 |
California
Association of Licensed Investigators
CALI e-group discussion
is lively
EDITOR'S NOTE: The private e-group for the
California Association of Licensed Investigators is
having a lively debate about the PI issue first raised by Mr. Woody,
a private citizen. We are receiving some of the members' input,
both pro and con, through several sources, CALI members who wish
to remain anonymous. They want to see these viewpoints shared, so
we'll post some of the comments from these dialogues without revealing
the author's identity.
Jan 30
- Original Invitation to the CALI e-group
To California Association of Licensed Investigators (CALI) members:
If anyone would like to respond to this "Open Letter" the e-mail
address is PIissue@lacp.org.
There were some very good points made. Whatever the outcome,
I'm sure it will somehow effect our industry.
It will be interesting to hear what other CALI members have
to say about this Open Letter to the LAPD Chief.
....Rick
Arons
....Private
Investigator,
CALI
CALI LISTSERV PURPOSE: The CALI Listserv is for the exclusive
use of CALI members. The Listserv is solely for the purpose
of posting work assistance requests, exchanging business referrals,
disseminating or gathering information related to the investigation
and security professions--as is applicable to PI or PPO case
work and/or assignments -- and to provide a method for the Association
to communicate to our members. |
CALI
e-group comments (most recent at the top):
Why is this motor mouth on our list server? The latest CALI
book does not show a Edward L. Woody as a member of CALI Why
is CALI running his comments. Who elected him to speak on behalf
of CALI? Since his comments are on the CALI listserver it can
be assumed that he is speaking for the membership. And that
is not the case. He certainly is not speaking for me.
(EDITOR'S NOTE: The invitation
to the CALI e-group was made by a CALI member, Rick Arons.)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
... I am a private investigator in northern California and haven't
really followed the thread concerning the flap at LAPD and [holding]
a private investigative license while still employed as a peace
officer. The issue has no probable bearing on me.
I was about to retire as [a] Chief of Police in July of l985.
Knowing that the yellow pages came out in June or July (don't
remember now, getting old) I placed an ad that would come out
a few months before I officially retired. I also had business
cards made up. I had no intentions of working as a PI prior
to retiring. We had a partnership ready to go (retired CHP Lt.,
FBI agent, and myself). We broke up the partnership and eventually
put it back together.
Bottom line was that the Grand Jury came after me as well as
the District Attorney. Once we convinced them we were waiting
for final retirement dates they backed off. Does the word conflict
of interest come to mind? We weathered the storm but it wasn't
any fun.
I guess the question I have in mind is ... is there a different
set of laws in Southern California as opposed to No. California?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Rick,
You sound like a complete "horse's @&&" ...
If you have information of illegal activity(s) by members of
LAPD with PI licenses, you owe it to the "Taxpayers" you spoke
of to bring it to the attention of IAD of the DA's Office. Otherwise,
you paint everyone with the same brush.
Unless the Department or State law prohibit this activity you
should be careful of how you make your wild and blind accusations.
Also, since you chose to not use your real name or include your
PI number, I feel justified in believing that you are also gutless!!
(EDITOR'S NOTE: Here's Mr. Aaron's reply)
Let's set the record straight. I had nothing to do with the
open letter to Chief Bratton. I was informed of it by a friend
of a friend. The letter is posted on www.lacp.org. I went to
the web site and read it. I felt it would be of interest to
the members of CALI.
I never stated that I had information of any wrong doing by
members of the LAPD with PI licenses. I have never made any
"blind accusations" in this regards. And for the record, my
name is Rick Arons and my PI license number is [ID number given].
As far as your comment about me being "Gutless", I will take
that as another misunderstanding on your part.
DE OPRESSO LIBER
Rick Arons Rick Arons,
Private Investigator, CALI
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Group,
I may be coming in a little behind on this discussion, but I
just have to interject. I am a police officer and a PI. Let
me first say that for a PI who is a police officer to use their
CLETS access or any other law enforcement system for private
use would be stupid. One, CLETS is very monitored, and audited.
