Commonwealth of Pennsylvania - Pali



Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

Sunrise Evaluation Report

This questionnaire is designed to obtain information, which will assist the Department of State in evaluating the need for regulation of an occupation or profession and in analyzing proposed legislation seeking to establish a new regulation under the Department of State, Bureau of Professional and Occupational Affairs. Please read each question carefully and provide complete responses to all questions. If you think a given question is not applicable, you must explain why. Once a complete evaluation form has been submitted to the Department of State, it will be treated as a public document pursuant to the Pennsylvania Open Records Law.

Department of State

Pedro A. Cortés

Secretary of the Commonwealth

302 North Office Building

Harrisburg, PA 17120-0029

(717) 787-6458

The Department of State may oppose any legislation which proposes the regulation of any unregulated professional or occupational group or which proposes to expand the scope of practice of any regulated professional or occupational group until the Department has received and reviewed a completed original and ten (10) copies of his Sunrise Evaluation Report. Accordingly, the proponent(s) of such a bill are advised to answer the following questions as thoroughly and completely as possible. Please feel free to attach supplemental sheets of plan white typing paper if you are unable to provide complete responses in the spaces provided herein.

(1) Provide the name, address and telephone number and representative of organizations known to be advocating or opposing the legislation.

Advocating:

Mr. James Carino, President

Pennsylvania Association of Licensed Investigators

PO Box 350

Gladwyne, Pennsylvania 19035

(610) 687-2999 (Telephone and Telefax)



Ms. Cheryl Burns, President and CEO

Bail USA, Inc.

PO Box 806

157 Main Street

Greenville, Pennsylvania 16125

The authors of this report know of no organization of security professionals that would either advocate or be opposed to this legislation.

(2) Fully describe the extent to which members of the general public are advocating or opposing the legislation.

We are not aware of any specific public demand for greater regulation, although we draw your attention to multiple news items (Appendix A) regarding the illegal, unethical, or ill-advised conduct of private investigators, security professionals, and fugitive recovery agents which shape the public perception of these professions as a whole. The public has developed an apprehension of the activities of these categories of professionals in terms of privacy issues, unethical behavior, and poor judgment. The vast majority of private investigators, security professionals, and fugitive recovery agents conduct their professional activities competently, ethically, and responsibly, and therefore welcome any regulation that would assist the public in developing the perception that they provide useful services to the public, corporate, legal, insurance, and law enforcement communities.

We specifically draw your attention to the news conference attending the introduction of this legislation in which Jennifer Berkeyheiser spoke in support of House Bill 2493. Ms. Berkeyheiser is the daughter of William Berkeyheiser who was murdered partially as a result of the allegedly ill-advised conduct of a private investigator. We also recall the case in which a Clifford Stephen Aley, Jr. perjured himself by lying to the police in a murder investigation, and has been sentenced to four years in prison. There are numerous examples of untrained or poorly trained security guards violating the rights of citizens by engaging in false arrests, harassment, abuse of authority, or posing as police officers. The newspapers frequently report instances of fugitive recovery agents engaging in trespass, destruction of property, and personal injury. Unfortunately, the general public still views these professions as they perceive them from the entertainment industry, and not as the professional and regulated business endeavors that they are. The Pennsylvania Association of Licensed Investigators (PALI) supports House Bill 2493. It is good public policy to assure that those who have a legitimate and permissible purpose to conduct the activities defined in the HB2493 (Appendix B) will be closely regulated. It will provide protection against unscrupulous practitioners for consumers of the regulated services.

(3) Provide the number of Pennsylvania practitioners in each organization, which advocates or opposes the legislation.

The Pennsylvania Association of Licensed Investigators (PALI) has polled its 141 members. All investigators, both members and non-members, were invited to a meeting on May 14, 2005 and again on April 5, 2006, and May 10, 2006 to discuss the various concepts included in any proposed legislation. No non-members were present. We estimate 95% of our membership support the idea. Some of the members who initially had misgivings changed their opinions after attending the meeting and reading the legislative data provided.

Presently we are regulated by the District Attorneys and President Judge of the licensing county. PALI met with the legislative liaison representatives of the Pennsylvania State Police, Pennsylvania District Attorney’s Association, and the Pennsylvania Attorney General’s Office, who are in favor of a Commonwealth Professional Licensing Board to regulate private investigators, security professionals and fugitive recovery agents. We have issued a press release on the subject to all private investigators and security professionals in the Commonwealth, both members and non-members of PALI. We have heard from three non-members who oppose greater oversight and regulation. They appear to have concerns about the possibility of higher licensing fees, the cost of liability insurance, and the enforcement of a Code of Conduct.

