Latest news with #privateinvestigators
The Guardian
29-06-2025
- Politics
- The Guardian
Is surveillance by private operators legal in the UK?
The surveillance industry operates in the shadows. For a big enough fee, former members of the special forces, intelligence agencies and police forces conduct sophisticated operations for multinationals, oligarchs and global law firms. Jealous spouses and insurance companies can hire investigators to snoop for a few hundred pounds. Some of the methods used seem intrusive, even unethical – but are they unlawful? Surveillance operatives working for UK state agencies – the National Crime Agency, say, or MI5 – have specific laws governing what they can and cannot legally do. The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act, introduced by Tony Blair's government in 2000, is among the main ones. These statutes set out how surveillance should be authorised and carried out, and provide for independent oversight in some cases. There is, though, no equivalent for operatives in the private sector. In other words, hired spies can follow you, gather information on you, and pass what they find on to their clients – all perfectly legally. The private intelligence industry has no dedicated regulator and there is no single surveillance law. That does not mean there is no legislation operatives have to be mindful of. Like anyone else, they cannot break into houses, hack, trespass or blag private information. Elsewhere the legal position is grey. What distinguishes surveillance from stalking, for example? Repeated behaviour that causes distress could amount to harassment – but maybe not if an operative maintains there is a legitimate purpose to following a target. To stay within the UK's data protection legislation, surveillance operatives must have a legitimate purpose for gathering personal information without consent. They must hold it safely and delete it once they are finished with it. Some surveillance could amount to misuse of private information, potentially in breach of the Human Rights Act. There could be a public interest justification – when the purpose is, say, to expose corruption. Such a defence looks harder to make if the client is an authoritarian state or a multinational corporation. Of course, targets can only take steps to check whether the methods used against them are legitimate if they discover the surveillance. Occasionally, surveillance is 'overt' – the target is supposed to know they are being watched, perhaps to intimidate them. Usually, these operations are covert, sometimes using skills acquired in some of the world's best military and espionage training programmes. If all goes to plan, the target never finds out. And even if the client makes use of the information, the identities of the operatives are seldom revealed. On the infrequent occasions that targets of surveillance not only rumble the operation but identify who carried it out, they have sometimes brought civil legal claims. This typically requires years of civil litigation at great personal expense. Even the richest claimants tend to settle. Several of the companies that advertise their services offer to place trackers on targets' vehicles. This would seem to be legal provided it is done in compliance with data protection and other laws. The animal welfare campaigner Wendy Valentine's 2011 harassment claim against Bernard Matthews and the private investigator she said attached a tracker to her car ended when the turkey-farming corporation paid her £17,000 in a settlement. Until more cases come to judgment, surveillance operators and their targets will not know who has the law on their side.
RNZ News
10-06-2025
- RNZ News
Will Johnson's disappearance 'traumatising' for family
Will Johnson who has not been heard from for a week. Photo: Supplied Private investigators trying to find a US aviation student missing for more than a week are filtering through tips they've received that could shed light on his whereabouts. Massey University student William Henry Johnson, known as Will, was last seen in Palmerston North between 30 May and 1 June. The 24-year-old's last communication with family was on 5 June and he has not responded to any attempts to contact him since. His parents have hired private investigators to find him, and on Tuesday Mike Gillam, of The Investigators New Zealand, publicly appealed for information and sightings. He told RNZ on Wednesday investigators had received information that potentially confirmed a sighting of Johnson in the central North Island. "We do want to hear from anyone with information that could be beneficial," he said. "A lot of the time is spent filtering through and sorting what may be a priority and what may be historic and not of interest to our timeline. "Certainly, we've appreciated the public outreach and there are a number of lines of inquiry that we're looking into." William Henry Johnson. Photo: Supplied Johnson's mother was arriving in New Zealand from Seattle this morning. Gillam said her arrival in Palmerston North would be key, allowing her to speak with police and staff at Massey. There were no search parties in place at this stage, as more specific information would be needed, although aerial searches were under consideration. Johnson was last seen in the Takaro area of Palmerston North. Gillam said his disappearance was "really traumatising" for his family, who were distraught. His company had three investigators working on the matter full time. On Tuesday, Gillam said it was out of character for Johnson not to have contact with his family for such a period of time. Johnson was known to make off-the-cuff trips to Auckland. Police have said they received a missing person report on 9 June. "Police have made a number of various area inquiries in possible locations of interest in the Palmerston North area," a spokeswoman said today. "We would encourage William, or anyone who knows his whereabouts, to get in touch with police to confirm he is safe." Johnson drove a 2013 silver Mazda 6, registration MJK496, which was also missing and could provide leads to his whereabouts, Gillam said. He can be contacted on 027 299 7603. Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
CBS News
27-05-2025
- Business
- CBS News
Longtime private investigators say Massachusetts State Police is denying license renewals