Two, (and this is the real kicker) More often than not, I get
better information from my PI info brokers than I do from anything
that is police only. If anything, I use my PI access more often
to assist in law enforcement than the other way around.
I do have to agree that for an officer to take a private sector
criminal case MAY be improper. Many agencies do not allow their
officers to do PI work. Another issue that I feel is being misrepresented
is the attitude that PI are sleazy or would do things that are
less than legal. Obviously as with any other profession, their
are those among us that give us black eyes. But as a group I
believe PI's and police are both some of the most professional
people you could ever deal with. And PI's would definitely be
cutting their own throats by operating outside the law, no qualified
immunity to protect them, and insurance exemptions for actions
that are "criminal acts"PI's have the utmost necessity to be
professional.
Instead of worrying about a few cops who do a little work on
the side, who usually can't take the "big jobs" because of time
constraints from their "day jobs", I think our industry needs
to focus more on issues that will promote our industry as a
whole. First, get BSIS to quit turning a blinds eye to unlicensed
activity, then start pushing for higher standards and training
requirements in the industry. The higher you set the standards
the more professional the group as a whole will become.
(EDITOR'S NOTE: Here's Mr. Woody's reply)
You write: "If anything, I use my PI access more often to assist
in law enforcement than the other way around."
Do law enforcement rules allow information to be gathered by
private investigator guidelines? Could this not be ruled as
an illegal acquisition of information, because the rules of
evidence concerning law enforcement might not be the same as
private investigator rules? Might this evidence be excluded
from trial as unwarranted? Might this P.I. to cop information
pass create the conflict of interests of which I have written?
You also write: "Another issue that I feel is being misrepresented
is the attitude that PI are sleazy or would do things that are
less than legal."
I only ask you to look at the Anthony Pellicano case or Robert
Blake's investigator/co-defendant to illustrate my point of
view. Professional investigators and professional police
officers need to avoid any appearance of impropriety.
There should be a clear separation between the two professions.
Combining them, with no limitation on the bi-lateral information
transfer, could result in a loss of confidence and trust when
exposed to the public or the judicial system, and a corruption
of legal evidence gathering.
Edward Woody
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
As a Florida PI and a Florida Police Officer, I must take exception
to the tone and comments in the letter sent to Chief Bratton.
Everyone seems to suggest that all private investigators are
bad people. They are sneaky, no good, would do anything for
a buck and exist only to try and outsmart the police, while
they skirt the fine line edge of legality.
That is a stupid misconception and no different than saying
that everyone of one race or religious denomination are all
bad.
Lets get specific how I handle it:
| 1. |
I
do NO criminal matters so I am never forced to testify
against another police officer or agency. |
| 2. |
Attorney
general opinions express concern on conflict based upon
the officer's access to law enforcement confidential information. |
| 3. |
I don't know about California, but when I radio in for
a tag, etc., there is a record. There is a record of the
dispatcher who entered the request. These records are
retrievable in a TAR report (Transactional Analysis Report)
of the agency. To use the data without law enforcement
necessity is a statutory violation, punishable by prison
and decertification. It isn't worth it! |
| 4. |
MY
PI training and experience has given me much better investigatory
skills than had I not had the knowledge of the private
sector. |
| 5. |
There
are still things I can do better in the private sector.....on
behalf of a criminal police case..... than I can do strictly
as a law enforcement officer. That enhances my ability
to protect our citizens and to solve crimes. The citizens
are the benefactors. |
| 6. |
I
have no access to running any criminal data from a dispatch
console directly, as once again, entry codes are needed
that are computer recorded. Therefore, the basis of using
the electronic data is not accurate, unless you don't
mind the possibility of being incarcerated. |
| 7. |
When
it comes to locates, the PI sector rubs circles around
law enforcement, hands down, no questions asked. |
I am really tired of this argument that portrays Pi's as being
bad people.
Interestingly enough, where do all the rank and file go when
they retire?? They become Pi's
Why do law enforcement officers seek dual employment? Because
they don't earn enough for putting their lives on the line and
subjecting themselves to civil liability in the first place.