PALI is aware of no organized group opposed to this legislation.

(a) Explain whether the aggregate number of licenses in any given occupation or profession would be sufficient to ensure a reasonable cost to each individual licensee.

PALI believes that the aggregate of individual and corporate licensees would be sufficient to support a Private Investigator/Security Professionals/Fugitive Recovery Agents Licensing Board (“Board”), if the Board establishes reasonable licensing fees for all members of these license classifications. At this time there is no way to ascertain the total number of individuals and businesses required to be licensed, as the number of unlicensed practices has never been precisely established.

(b) Is the membership within the occupation or profession to be regulated generally united in support of a need for licensure?

All private investigators currently are required to be licensed if approved by each county District Attorney. Under the current law, all security business owners are required to have first obtained a private investigator’s license. Fugitive recovery agents are currently not required to be licensed by the counties or the Commonwealth. PALI is aware of no significant opposition to the concept of licensure.

PALI has held numerous meetings to discuss the possibility of statewide regulation and the specific requirements of any new Private Detective/Security Professional/Fugitive Recovery legislation. Additionally, these topics have been the subject of numerous electronic discussions (e-mail) for the past three years. The membership participating in these discussions has voiced no general opposition to this legislation.

We are aware of no group opposed to state regulation. Currently private investigators and security professionals are regulated by the by the local District Attorneys and the President Judge of the county where the license is obtained. Fugitive recovery agents are virtually unregulated. Many private investigators and security professionals have voiced frustration with the inconsistent enforcement of the Private Detective’s Act of 1953 among the 67 counties and the negative press resulting from the illegal or unethical actions of a few in the industries. We have heard opinions in favor of regulation in order to protect the public as well as upgrade the professionalism and view of private investigative and security professionals in the public and business communities. Conceivably a few individual investigators, perhaps non-members of PALI, may oppose greater oversight and regulation. There also has been some concern regarding the possibility of the imposition of greater licensing fees and the requirement to obtain liability insurance. Generally, these are the only objections to HB 2493 that have surfaced.

(4) Document any threat to public health, safety or general well being that would result from the unregulated practice of the occupation or profession that is subject to proposed regulation.

While two of the covered professions are currently regulated (private investigation and security services), the Act of 1953 limits the ability of the courts to adequately monitor the activities of the licensed professionals by placing a non-judicial task on the President Judge and a non-prosecutorial function on the District Attorney. The core functions of the District Attorneys Office to prosecute criminals and the judiciary’s obligation to administer criminal justice preclude their ability to effectively regulate the licensees.

The public currently is subject to practices of unethical and unscrupulous private investigators, security professionals, and fugitive recovery agents, whose activities have been known to cause significant financial loss for consumers and business, including insurance and financial institutions. Unethical, imprudent, or untrained investigators, security professionals and fugitive recovery agents have been known to commit illegal activities resulting in high profile cases of fraud and even murder. Absent a body of well-trained and ethical licensed professionals, as would be assured by the oversight of a state Licensing Board, those requiring investigative and security services run the risk of employing incompetent or unethical practitioners.

Regulation of private investigative services and security services under the present Act is inadequate. It allows for gross inconsistencies in enforcement of licensing standards and disciplinary action throughout the state. A private investigator that has been sanctioned in one county may relocate to another to obtain a new professional license. A central Licensing Board would prevent the inconsistent application of standards and discipline.

In the past there have been incidents of unlicensed individuals, working for either insurance companies or attorneys, who have provided information in court or before adjudicatory bodies that was detrimental to the public. In one case, an individual denied a license in one county was later provided a license by another county. The lack of a qualifying Licensing Board to enforce both the law and regulations allows such persons to continue to operate without sanctions and to the detriment of the public.

As investigators deal with records and information regarding individuals, an invasion of personal privacy is always possible. To avoid this requires a working knowledge of the ever- changing state and federal privacy laws. Currently there is no way to ensure that investigators are availing themselves of any continuing education.

Historically, there has been spotty enforcement of unlicensed activity and there is no procedure to investigate improper or unethical activity that is not a clear violation of the Pennsylvania Crimes Code. Currently no examination is required to obtain a private investigator’s or security professional’s license and no continuing education is mandated in order to renew a license. The profession needs definitions of unprofessional conduct and a Licensing Board that understands how the profession operates. Continuing education is needed to ensure that private investigators and security professionals keep current with state and federal policies as they relate to privacy issues, reciprocity with other states, and other investigative activities, which is not now the case.

