Myths & Misconceptions

There are many myths that circle private investigations, most of which span from the imaginations of Hollywood writers. The sensationalism of the "Average Joe" transforming into the ultimate problem solver as soon as he puts on his fedora and trench coat has glamorized the profession since Humphrey Bogart played Samuel Spade in "The Maltese Falcon". The most iconic private investigator stories include catching unfaithful spouses, uncovering plots to steal priceless art, and fighting criminal masterminds such as Sherlock Holmes's archenemy Professor Moriarty.

Out of these exciting ventures, the most realistic misconception is that a private investigator's primary purpose is to follow cheating spouses. The market for this type of investigation, especially in California and other No-Fault states, is almost nonexistent Though many private investigators will take on infidelity cases for the purposes of confirming or refuting  their clients suspicions that their spouse is unfaithful; the results have no baring on divorce cases when community property is applied, unless of course a pre-nuptial agreement exists in the marriage.

It would certainly make our jobs more exhilarating if we had the same resources available to Thomas Magnum. Who wouldn't want to jump in to a Ferrari every time we had to track down a new lead? Unfortunately in our business discretion is the better part of valor... so to speak. A Ferrari, as much as it fits the image of a thrill seeking P.I., is memorable. Similarly as an individual in a fedora or deerstalker and trench coat doing any sort of reconnaissance work would be easily pegged as a "gum shoe". Surveillance is a large part of a private detective's job. The key is to be discrete; especially when the surveillance requires that those being surveyed are unaware of its occurrence. Flashy cars and fun hats don't quite fit the bill in these cases.

We also don't have the unlimited resources available to Magnum P.I.Though private investigators develop useful contacts and resources over a career, most of them do not have the ability to pick up the phone and get immediate and unlimited information no matter what case they are working on. In real life it takes time and research.

Private investigators also do not have the ability to obtain the same type of information available to law enforcement. We have access to databases that contain a significant amount of  information; however, databases that are commonly mentioned on crime shows such as National Crime Information Center (NCIC) and Automated Fingerprint Identification System (AFIS) are restricted to use by law enforcement agencies. Furthermore, it is a criminal offense for a private investigator to obtain sensitive or confidential law enforcement information.

Though a P.I.'s work can be very interesting, it does not always contain the sparkle that imaginative writers have placed on it. True, the work can vary from case to case and a private detective may need to be creative in order to get their work done; but  high speed chases and helicopter rescues have yet to  be necessary.

Lying About Your Background: The PI's Perspective

I recently came across a blog post about an individual who lied about having a college degree in order to qualify for a job. This individual, whom the article dubs "Heather" was allowed to begin working at the company before her pre-employment screening was complete (a quite common practice as it so happens). The blog portrays Heather's story, and the perspectives of The Employee (Heather), The Manager, and The HR Representative.

As a private investigations firm that has conducted over 130 pre-employment screenings in the last year, we found this blog post to be very interesting and accurate. And thus we offer the fourth perspective, The Investigator.

We once did a background on an individual whose story sounds very similar to Heather's. For the purposes of this story, lets call this individual Rachael. Rachel was offered a job by the company for whom we conduct the pre-employment screenings. As is the company's habit, Rachael was allowed to begin work before the pre-employment screening was complete. The basic background that the company requires we conduct consist of a degree verification, employment verification, and criminal history search. Rachael had only lived in one county in the last seven years, had been at the same company for over five years, and two degrees from a university that uses a degree verification database. Seems easy right? That's what we thought too until we tried to verify Rachael's degrees. Most universities, including the one Rachael claimed to get her degrees from use an online verification service to verify the receipt of a degree. When the results came back as unable to verify, we immediately contacted Rachael to let her know and request that she send us either a transcript or diploma that we could authenticate with the university.

We attempted to contact Rachael multiple times and she consistently didn't respond. When she finally returned our calls she had all sorts of apologies and excuses as to why she couldn't contact us... her phone was broken, she couldn't access her email, she was too tired etc. When we told her that the university had no record of her enrollment, she claimed that she might have received her degrees under a different name but couldn't remember, and that she couldn't possibly provide a transcript or diploma as proof of education as all of her documentation was in storage in another state.

Well, being the thorough investigators that we are we ran another search on her degree using  her maiden name, mother's last name and variations thereof. "No Records Found". Not just that she didn't' have a degree, but the school had no record of her attendance at all. Rachael then told us that she could get the documents out of storage when she returned to her home state for Thanksgiving (which at that point was over a month away). The company agreed to this and the completion of Rachael's background was deferred until after Thanksgiving. Thanksgiving came and went. We contacted Rachael to request the documents, which she was instructed by the company, that she was required to provide in order to keep her job. That's when Rachael told us that she hadn't had the time to dig through her storage unit to get to her diplomas.

