatives have been speaking and working with members of Congress and regulatory agencies on important issues that impact your businesses. At this time, bills and regulatory issues are proliferating.  Issues of continuing education, identity theft, social security number access, and more, are all continually evolving; and ISPLA is monitoring what is happening across the country. We are available to assist you at the state level as well.

In the coming weeks, ISPLA representatives will be meeting individually with key members of Congress and their staff on critical issues involving our profession. To date, ISPLA representatives have made personal contact with over 300 members of Congress.

It is imperative that we not wait to act until legislation has been proposed that will adversely affect our ability to do business. Business as usual in these trying times is not the answer. Being proactive and building relationships is the name of the game. Having a political action committee is as well. We are the first national association representing investigators and security professionals to form a federal PAC. If you want more information on how you can help your profession in both the state and national arenas, go to the ISPLA website now: www.ispla.org

Support your profession by joining ISPLA.

By Roger H. Schmedlen, CPP, CFE, CII, MIPI

The following is the complete version of the 1800 word article which was condensed in the August issue of PI Magazine.

It is difficult for modern investigators to remain competitive and successful without routinely improving their skills through advanced training, staying abreast of new techniques in their areas of expertise, and understanding the consequences of court decisions and changes in legislation impacting their practice areas. Professional investigators invest substantial time and money in continuing education (CE) in their individual specialties.

Mandatory CE is Appropriate for Certification, Not Licensing

Most states have no mandatory continuing education (MCE) for bookkeepers, accountants or auditors. However, accountants and auditors who choose to become certified—as CPAs and CIAs do—must obtain CE credits to preserve certification. In our business, certification programs, such as CLI®, PCI, CPI and CFE require CE credits to maintain certified status. The purpose of certification is to provide recognition to practitioners with a proven high level of professionalism, not to prohibit employment to lesser motivated competitors.

Requiring CE to preserve certification is reasonable and appropriate. These programs have been developed by competent, experienced practitioners, rather than by bureaucrats with little or no knowledge of the occupations.

Mandating CE simply to maintain PI licensing is neither reasonable nor appropriate. It provides no benefit to consumers.

Some states are considering altering their statutes to require 8-16 hours of CE credit for license renewal, which a few states already require.

Problems With Mandatory CE

Based on discussions with investigators in one state where this condition exists, MCE would appear to be a boondoggle at best, providing no benefit to either consumers or licensed PIs who must invest time and money to attend the same generic police-oriented class where year after year nothing of real value is covered.

Not all valid training is obtained in a classroom. Certainly any single issue of PI Magazine provides more usable information than the generic, required class mentioned above. Some complicated cases require extensive research, another form of learning. PIs who are members of associations obtain valid training and legal updates via newsletters and list serves, as well as at meetings, seminars, and during networking exchanges.

The California Proposal

California is one of the states where there is a move by misguided politicians to mandate CE for licensed PIs. State Senator Tom Harmon’s SB 202 appears to be a clone of State Senator Margett’s 2008 SB 1282, which was vetoed by Governor Schwarzennegger last year. The bill requires 12 hours of documented training every two years by all license holders under 70 years of age, but does not apply to PIs working for license holders or proprietary investigators. Of the 12 hours, two must cover ethics, two must cover privacy rights, and two must cover legal updates while the other six hours can deal with other approved training related to investigations. However, only training obtained from continuing education providers approved by the CA Bureau of Security and Investigation Services (BSIS) is acceptable.

Additionally, under this CA proposal, the approved CE provider must provide a certificate that must be retained by both the PI and the provider for five years. The provider must retain records–including sign-in/attendance sheets or electronic signatures for distance learning–and the agenda and course has to be approved by a BSIS Review Committee that could include only one professional investigator or professional association member.

In one two-year period, I obtained over 120 hours of quality training through a two-day DHS/ICE training course in MI, two ASIS Regional Conferences in MI., a CII Regional Conference in IL, an Associations One Conference in IL, extended proprietary IP training at Nike, Inc. in OR and Oakley, Inc. in CA, and a portion of the combined CPIO & CAPI conference in Toronto where I had the honor of being a speaker. Of this 120-plus hours of exceptional training, none would be acceptable under the CA proposed criteria (or elsewhere) since certificates were not issued in all cases, copies of certificates were not retained by providers, records were not necessarily maintained for five years, sign-in sheets were not required by DHS/ICE, there were no approved BSIS agendas or course outlines, and DHS/ICE, ASIS, CII, Associations One, Nike, Oakley and Canada’s CPIO and CAPI were not approved providers.