While licensed bail bondsmen and sureties are regulated by the Department of Insurance, the complete lack of regulation of freelance fugitive recovery agents creates an inherently dangerous condition reminiscent of the lawless days of the Old West.

a) Indicate clearly how the proposed regulation will ameliorate those threats.

The Licensing Board will have authority to do the following:

➢ Enforce the qualifications for entry into the category of profession as enumerated in HB 2493.

➢ Conduct background investigations of all applicants for a professional license to ensure that all licensees are of good moral character, and have the requisite experience to provide their services to the public.

➢ Create a Code of Professional Conduct to define unprofessional or unethical conduct and to ensure that every practitioner knows the requirements to maintain a license to practice in this Commonwealth.

➢ Design an entrance examination to ensure that all licensees enter the profession with certain basic knowledge and competencies.

➢ Mandate continuing education coursework to ensure that all practitioners maintain the skills necessary to conduct their activities in a way that will cause no harm to the public or clients they serve.

➢ Set standards for reciprocity to ensure that any private investigator, security professional or fugitive recovery agent that enters the Commonwealth to work for a limited period of time has the same knowledge and competency as Commonwealth licensees, so as not to injure the public and business community.

➢ Enforce both the statute as ultimately enacted and concomitant regulations against private investigators, security professionals and fugitive recovery agents who generate complaints from consumers or businesses.

➢ Create a vehicle for peer review of qualifications and complaints.

➢ Impose discipline, up to and including removal of licenses to practice, against practitioners who engage in egregiously unethical or illegal activities.

House Bill 2493 articulates strict qualifications for licensure, including thorough background investigations on all applicants, a written entrance examination stressing the law as it applies to these professional groups, and continuing education. The proposed Act also grants the Licensing Board broad disciplinary powers to ensure that practitioners who do not meet the standards of the industry are sanctioned or removed from the list of licensed professionals.

The creation of a Licensing Board will ensure that the standards for initial licensing and renewal are uniformly applied throughout the State. The general public will have a vehicle for reporting complaints of misconduct against private investigators, security professionals and fugitive recovery agents; and a record of the discipline will become available to the public. The Licensing Board will have the authority to enforce the ethical standards that it promulgates by investigating and prosecuting violations. The Licensing Board will have the authority to design and implement mandatory basic entrance examinations and continuing education courses, to ensure that the public hires only competent and qualified individuals for investigative and security positions. Further, the Board will ensure that fugitive recovery is conducted in a safe and professional manner.

b) Provide evidence of “net” benefit when weighed against the following possible effects:

(i) Restriction upon the opportunity to enter a given occupation or profession,

Two of the professional groups subject to this Act are already regulated by the Private Detective Act of 1953, which requires certain minimum qualifications; therefore, the professionals to be regulated are already subject to entrance requirements. House Bill 2493 only details and expands the requirements currently in effect, so other than limitations as a result of the additional criminal convictions which preclude licensure under House Bill 2493 there should be no net difference between the Act of 1953 and the proposed Bill on the opportunity to enter the named professional categories.

There will be limits placed on entry into the field of fugitive recovery, since the profession is currently unregulated and may be conducted by individuals regardless of their criminal background, qualifications and experience.

Limits will be placed on persons who are unqualified with respect to:

• knowledge of applicable privacy laws,

• education,

• background,

• age, or

• public behavior

to hold private investigator, security professional or fugitive recovery agent licenses. These limits will eliminate many potential sources of public complaint and concern regarding the abusive activities of licensees. Proper vetting will ensure that only qualified applicants enter the field and allow additional competent professionals to enter the field.

(ii) Restricted supply of practitioners,

The supply of practitioners will be restricted only insofar as potential applicants are unable to meet the experiential requirements enumerated in the Bill and only if they are unable to pass the entrance examination. The entrance examination, to be developed by the Board, will test only the basic skills required for entry level practice. There is no proscription in House Bill 2493 to prohibit an applicant from re-taking the entrance examination. Professional organizations, such as PALI, may offer review courses prior to an applicant sitting for the examination.

The US Department of Labor ranks Professional Investigation as one of the fastest growing fields of endeavor in the United States today. It is estimated it will grow at more than 27% per year, although it is also estimated that there will be more job seekers than openings, except on the entry level. The only restriction HB 2493 would imposed on the supply would be to prevent unqualified persons from entering the field, thus ensuring a higher quality practitioner for the public and the legal, insurance and business communities who are the largest consumers of investigative services.

