Another recent blow to the profession of California private investigators has been delivered courtesy of data information provider TLO. TLO has announced they will no longer provide full social security numbers and dates of birth to segments of the licensed private investigator. Obviously, the federal government’s legislative insensitivity to private investigators is partially to blame. During the past 20 years California private investigators have lost access to DMV address records/information, voter registration records, criminal arrest reports and more. This most recent development by TLO will further restrict California’s licensed investigators from developing and confirming relevant case information.

Adding to this broken system is California’s licensing agency, BSIS, that is licensing convicted criminals, law enforcement’s rejects, (those terminated for misconduct under the color of authority, convicted of crimes, sexual assaults, stalking, drug abuse, fraud, serious civil rights violations, attempted rape and more). One need only examine the Directors backgrounds of the world’s largest private investigation association, California Association of Licensed Investigators (CALI) to see how low the bar is for licensing in California. And the clinker is that CALI President Michael Julian is “proud” of his Board of Directors. Shame, shame, shame. If this is the best BSIS and CALI can do then we’re rapidly slipping down a slippery slope. No wonder there are the Chris Butlers and Anthony Pellicanos further tarnishing the good names of professional private investigators.

BSIS Director Jeffrey Mason and his predecessors should shoulder a great portion of the blame. His department can’t even seem to get consumer telephone calls answered effectively if that’s an insight to what they do, or don’t do, at BSIS. Without licensing reform many are predicting deregulation of private investigators. It seems now that BSIS is being kept on life support just to maintain a façade of consumer protection and to maintain employment for some bureaucratic employees.

Have you had any positive or negative experiences you’d like to share?

http://pi-pac.org

New Governor Brown Proposal Would Charge $10 To Search Court Records

Wednesday, March 20, 2013

JUDY LIN / Associated Press / Associated Press

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — In a move that is raising concern about limiting access to public documents, California courts could charge $10 for each record search under a proposal included in Gov. Jerry Brown’s budget.

The governor included the search fee as one of the ways the courts can raise $30 million a year to offset budget cuts.

The judicial budget has been reduced by more than $1 billion through cuts and transfers over the past five fiscal years, which has resulted in fewer courtrooms, construction delays and an array of higher fees.

Media organizations and good-government advocates worry that such a fee would restrict access to files the public has a right to view. Democratic lawmakers also expressed distaste for restricting information to those who can afford it.

"Justice that suddenly comes with a big price tag so that not all newspaper reporters or members of the public may be able to get access to court records, for example, can mean justice denied," said Sen. Loni Hancock, D-Berkeley. "We know that, for instance, higher fees for investigative reporting could have prevented those young journalists decades ago who exposed the Watergate scandal."

Currently, there is no charge to search a court file, although courts charge $15 to look up cases that require a court employee to take more than 10 minutes to search. Under the governor’s proposal, a person could search for free for a case in which that person is a party but would be charged $10 for each additional search.

"We are supporting and proposing those fee augmentations not because we regard them as being sound policy, but out of a simple impulse for self-preservation," said Steven Jahr, administrative director of the courts.

He said court officials would rather see the Legislature restore $535 million to California’s court system, which includes 58 trial courts, six courts of appeal and the state Supreme Court.

Hancock said lawmakers are holding off on the proposal until the governor updates his budget in May.

Jim Ewert, general counsel for the California Newspaper Publishers Association, said the current system already allows the judicial system to recoup costs from large data-mining firms without restricting public access. He said the proposal should be pulled regardless of how much extra money the state might collect from recent tax hikes.

"There’s a lot of people competing for those resources," Ewert said. "I’m not confident that the May revise will alter the court’s position on this."

Brown’s proposed budget also takes $200 million from court construction projects as a way to postpone additional cuts. He proposed delaying repayment of a $90 million court construction loan.

The governor’s office says it does not comment about proposed budget changes.

For anyone interested in monitoring bills being introduced in the California legislature you can create an account to review a summary of all bills and choose to monitor up to five (5) bills’ legislative activity. Just go to this link and register: http://www.legtrack.com/index.html?ref=atc

PI-PAC is formulating a plan to address licensing reform legislation in California over the next few years with law makers, privacy rights advocates and PI associations due to the increasing number of licensees who are licensed even though they have been convicted of crimes and/or terminated from their law enforcement careers for serious civil rights violations, criminal sexual offensives against citizens, criminal video taping and broadcasting of sex acts, criminal impersonation of police officers and bank fraud.  Interestingly, California doesn’t bother to re-verify for state and federal convictions as a condition for license renewal.  Four of the below six have found their way to the CALI and PICA Board of Directors. 

 Cases In Point: 

#1 – police officer is terminated and issued a California private investigator’s license, is thereafter convicted of felony bank fraud and retains his California private investigator’s license.  Subject then suffers a 2011 felony conviction for Obstruction of Justice and is, you guessed it, still an active practicing private investigator with all rights and privileges.  Outrageous?

 #2 – officer works front desk of county jail, tells inmates girlfriends that he can get them out of jail or felony charges reduced to misdemeanors, sets up meetings and sexually assaults at least two females.  Terminated in lieu of criminal charges and licensed as a California private investigator based upon his law enforcement experience.

 #3 – one-time police officer is convicted of Impersonation of a Police Officer and subsequently licensed in California as a private investigator. 

 #4 – terminated as a police officer for multiple civil rights violations and named the #1 civil rights offender of the 3^rd largest police force in the world by the Christopher Commission and is then licensed in California as a private investigator.

 #5 – police officer stalks a female citizen under the color of authority forcing citizen into unwanted sexual relations, terminated from LE career and thereafter licensed as a California private investigator.

 #6 – police officer illegally video tapes sexual acts and broadcasts his deviant sexual quests to fellow officers, is terminated, convicted of criminal conduct and then licensed as a California private investigator.  

Law enforcement agencies prefer to avoid negative press and frequently settle such claims privately and without public knowledge and the subject activity is conveniently hidden away in the terminated officer’s confidential personnel file. 

Is it any wonder how the likes of former police officers Anthony Pellicano and Chris Butler so easily obtained their California PI licenses and have given law-abiding private investigators across the nation a bad name?

Why is California licensing private investigators who were terminated for cause or with charges pending from their law enforcement careers?  Does this industry need more civil rights violators, sexual predators, drug abusers or convicted criminals joining the ranks of private investigators?    

Terminated LAPD Officer Nick Savala and #1 civil rights offender per the Christopher Commission is now a private investigator, past President of CALI and a current CALI Board Member who is offering private investigative services to the consumer. 

http://articles.latimes.com/1992-10-04/news/mn-1020_1_problem-officer/2

If it’s time for reform, wouldn’t it make sense to get some competent leadership at the state’s licensing bureau first?