Longtime private investigators say the Massachusetts State Police is denying their license renewal applications. The PIs say the department is disqualifying police officers and preventing them from working, leaving criminal cases in jeopardy and putting some private eyes out of business. Television shows like Magnum PI glamorize the life of private investigators. In reality, the job is often not as exciting, but it is rewarding. Joe DeSimone is a retired Cambridge sergeant detective and has been a licensed private investigator for nearly a decade. "Most of my business is criminal defense work," DeSimone said, "and most of those clients are indigent." DeSimone keeps up his Peace Officer Standards and Training or POST certification so he can do traffic details in Cambridge. Recently he applied to renew his PI license and thought it would be easy because he says, "I was probably one of a handful of guys in the state that had the license prior to retirement." POST certification Months ago, the Massachusetts State Police, the agency that certifies private investigators, added language to the requirements on its website. It says, "The applicant shall not be currently certified by the Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) Commission." A decision that would effectively disqualify DeSimone and potentially hundreds of other police officers who work as private investigators. "POST certification was developed to allow the public to keep an eye on police officers who were accused of things like excessive force etc.," said Domenic Paolino, DeSimone's attorney. "POST has nothing to do with being a private investigator." Disqualified for police details But DeSimone's POST certification was not the reason the State Police denied his application, in a letter it listed another disqualifier. That said he was denied because he does Cambridge police details. Joe says that decision effectively puts him out of business. "Nowhere is that codified anywhere, there's nothing in writing, there's been no change to the statute even for the POST certification," DeSimone said. Attorney Paolini cannot understand why this happening now. "He's been doing details for several years," Paolini said. "He was a municipal police officer, a detective sergeant, which should give him good qualifications to be a PI but they're saying the things that would make you a good PI disqualify you which is really mind boggling." MSP says PIs must be former officers The State Police told the I-Team, "Massachusetts General Law prohibits POST-certified individuals who exercise police powers from becoming certified private investigators (PI) – though they can function as an employee of another person who maintains a PI license." Here is the language of the statute, which makes clear that PIs must be a former officer or member of a United States Investigative Service: M.G.L. c. 147 s. 24" Attorney Paolini sees it differently. "What they have done is added their own qualifications without approval from the legislature or the legislature changing the law," Paolini said. "In our system, the legislature makes the rules, makes the laws and the courts interpret them. I don't see an interpretation by a court or by a legislator that changes these rules." DeSimone says he is qualified and plans to appeal the decision. "The state police don't get to pick and choose, shouldn't get to pick and choose who is going to be a PI who is not going to be a PI," DeSimone said. "You put me out of business you put a lot of PIs out of business. It's unfair." DeSimone's attorney says if they are not successful appealing to the state police colonel, he will head to court, where he is likely to have company. Other private investigators who also had their applications denied tell the I-Team, that's what they plan to do too.
The Independent
08-05-2025
- The Independent
Constance Marten tells jury aristocratic family member ‘doesn't want me alive'
Constance Marten has claimed a member of her aristocratic family 'doesn't want me alive' and 'will stop at nothing to get what they want' as she was cross-examined by her partner Mark Gordon. The mother, who is standing trial over the death of her fifth baby while on the run, told jurors at the Old Bailey she was tracked by private investigators who she believes tampered with their cars. She said 'all hell broke loose' with her influential family after she returned from a trip to Peru several years ago pregnant with Mr Gordon, who is now representing himself in court after his barristers withdrew. Under questioning from her co-defendant, she said the couple were being watched and photographed in a 'cat and mouse game' with her estranged family. Marten told jurors that they were pursued by private investigators, that multiple vehicles they had used stopped working and that she found a GPS tracker on one. She told the jury she was 'very fearful' after their car exploded shortly after the birth of Victoria, their fifth child, who they had concealed from the authorities to stop her being taken into care like their four other children. 'I just feel that after I spoke out about a family member of mine eight years ago… that's why I feel that this person doesn't want me alive and feel that he might be behind the explosion of the car,' she said. She said they previously spent several months living in a camper van to evade her family, but the steering later failed, adding: 'There's a few people in my biological family that see me as an embarrassment and are scared that I will speak out against them and will stop at nothing to get what they want. 'I think some people from privilege think they are above the rules. It's harrowing because you are up against these people who will stop at nothing and have endless resources and connections and I just don't feel that I can get away from them.' Ms Marten, 37, and her partner Mr Gordon, 50, deny the gross negligence manslaughter of their daughter Victoria and causing or allowing her death in January 2023. The prosecution alleges Victoria died from hypothermia or was smothered while co-sleeping in a "flimsy" tent on the South Downs, despite past warnings. Marten told jurors that the tent was intended to be a "pit stop" to avoid "prying eyes". She wept as she said that she would "turn back time" if she knew Victoria was in danger, adding that they "spent so long trying to protect her". Victoria's decomposing remains were later found stashed in a rubbish-filled shopping bag in a disused allotment shed. Last year, the parents were convicted of concealing the birth of the child and perverting the course of justice in a previous trial. The trial continues.