Rachael clearly lied about her educational background, a fact that we knew in the initial stages of the screening process. And when we are faced with an individual who has lied about their background, we can expect to have to do twice the amount of work. Not only do we have to determine the validity of the information provided, but we also have to spend time on the other lies that are told to cover up the first one as was the case with Rachael. Uncomfortable as it may be for an individual to realize they've been caught in their lie, its extremely frustrating for many other parties. The company that hired that individual has to decide what to do with that information and the best way to proceed especially if the individual was already working as Rachael and Heather both were. The HR department has to worry about protecting the company, the managers and coworkers have to deal with potentially training another new person, and the investigator (if applicable) has to deal with the loss of time and money that is the result of chasing down untruths. Furthermore, as a private investigations firm that is contracted to conduct the pre-employment screenings, we have no control over the results of the individuals employment status. All we were able to do with Rachael was report to the company that she had lied, what her lies were, and how we came to that determination. The decision whether or not to keep an employee like Rachael is entirely up to the company and once our report is done, our part in the hiring process is complete. But as we are a business as well, we still have to deal with the loss of money, time, and resources that are repercussions of sorting through false information.

To use a few cliches here friends, the moral of the story is honesty is the best policy. It really is better for all parties involved if a potential employee is honest about their background. As you can see in Heather's and Rachael's situations, the results of telling a lie about a degree, or any portion of a background for that matter, is ultimately very awkward and uncomfortable.


To read the blog that inspired this post go to The TransparentMe Blog

The History of Human Trafficking in the U.S.

Human trafficking in this country began long before the buying and selling of human beings became illegal. We know it best simply as "slavery". This practice has roots to nearly the conception of the thirteen British Colonies of North America. During the 246 years that slaver y was legal in North America, and the 89 years between the founding of the United States and the civil war, more than 25% of U.S. Presidents supported and participated in slavery according to an article from Opposing Views.

The article focuses on the hidden parts of our presidential history in light of President's Day last Monday; specifically former presidents' complicity with slavery. It includes an extensive video by Democracy Now regarding the unrecognized influence that slaves had on our history. The video expresses that markets, for the purpose of buying and selling human beings, were held in our nation's capital; and that slaves can be attributed with the building of some of our nation's most famous landmarks including: Independence Hall, Faneuil Hall, Montpelier, and Monticello.

Despite the fact that slavery was abolished nearly 150 years ago, it is still very prevalent, not only in the U.S., but internationally as well. Human trafficking is considered the most rapidly growing crime behind drug trafficking in the U.S. The victims are forced to perform labor or sex acts and are often beaten, starved, or killed. Of the human trafficking cases that have been reported, nearly half of the victims have been children.


To view the video from Democracy Now go to http://www.opposingviews.com/i/society/race/more-25-percent-us-presidents-supported-human-trafficking-slavery-video

Did You Know... (PI Historical Trivia 6)

The federal government recognized the need for private detectives in the 1860's during the Civil War when President Lincoln knew that there were spies running between the Union and Confederate armies. To address the problem, Lincoln authorized the use of detectives to infiltrate the Confederate army. Allen Pinkerton created this covert organization of spies for the president. This covert service later became known as the United States Secret Service.

Did You Know... (PI Historical Trivia 5)

New York City established its first formal police department in 1853 replacing the "constable and watch" system. Chicago soon followed in 1855, Philadelphia in 1856, and Boston in 1859. Early police agencies had limited jurisdiction and were only able to address crimes within the limits of their own cities. Accordingly smaller towns and communities were left without any police services or were limited to a county sheriff. In the absence of any local, state, or federal investigative units, people who wanted the return of their stolen goods or to be reunited with missing loved ones utilized private detective agencies for assistance. Detective agencies were employed by bank transport companies and the railroad to protect valuable cargo and passengers. Allen Pinkerton, who established the first private detective agency in the United States, was able to capitalize on this growing need for security and investigative services.

Did You Know... (PI Historical Trivia 4)

In the United States during the early 19th century, the "constable and watch" system was brought over from England. A constable, who served the courts, was the daytime authority figure while groups of volunteer community members would take turns patrolling the streets at night. They served under the guidance of the constable and their authority was limited under the notion of "Posse Comitatus" which essentially required all adult males to be responsible for capturing felons. Those individuals willing to work the night watch were usually men who were unemployable elsewhere. They frequently slept or drank on the job; and when confronted by criminals, often looked the other way or accepted bribes. Many men who were unwilling to work the night watch paid others to work in their place.