The US Department of Labor ranks Security Services growth as favorable, and states that numerous job openings will result from increased demand for security. It is estimated that employment will increase from 9% to 17% between now and 2014. This growth is expected as concern about crime, vandalism, and terrorism continues to increase the need for security. Demand for guards also will grow as private security firms increasingly perform duties that were formerly handled by police officers, such as providing security at public events and in residential neighborhoods. Casinos will continue to hire more surveillance officers as more States legalize gambling. In addition, casino security forces will employ more technically trained personnel as technology becomes increasingly important in thwarting casino cheating and theft. Again, the only restriction HB 2493 would impose on the supply would be to prevent unqualified persons from entering the field, thereby ensuring a higher quality security professional for the public and business communities.

The growth potential for fugitive recovery agents is presently uncertain.

(iii) Increased cost of services passed on to consumers.

There should be no significant increase in the cost of services to consumers except insofar as practitioners choose to increase their fees to cover any increase in licensing fees, liability insurance, and any costs associated with continuing education requirements. As noted above, professional organizations such as PALI will offer continuing education programs at discounts or at no cost, depending on the nature of the requirements. Conversely, professionals will be more qualified, and provide higher quality services to the public and businesses as a result of the continuing education and close supervision by the Licensing Board.

As the use of private investigators and security professionals increases, the market place will eliminate those investigators whose fee structures are excessive.*

It is unclear how House Bill 2493 will affect the cost of freelance fugitive recovery, although it can be presumed that insurance and other requirements will add to the cost.

(5) Describe the functions performed by the occupation or profession which the legislation proposes to regulate, or whose scope of practice the legislation proposes to expand, including the extent to which practitioners of this occupation or profession work under supervision and the nature of that supervision, the degree of independent judgment which they are required to exercise, the level of skill and expertise required to exercise that judgment and the level of education and experience which they possess.

The modern private investigator is a business professional who, by virtue of his/her training, education and experience can work with a person, a business, an insurance carrier or a law firm, among others, to solve complex problems. He or she is a highly skilled professional, who must possess a thorough knowledge of public and business records research. An investigator must also be well skilled in understanding human behavior and motivation, and have good people skills, as well as investigative skills. The private investigator must have a working knowledge of the multitude of laws as they apply to the business of investigation and the protection of the public, including the changing privacy laws. The modern investigator must be prepared to communicate the results of his/her investigation and to testify in a court of law when necessary. His/her methods must, at all times, comply with existing local, state and federal law and regulations in order for the information to be of any probative value in those forums.

The specific functions of private investigators and security professionals are specifically defined in HB 2493, §303 (Appendix B). An anecdotal summary of some of the activities of private investigators and security professionals is also included in Appendix B.

Private investigators and security professionals may work in agency settings, but the majority of practitioners in the Commonwealth are small business owners or sole practitioners. As a result, with the exception of security guards assigned to specific posts, most do not operate with any supervision. Therefore, all investigators and security professionals must exercise professional judgment on a regular and on-going basis. All of a professional’s judgments affect the public’s well-being and security, personal privacy, the outcome of civil or criminal actions, the payment of insurance claims and all of the other types of cases for which he is employed.

Private investigators use many means to determine the facts in various investigative settings. They may use various types of surveillance. To verify facts, such as an individual’s place of employment, they may make phone calls or visit a subject’s workplace. In other cases, especially those involving missing persons and background checks, investigators often interview people to gather as much information as possible about an individual. In almost all cases, investigators gather public record information. In all cases, investigators must analyze the information they collect, and compose a factual report that will be useful to the client who may be an attorney, a business, an insurance company, or a member of the public with a variety of legal, financial or personal problems.

Private investigators or security professionals offer many services, including executive, corporate, and celebrity protection; pre-employment verification; and individual background profiles. They also provide assistance in civil liability and personal injury cases, insurance claims and fraud, child custody and protection cases, and premarital screening. They may be hired to investigate individuals regarding domestic and family matters.

Most private investigators are trained to perform physical surveillance in a car or a van, often for long periods. They may observe a site, such as the home of a subject, from an inconspicuous location. The surveillance continues using still and video cameras, binoculars, and a cell phone, until the desired evidence is obtained. They also may perform computer database searches, or work with someone who does. Computers allow investigators to quickly obtain massive amounts of information regarding an individuals’ prior arrests, convictions, and civil judgments; telephone numbers; association and club memberships; and other matters that may be relevant to the case.