Professional PIs stay up to date on privacy topics and legal issues without coercion. They are exceptionally ethical. News reports suggest many lawmakers and regulators have a distinctly different understanding of ethics than the rest of us and perhaps would not be the most qualified to develop such a curriculum.

Regardless, the naïve assumption that mandatory ethics training would inspire unethical PIs to change their ways is ludicrous. PIs should not only view compulsory ethics training as onerous, unnecessary and of no benefit, but also as offensive and insulting. By singling out PIs for mandatory ethics training, these lawmakers send a clear message that unlike any other profession, they believe PIs are unethical. This is similar to the situation covered in Ray Michalko’s article in the April 2009 edition of PI Magazine, where he reported that every Canadian in the Province of British Columbia can lawfully carry handcuffs, bear spray and many other legal items designed for debilitating or controlling a person or animal. . . . everyone, that is, except PIs.

According to a paragraph on www.piinformer.com, an interesting Web site opposing California’s SB 202:

“Of the state’s 9978 licensed investigators, there isn’t a problem that the BSIS even tracks that would be potentially corrected by the proposed MCE. In fact, BSIS has indicated that our industry already enjoys an extremely low, almost non-existent, discipline rate. If the Private Investigations industry is already self-policing, why do we need additional costly regulation?”

Eight years ago, the California Business and Professions Code gave the BSIS the statutory authority to require a professional ethics exam for PI license applicants in addition to the licensing exam (under SEC. Section 2.7527.1), and to require training (under SEC. 3. Section 7541.2), but this body has not seen any need to add such requirements. Although CALI officially supports mandatory CE, ironically in researching this article I learned from the CALI Web site that currently only about 1%–just over 100 of the nearly 10,000 California licensed PIs and private patrol operators–hold the CPI or CSP certification sponsored by this organization.

More Mandatory CE Concerns

When I first got into this business in the sixties, a few PIs were scoundrels whose ethics would gag a weasel. This hasn’t changed much over the years despite increased regulation. There will always be a few rogues in our business, as in the legal profession or any other occupation. I suspect many readers are familiar with PIs who have been in business for decades, belong to no associations, have never attended a training class, and don’t know what the initials FCRA stand for, much less have any knowledge of this act. These folks are generally not very successful. Being required to take a generic 8-16 hour class every couple years would not miraculously transform them into “professionals” any more than Michigan’s new statutory designation professional investigator has reformed the rascals in that state.

And there’s a basic flaw with bureaucratically designed training, at least what exists at present. Our profession is exceptionally diverse and no single training course could be devised to provide legitimate benefit to all PIs. Investigators who exclusively provide computer forensics or electronic countermeasures services would not benefit from training relating to child custody or domestic investigation work. PIs specializing in forensic accounting, fire cause and origin, accident reconstruction, mystery shopping, mortgage fraud, or hundreds of other specialties would gain little of value from classroom topics such as applicant screening or surveillance.

The California Senate bill takes this into consideration, but it remains unnecessary, intrusive and fraught with the risk of unintended consequences and increased operating costs, while failing to recognize valid superior training provided by entities not designated as approved providers.

While most investigators might not be particularly concerned about the cost of mandatory CE, but rather the time which could be more productively spent on other pursuits, there are some to whom the cost could be a burden. Many talented, hard working PIs derive limited income because they do pro bono work or accept unprofitable court-assigned criminal defense cases where their motivation is to right wrongs.

Professionalism is an individual trait and professional investigators (regardless of whether they hold certifications) obtain relevant CE at present voluntarily. However, it appears under existing state CE requirements and those under consideration elsewhere, much of this training would not be acceptable for compliance. As I understand it, in all cases only specific approved courses would be acceptable, and that “training” would likely be of no actual value to the truly professional PI.

