Police compromising investigations
What do you think about this? We received this the other day from the respected private investigator Warren Mallard.
I write to you about a recurring problem that we have in the private investigation industry that involves the actions of police when a complaint is made by a target of surveillance/discreet investigation that they believe they are being followed or stalked by someone that will do them harm.
As you know, many surveillance targets know for one reason or another that they might become the target of a surveillance operation and thus they are very surveillance savvy. When someone is doing something they know is wrong, their senses are heightened and they become more alert to the actions of others around them. I have now been in the private investigation industry continuously for 25 years. From time to time, a surveillance target does identify the surveillance operative and to become mischievous, call the police and police arrive and approach the surveillance operative. Mostly this occurs when the operative has not sensed the targets awareness which does happen from time to time despite the level of professionalism and competency of the operative.
Almost without exception, the police destroy the integrity of the surveillance operation by questioning the surveillance operative in the presence and hearing of the complainant surveillance target and then in the presence and hearing of that target, demand from the surveillance operative the reason for them following that person. They then approach the surveillance target and tell the target that "its o.k., he's a licensed Private Investigator and he is following you on behalf of XYZ because of ABC and his name and license number are LMN." This happened to one of my operatives last week,(the first in a number of years I am happy to report) a seasoned operative who was given no option by the police other than to declare why he was following this person otherwise he would be taken to the Police Station and questioned further (arrested).
This type of naive, foolish and irresponsible approach by police not only endangers the life of the operative but almost always destroys the integrity of the investigation. Private investigators are increasingly involved in the investigation of serious crimes, matters that members of the public have been unsuccessful in gaining the assistance of police, mostly because they don't have the expertise or resources to do so or because it is a matter that to them, has a low prioritisation.
The old legislation made it clear that only a Police Officer above the rank of Sergeant could demand cooperation from a licensed investigator. This inclusion in the old legislation was there fro a very good reason, it was considered that by the time someone reached the rank of sergeant that they would have enough street savvy and knowledge to handle a matter appropriately. In those days it took a minimum of 15 years to reach this rank, not so today unfortunately. We now have police reaching these onerous ranks in a few years because of their academic skills or because the number of resignations that are outweighing enlistments have dictated it.
I can see no reason for the police to tell the complainant that we are licensed Investigators once they have license identification. The operative ought only have to provide a file that shows the targets name only and not the identity of the client for the police to be convinced that we are there for a lawful purpose.
I can see no lawful reason for the police to then tell the target of the investigation what we are doing, other than to say to the complainant that we are not doing anything unlawful and if anything to allay their suspicions.
Some years ago, one operative employed by a fellow industry member was dragged by police from his vehicle, accused of having a false license (at that time they looked like they came out of cornflakes packets) accused of having stolen cameras in his car, surveillance equipment) accused of using a two way radio to talk to other thieves and to assist this industry member and threaten legal action for wrongful arrest if they did not release the operative.
I see the argument that when the police are asked to respond to an alleged stalking that they must deal with that complaint, however I do not believe that they are obliged to expose the operatives identity to the complainant nor tell the complainant that he/she is a licensed investigator or the purpose of the investigation. In fact my operatives are specifically instructed that they have an obligation to show police their license, to advise police they are there for a lawful purpose and to ask that police not destroy the integrity of the investigation nor divulge to the target of the investigation the identity of the operative. As an industry body we fought fiercely to have the address details of an operative taken from our licenses only to have that detail foolishly given to a surveillance target where retribution might flow.
>From time to time I am asked to undertake electronic countermeasures surveillance on behalf of individuals and corporates. It sometimes becomes evident that there is a listening/tracking device planted and that in all probability judging from the equipment installed and the frequency detected that it is most likely installed by a law enforcement agency under warrant. I never divulge this to my client, nor do I tell them of its presence if I become certain that it is a lawful installation. This is a difficult area because I have a contract of service with a client that I must weigh up against the destruction of a police surveillance operation, however I always ere on the side of the law. I immediately advise the police who of course never confirm or deny their involvement for a very good reason, to protect the integrity of their investigation.
Its about time the police took the regulation of our industry seriously, instructed serving coal face police about our legislation and purpose and activities and built a joint working party with our industry representatives to work towards a common goal, the detection and prevention of crime.
I shall give you a copy of my letter to the C.O.P. & Attorney General once drafted for further publication.
Could you please circulate this e-mail to those you have on a mailing list that might be able to contribute. I would prefer all responses to come to you so that others can share the feedback.
Regards
Warren Mallard
Managing Director
Certificate IV Investigative Practice & Procedure
Advanced Diploma Security Risk Management
Canberra Institute Of Technology
Master Security License No:408273284
Lyonswood Investigations&Forensic Group
204 Lyons Road, Drummoyne NSW 2047
www.investigators.net.au
+61 (0) 2 9819-6833 F +61 (0) 2 9819-6300
DX 21007 Drummoyne