The duties of private detectives and investigators depend on the needs of their clients. In cases for employers involving fraudulent workers’ compensation claims, for example, investigators may carry out long-term covert observation of subjects. If an investigator observes a subject performing an activity that is inconsistent with injuries stated in a workers’ compensation claim, the investigator would take video or still photographs to document the activity and report it to the client.

Most investigators are small operations, working with attorney and insurer clients, but working independently. Others may work for a larger agency, subject to some type of supervision, but still making day to day decisions during activities such as interviewing, accessing and interpreting public records, and conducting surveillance. Much of what an investigator does results in courtroom testimony: criminal defense, insurance fraud, motor vehicle accidents; therefore, the investigator must be aware of the rules of evidence and the operation of the court system.

Freelance fugitive recovery agents offer services to licensed bail bonds companies and licensed sureties. Unless provided specific direction by the bail bondsman or surety, a recovery agent works unsupervised. This is, in part, a reflection of the complete lack of regulation of this profession.

___________________________________________________________________________

(6) Identify any current statutory or case law, which limits what practitioners of this occupation or profession are permitted to do or how they are permitted to hold themselves out to the public.

The current Private Detective Act of 1953 (Appendix C) defines the activities of private investigators and security professionals. The language of the existing law is very similar to that of HB 2493.

Act 235 of , known as the Lethal Weapons Training Act, provides training and certification for private agents who carry firearms incident to their employment.

(a) Whether current legal remedies offer inadequate protection to the public and, if so, explain.

Currently, if a consumer feels aggrieved by a private investigator or security professional, he or she must pursue legal remedies through his local District Attorney, or by bringing a civil action directly against the offending investigator or security professional. There is no central agency authorized to investigate the allegations in a complaint, and no standards against which to judge the conduct of the investigator, unless the investigator or security professional has committed a crime. Currently we are unaware of any corrective action taken by a local District Attorney, which may be due to a variety of factors, the most important of which is that any actions short of a criminal conviction or judgment in a civil suit may not be publicized in the news media. Unless a member of the public investigates the investigator or security professional in every jurisdiction in which the practitioner has operated, prior to hiring him or his agency, that member of the public would have no way of knowing whether the investigator meets the standards he expects. With a central Licensing Board, the consumer could easily determine whether an investigator or security professional has ever been the subject of complaints or sanctions.

For example, a Pennsylvania private investigator was convicted of a drug offense in another state, which would have precluded him from obtaining a license in Pennsylvania. He did not disclose this conviction when petitioning the court for his private investigator’s license. Another investigator then found the existence of this conviction and disclosed it to the District Attorney in the appropriate county. The District Attorney caused the license to be revoked. The subject license holder then went to a neighboring county and obtained another license. The fact of the conviction was not discovered in the second county because there is no procedure for sharing information regarding license qualifications among the counties. In this situation the public, relying on the license issued in the second county, was at risk of hiring an unqualified investigator. Had there been a state Licensing Board, this individual would never have been licensed initially, since the out of state conviction would have been discovered. Having lost his license, he would have no recourse to another licensing body to obtain another license.

Many people do not realize that conducting investigative or security work in a private capacity requires a license as a private investigator or security professional. Consumers generally have no idea what an investigator can and can not do, While most attorneys are aware of the limitations on investigator’s activities, some have unrealistic expectations regarding an investigator’s ability to develop evidence for a case. Individuals and businesses locate practitioners through the phone book or the Internet, but have no guarantee that they are dealing with a licensed entity. Many consumers are referred by an attorney to an investigator. The insurance industry has its own criteria and methods for selecting both adjusters and investigators.

The only remedies against a freelance fugitive recovery agent would be civil and criminal court proceedings. These remedies are often inadequate to the task, since a civil recovery would not preclude a dangerous practitioner from continuing the same activities and the burden of proof in a criminal proceeding is too high a bar to regulate this profession.

(c) Identify any public or private resource groups, organizations or information centers that may be able to inform the public about potential threats or risks associated with the unregulated practice of a given occupation or profession.

The Pennsylvania Association of Licensed Investigators currently maintains a list of its membership at its website, all of whom are licensed, but this list does not include every licensed investigator or security professional in the Commonwealth. We know of no other organization in this state that provides a similar service. HB 2493 mandates that the Licensing Board make the list of licensed investigators, security professionals, and fugitive recovery agents available to the public.

(7) Explain the extent to which the functions which the legislation proposes to authorize for practitioners of this occupation or profession differ from similar functions performed by practitioners of other occupations or professions.