I would urge PIs to oppose all mandatory CE proposals, particularly if the requirements will be determined by public servants whose understanding of our profession comes from police input, TV, pulp fiction, and media exposés of rogue PIs–many of whom are unlicensed.

Bureaucratic Overkill

Many years ago, when commencing an undercover, I was trained on the operation of forklifts. This proved to be about as challenging as operating a yard tractor. This informal training took about ten minutes and was adequate. Today, there is mandatory training and licensing of forklift operators. Undercover operators have advised me the classroom portion of this training involves a brief talk, a film and extended nap time. I suspect that the volume of forklift accidents today approximates the volume back when I was trained, but the cost has increased substantially. I would predict the result of this generic type of mandatory CE for PIs would prove to be one more example of government overreaching while accomplishing nothing except increasing the cost of doing business.

The code of ethics of CALI (258 words) and NCISS (196 words) are representative of the PI profession. They don’t take two hours to read and comprehend. Any literate adult can read and understand each document in less than two minutes.

Risk of Unintended Consequences

With all legislation, there is the risk of unintended consequences which can negatively impact consumers it is intended to protect. The risk here is that professionals with limited resources may be forced to forgo valid meaningful training in order to attend mandated state-approved courses of dubious benefit.

An Alternative to Mandatory CE

It would seem a reasonable alternative to MCE would be for state regulators to provide to all licensees–on an annual or biannual basis–a code of ethics, (obtainable from any state/national PI association) along with a recap of privacy rights and relevant legal updates. This document would run no more than three pages in most cases. In states with budget constraints, this might provide an opportunity for state PI associations to volunteer to handle the chore, or fund the cost, which might be recovered through increased membership such a sponsorship could inspire.

(The comments and opinions in PI Perspective are exclusively those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of PI Magazine or its staff).

Copyright © 2009 Roger H. Schmedlen

Roger Schmedlen (EXPERT@LPCONLINE.COM.), a founding member of both the NCISS and MCPI, is a member of several other investigator and security organizations. He has over 40 years experience as a professional investigator and security consultant, has conducted many operations overseas, and has served as an expert witness on 80 litigation cases.

Fellow Investigators & Security Professionals,

A wise man once said: “People must fight for something they want to achieve, not simply to reject an evil” and especially where our industries are concerned, he hit the nail right on the head.  Ever since I got involved with the investigation and security business working for a former competitor in 1986, more than 90% of our legislative activity has been reactionary: the State or Federal legislature would draft a bill detrimental to our livelihoods and we would band together and fight it - if we even found out about it in time.  Initially, our efforts were haphazard, disjointed and only marginally successful, but we got better over time and eventually drew others to the cause.  Of course, the greater our numbers and the better our organization - the greater our successes.

Over time we developed a process whereby we became proactive with our lawmakers introducing our own legislation to better protect our industries, clean up our regulatory process and add a measure of stability to our mutual futures.  More important, we established relationships with them, gained a seat at many committee tables and set ourselves up as the go-to group for information on the security and investigations industries.

For some years now a dedicated group of professionals from across the US have been working on developing an association that would monitor all legislation (State and Federal) from it’s earliest stages and would take a pro-active position to work for the betterment of our industries with our legislatures.  This year those efforts have borne fruit with the creation of Investigators and Security Professionals for Legislative Action, a 501C6 industry association product of the efforts of Peter Psarouthakis, Bruce Hulme, Nicole Bocra, Allan Goodman and many others.  ISPLA is dedicated to one purpose and one only:  To engage the legislative process for the good of the industry.

ISPLA membership is open to anyone in the Investigations and Security Industries and the dues are only $99.00, although you can contribute to the association in any amount you like.  Your dues will get you unlimited access to all of the legislation that could affect your business at both the federal and (your) state levels and you will get periodic email alerts informing you of issues important to you and your business.  Your dues will also contribute to the strength and plurality of the only association dedicated to engaging the legislature for the good of the industry.  Check us out at WWW.ISPLA.ORG

Each of us on the ISPLA Executive Committee have already put our time, resources and our money on the line for the benefit of the industry and for your benefit, too.  We hope you will join with us in this most important effort.