Pay them enough and they might not need the second income and
could spend some time with their families and cut down the divorce
rate! Ever see how high it is for LEO's as compared to other
professions?
There is no reason the two industries cannot work hand in hand.
Interestingly enough, there are hardly any other two industries
in the world that have this jaundiced perspective. My doctor
can also be my lawyer. My Pizza guy can also be my lawn care
company. It isn't right.
There are too many safeguards in place to prohibit misuse of
the 'color of law" while being a PI, except for stupid people
who get weeded out when they screw up, and unfortunately, they
will always exist.
In my opinion, Pi's who are LEO's ought to get together and
lobby for the right to work both positions simultaneously with
certain written caveats.
(EDITOR'S NOTE: Here's Mr. Woody's reply)
I agree with almost everything [you have] to say ... good letter.
[Just two things]:
First of all you write, "Everyone seems to suggest that all
private investigators are bad people. They are sneaky, no good,
would do anything for a buck and exist only to try and outsmart
the police, while they skirt the fine line edge of legality."
This stereotype of "sleazy" P.I.s is not an indictment of the
entire profession, merely a reflection brought on by cases in
which P.I.s are exposed by bad publicity, such as the Robert
blake investigator/co-defendant, and the Anthony Pellicano explosives
case.
Secondly here's your item 5: "5. There are still things I can
do better in the private sector.....on behalf of a criminal
police case..... than I can do strictly as a law enforcement
officer. That enhances my ability to protect our citizens and
to solve crimes. The citizens are the benefactors."
As long as you are working for the citizens, you are bound by
law enforcement boundaries, when you overstep these guidelines
by gathering evidence using private investigator rules, you
have violated the canons of legal evidence gathering and have
rendered them ineligible for inclusion as evidence in a criminal
trial.
Edward Woody
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
How do we keep getting junk mail on this list server? I checked
my 2002 CALI membership book and did not locate any Edward Woody
as a member. How did he even get on the list? I have better
use of my time than reading whimpering about something that
does not relate to improving my business. If Mr. Woody was versed
in the law he would know there are more than enough restrictions
on limiting law enforcement assistance in our business.
(EDITOR'S NOTE: The invitation
to the CALI e-group was made by a CALI member, Rick Arons.)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Why is it that the entire CALI ListServ is subjected to a dispute
between one Edward L. Woody and the Los Angeles Police Department?
I doth protest at this kind of stuff taking up space on my computer.
Don't we have a monitor to weed out junk email? Enough already.
(EDITOR'S NOTE: The invitation
to the CALI e-group was made by a CALI member, Rick Arons.)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I just got off the telephone with the Bureau of Security and
Investigative Services. I am told that they have no one licensed
with the last name of Woody. I don't know how this message came
up on our listserve, but then I don't understand most things
that computers do. Apparently this unlicensed person is holding
himself out to be a Private Investigator, but doesn't actually
say he is. I feel that as an association we should distance
ourselves from this message. And from any other message to anyone
that is a blanket indictment of anyone without anything to back
it up.
(EDITOR'S NOTE: Mr. Woody is
a private citizen, not a P.I. The invitation to the CALI
e-group was made by a CALI member, Rick Arons.)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You are right on the money. Many of these 'police' officers
have landed big paying gigs in the private sector especially
in entertainment and funnel it through others or do it themselves
with no one to pay any attention to them. You are very correct
on this. However, I do not think that this will be appreciated
by CALI....LOL. The other problem [is]that the off duty stuff
is very lucrative and there are many guys who own security business
within their own Divisions. Think about that one. Good job,
but get ready for the heat! Are you retired or a former cop?
(EDITOR'S NOTE: Mr. Woody has
never been in law enforcement.)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Sounds like Edward Woody has a woody for cops who like to work
off-duty. I think he needs to get a life or improve his cash
flow. I guess when business is bad you need to scream at someone.
In this case, he screams at the free enterprise system.
(EDITOR'S
NOTE: Mr. Woody is gainfully employed and happy.)
. |
California
Association of Licensed Investigators (CALI)
....With
nearly 2,000 members, CALI is the largest private investigator association
in the world
|
|