We are aware of no other occupational group authorized to conduct private investigations or private security services in the Commonwealth. Public law enforcement officers are strictly prohibited from private investigations or security services, as that is a clear conflict of interest. The only exception to the above statement is that HB 2493 permits individuals who work exclusively for one employer: one attorney, one insurance company, or one common carrier (that is, practitioners who do not hold themselves out to the public as investigators or security professionals) are exempted from the licensing requirements.

As for fugitive recovery agents, similar activities are conducted by employees of bail bondsmen and license sureties (regulated by the Department of Insurance) and constables (certified by the Constables’ Education and Training Program in the Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency).

(8) Identify the client group with which practitioners of this occupation or profession deal or would deal and the degree to which these clients have the knowledge and the opportunity to evaluate the qualifications of practitioners of this occupation or profession.

The vast majority of clients are from the insurance, legal, financial and corporate industries. Investigators provide trial support for attorneys in criminal and civil litigation; the banking industry in fraud analysis; background investigations for employers; and investigations related to insurance claims and insurance fraud for the insurance industry. As a result, our profession has a far reaching effect on the general population and assurance of the highest proficiency and ethical standards would be a benefit to the general population, the Courts, the law enforcement community, and the insurance community.

Currently these client groups have no way to evaluate the qualifications of private investigators or security professionals. A potential client may contact the local county Clerk of Courts to determine whether an individual or agency is properly licensed, but the Clerk of Courts has no obligation to maintain a record of complaints against the licensee. The potential client would have to conduct a comprehensive search of public records to determine whether the investigator or security professional has been the subject of criminal or civil actions. Frequently, cases against private investigators or security professionals are dropped for political or other reasons. Presently the potential client would have practically no way to independently evaluate the qualifications of an investigator or security professional, except for referrals from other clients.

Currently there is no mechanism for peer review, no process to file a complaint or challenge, and no objective standard against which a client could evaluate the competency and ethics of a practitioner. House Bill 2493 would address this problem by requiring entry level testing, mandatory continuing education to renew a license, and a simplified complaint process for aggrieved consumers and public access to disciplinary actions against licensees.

We anticipate the Act will give the general public more information and confidence by providing greater oversight of the profession. The general public and many attorneys regard investigators and security professionals only in light of news items or entertainment. Many people do not know this should be an effectively and consistently regulated profession.

Fugitive recovery agents would work with licensed bail bonds companies and licensed sureties. Given the practice of bail bonds companies and sureties, they would only be able to evaluate qualifications of a recovery agent based on prior experience with the agent or prior training (as a constable, etc.). In many cases, neither of these circumstances may exist.

(9) Provide a description and examples of the typical work settings of practitioners of this occupation or profession.

Private investigators are typically sole proprietors or small businessmen. They may operate from their homes or from small offices. Surveillances are typically conducted from an individual’s privately owned vehicle. Since, by nature of the profession, investigators typically work alone, there is little opportunity to network and engage in professional development activities with other investigators.

Work settings vary as much as the type of work that investigators do. Most investigators spend their time in field activities, such as surveillance and personal interviews with witnesses. There is a growing segment of the investigative industry that specializes in public record retrieval and analysis, as well as due diligence investigation and reporting. Investigators who engage in anti-fraud activities tend to engage in both office and field investigations.

Security professionals are more likely to work in larger agencies. Most security guard agencies were established by professionals with either police or military experience, and therefore are in a better position to supervise guards. There is opportunity for security professionals to network and engage in professional development activities. Security professionals may work in both proactive and reactive settings; typically guards are engaged to prevent security problems, while security professionals may be more likely to engage in first-responder or anti-terrorist activities. The higher level security professionals are also called upon to consult with businesses in creating secure environments in terms of both physical security and internal anti-fraud controls. More than any other group, the security industry must be subject to the highest ethical standards and professional competencies.

The work settings of a fugitive recovery agent are extremely varied, since pursuit of a fugitive can essentially lead anywhere.

(10) Describe the public’s need for the services of the practitioners of this occupation or profession or for the expanded scope of practice of practitioners of this occupation of profession.

The public needs the services of the private investigative and security industries both directly and indirectly.

The tasks of the investigator depend on the needs of the client. Whenever there is a question that requires factual analysis to answer, an investigator may be called upon to develop lines of inquiry, gather the facts, complete the analysis, and report the findings. The questions arise in the course of business activities and decisions (e.g. mergers and acquisitions, allegations of harassment, theft, larceny, environmental violations, theft of intellectual property, corruption in the bidding process, vendor certification); civil litigation and criminal trial support (e.g. witness location and interviews, evidence development, background development); insurance claims/fraud investigations (e.g. arson investigations, accident reconstruction); staff performance and security audits; due diligence, to name just a sample of the types of activities in which investigators and security personnel engage. Investigators also engage in direct contact with the consumers in investigations involving school attendance, identity theft, custody and family matters, and those regarding child and the elderly caretakers.