The new head of British foreign intelligence recently demonstrated that anyone can suffer potentially embarrassing or damaging revelations through social networking activity - and even the most mundane and seemingly benign tweets and status updates can have far-reaching consequences. Deb Shinder explains why you should watch your step on TechRepublics site. A worthy read for any PI.

Jammie Thomas-Rasset’s attorneys will move to exclude RIAA investigator MediaSentry’s evidence on appeal. While Judge Davis allowed the evidence, pointing out that the company could hardly violate Minnesota’s private detective rules when it had never operated in the state, Thomas-Rasset’s team argues that MediaSentry broke private investigator rules in the states where it did operate (New Jersey and Maryland), and all of its evidence should be thrown out.

The Texas Association of Licensed Investigators will hold TALI Convention 2009 at the beautiful Omni Southpark Hotel in Austin, Texas from August 6-8. This will be the largest gathering of licensed investigators and professional vendors in Texas in 2009.

For more information and to register

May 31, 2009 by ISPLA

Investigative and Security Professionals:

Never before has the security and investigative industries faced so many legal threats to their ability to do business. It is expected that the 111th Congress, supported by privacy advocates and consumer and labor organizations, is set to introduce legislation that will curtail access to database information and call for the redaction of Social Security numbers and dates of birth on public records.

The American Bar Association has proposed Resolution 301 in response to state licensing of computer and digital forensic investigators. Choice Point has been acquired by Lexis-Nexis, leading to potential anti-competitive consequences. There is a proposed Model Private Investigator Act for consideration before the American Legislative Exchange Council and there are several studies by ASIS International relative to security issues and best practices.

Now for the good news… A new voice for the investigative and security professions has been launched. A group of industry leaders, experienced in handling legislative and regulatory affairs for a number of respected professional organizations, have formed Investigative & Security Professionals for Legislative Action (ISPLA) to fulfill a need at the federal level that has not been addressed until now by any national association. ISPLA’s political action committee (PAC) creates a mechanism for individuals and professional associations to participate in lobbying and financially supporting qualified political candidates for office.

ISPLA will be asking Congress to review existing law and to take a cautious approach to restricting access and other measures that may have a significant impact on the judicial system, law enforcement, and corporate America. We support the State licensing processes and encourage the enforcement of existing laws, regulations, standards, and restrictions governing access to and distribution of personal identifying information.

This ISPLA call for membership and financial support is being disseminated to 25,000 investigators and security professionals. You are invited to play an integral role in ensuring that this profession is properly represented in Washington as we create a formidable political action committee to represent your interests. Join with other professional association leaders who are committed to coming on board to ensure that our professions’ interests are protected from ill-conceived legislation and burdensome regulations. Our annual dues are just $99. Go to www.ispla.org and join today via electronic payment. Checks may also be mailed to the address below.

Feel free to contact us with any questions.

ISPLA

P.O. Box 17128
Arlington, VA 22216

Website: www.ispla.org

Email: isplainfo@gmail.com

Telephone: (734) 428-9663

Executive Committee Officers: Peter Psarouthakis, Chairman; Alfred P. Cavasin, Secretary; Alan Goodman, Treasurer; Bruce H. Hulme, Director of Government Affairs

Committee Members: H. Ellis Armistead, Nicole Bocra, Jim Carino, Paul Dank, Paul A. Jaeb, James H. Olsen, and Edward N. Spicer

The Michigan Council of Private Investigators enthusiastically invites you to the 10^th Anniversary ”Associations One” education and training Conference.  This year’s conference location will be the fantastic Marriott hotel located in the Detroit Renaissance Center, May 13-15, 2009.

Please note the outstanding Investigation and Security seminars that are scheduled.  Our featured keynote speakers are:

 Chris Burbank                  Chief of Police, Salt Lake City

Ric Peregrino                     Blackwater Worldwide

Paul Jaeb                            Heartland Investigative Group

Visit www.AssociationsOne.org for details

The Cape Cod Times online edition produced an excellent article on our little world. There is in interview with David Nadolski of Orleans who discussed the growing area of PI work for governmental agencies, with a quick mention of Jimmie Mesis from PI Magazine, and interviews with Andrew Sandelin, a Boston PI and Robert Simmons of Simmons Agency also in Boston. Good to see more positive, intelligent stories about PIs.