Neither the Licensing Board nor the Act will expand the scope of practice of these practitioners.

The public has very little need to hire a freelance fugitive recovery agent, but in a larger sense, recovery of fugitives from justice on behalf of bail bonds companies and sureties plays an important role in public safety.

(11) Does the legislation propose to license, certify, register or otherwise regulate this occupation or profession?

Yes. The legislation sets qualifications for entry-level experience, and requires continuing education for renewal of licenses. The legislation gives the Licensing Board the authority to set standards for conduct and impose discipline for the violation of those standards. The legislation permits the Licensing Board to set fees for the licenses. The legislation tasks the Licensing Board with the obligation to maintain a list of licensees and to make that list available to the public. The Licensing Board will have the authority to evaluate other states’ qualifications for licensees in order to grant reciprocity. The Licensing Board will have the authority to regulate virtually all spects of the licensees’ activities.

__

(12) Would persons who are not so licensed, certified, registered or otherwise regulated be prohibited from performing the functions which practitioners of this occupation or profession would be permitted to perform or from holding themselves out to the public in the manner in which practitioners of this occupation or profession so licensed, certified, registered or otherwise regulated would be permitted to hold themselves out.

Yes. Only duly licensed practitioners, who conform to the standards set by the Act and by the Licensing Board, will be permitted to conduct investigative or security activities, and to hold themselves out to the public as qualified to conduct the professional activities.

Certified constables and others, such as private investigators and licensed bail bondsmen, would be authorized to conduct fugitive recovery but would not be authorized to use the terms fugitive recovery agent or bounty hunter.

(13) Describe the impact of the legislation on the supply of practitioners of this occupation or profession, including the degree to which existing practitioners would be precluded from practice.

Under the provisions of the bill, existing licensees will automatically qualify and will maintain licensure until the date of next renewal. Thereafter, the licensee will be required to engage in continuing education and meet the all the other standards as presented in the bill.

If there is a significant increase in the fees required to obtain a license, along with the requirement to maintain liability insurance, some smaller practitioners may decide to decline to maintain their licenses.

The impact on fugitive recovery is unknown.

(14) Explain the effect of the legislation on the cost of the goods or services provided by practitioners of this occupation or profession.

Currently, private detective licensees (who also provide security services) are required to pay an annual fee of $100 for individuals and $150 for corporations, and to obtain a bond in the amount of $125,000 for the protection of the county court which has granted the license. The new legislation would require licensees to pay an annual or bi-annual license fee of an amount to be determined by the Licensing Board, pay for continuing education courses, and maintain a minimal level of liability insurance. Currently most licensees maintain liability insurance, as this risk protection is a good business practice. Those license holders who do not maintain liability insurance place their clients and the general public at risk in the event of their substandard performance or other situations beyond their control resulting in loss or injury.

Those licensees that do not avail themselves of continuing professional development risk exposure in the event that they do not follow the standard practices of the industry and do not keep current with the laws as applied to their category of professions.

The effect on the unregulated profession of freelance fugitive recovery is difficult to measure, but it is presumed that fees would increase to cover these new costs.

Therefore, while it is possible that licensees will pass the cost of continuing education, liability insurance, and any increase in the licensing fees along to their clients, it is believed that such increase in the cost of services will be more than balanced by the increase in skill, competency and professionalism of the licensee.

(15) Identify the physical, emotional or financial harm to clients because of inappropriate, erroneous or incompetent service by practitioners of this occupation or profession.

Clients typically fall into several groups. One group is the general public, who may hire private investigators in domestic matters. Many members of the general public hire investigators to assist in marital or child custody matters where substandard service could cause severe emotional distress if performed insensitively, unprofessionally, unethically, or outside the boundaries of the law. The lives of children may be placed in physical danger if the investigative professional fails to conform to the standards of the industry. There are frequent stories in the media of private investigators acting unprofessionally and causing serious harm to the public, up to and including murder.

Another group of clients are attorneys and others in the legal industry. Investigators are frequently hired to provide trial support and develop evidence for civil and criminal matters, such as locating and interviewing witnesses, providing reports regarding motor vehicle and other accidents, conducting searches for assets, and developing background materials with respect to the parties and the witnesses. Security professionals are frequently called to provide expert testimony. These legal industry clients are harmed financially when the investigators cannot deliver work product defined as “standard” in the industry. The attorneys’ clients are harmed when the attorney has insufficient or incorrect evidence and are unable to properly present the clients’ cases to the court or the jury. The loss of a personal injury suit due to improper development of evidence can cause catastrophic financial and emotional harm to the attorney’s client and to the attorney’s reputation, leading to the possible loss of his practice.

Another group of clients work in the insurance industry; specifically in claims and in special investigation units. Sometimes the claims result in litigation, and the hazards described above as related to the legal community would be suffered in the insurance community as well. Sometimes insurance companies pay claims of their insureds to avoid expensive court cases and the concomitant public exposure. When private investigators and security professionals provide unprofessional or incompetent services, the insurance companies may be forced to pay claims that are unfounded, driving up insurance premiums, having a financial effect on all insureds. Conversely, when an attorney hires an investigator to develop evidence for an insurance matter in which the insured has a legitimate claim which the insurer refuses to pay, and the investigator fails to provide a complete and factual report in conformity with the rules of evidence, an insured may be unfairly denied compensation to which he is entitled. This clearly causes significant financial and emotional harm. The insured may be unable to pay for needed medical care, resulting in physical harm.

Both large and small businesses may be beset by fraud. This is particularly true of the banking industry. The investigator who holds him or herself out as proficient to investigate internal fraud matters must be competent to do so, or significant financial harm will result to the client corporation. Security professionals must be trained and skilled to set up internal controls to prevent fraud within the workplace. Both investigators and security professionals should know when it is necessary to call in specialists, such as fraud prevention specialists or forensic accountants. If investigators and security professionals are not prepared to conduct the specialized investigations required in various workplace situations, or to recognize when it is necessary to call in someone who is, the financial consequences will trickle down through the business and ultimately to the consumer.

Fugitive recovery agents may injure suspects or related parties due to a lack of training and knowledge. The use of excessive force, particularly reliance on lethal force when lesser measures or better planning would be a reasonable alternative, poses a real risk of harm.

The regulated licensees have a far reaching effect on the general population. Assurance of the highest proficiency and ethical standards is critical to the health and safety of the general population, the Courts, the law enforcement community, and the insurance industry. We anticipate this legislation will give the general public more information and confidence in the professions as it will provide for greater oversight of the profession.

_____________________________________________________________________________

(16) Would/do clients have direct access to practitioners of this occupation or profession?

Yes. Clients, particularly the general public, are apt to use the local telephone book or the Internet to find investigators or security professionals. There is no way to determine from an advertisement whether the investigator or security professional has the skills required to provide the services needed in a particular situation. The only assurance a client would have is the imprimatur of competence and professionalism that would come from state licensure with its strict entrance requirements, requirements to maintain the license, liability insurance requirements and monitoring of licensees’ activities.

Bail bond companies and sureties would have access to fugitive recovery agents and are currently solicited by unlicensed “bounty hunters”.

(17) Would the proposed legislation have the effect of making practitioners of this occupation or profession eligible for third party insurance payments or government grants for which they are currently ineligible?

No. Typically, private investigators and security professionals are not grant recipients.

(18) Fully identify the minimum education, expertise and examination requirements proposed in the legislation, including a comparison of those minimum requirements to the minimum requirements in other states, the adequacy of those minimum requirements and the rationale for any exemptions or waivers from those minimum requirements.

The minimum qualifications for licensure are clearly identified in HB 2493 (Appendix D). Applicants for licenses must meet an age requirement, be of good moral character, be clear of specific types of criminal convictions, and show specific experiential qualifications. Exemptions may be granted for educational experience in lieu of work experience on a case by case basis. The bill gives the Licensing Board authority to grant licensure to any applicant who can prove sufficient relevant experience, even if not outlined in the Bill. These requirements should prepare the applicant for the entrance examination, which is intended to test primarily for entry level understanding of the laws as applied to general investigations and privacy issues, as well as some basic investigative skills.

Many of the exemptions in the bill recognize individuals with similar training and/or official duties. Further, other exemptions recognize licensed individuals (and their employees) which are regulated by other governmental bodies.

These requirements are substantially similar to those of the surrounding states. A detailed comparison can be made by referring to Appendix E.

(19) Identify the institutions offering accredited and non-accredited programs to prepare practitioners to enter this occupation or profession or to exercise the functions, which would be authorized by the expanded scope of practice.

Currently there are several unaccredited programs in the state purporting to prepare practitioners to become private investigators or security professionals. There is no regulation of the training industry, and many of the programs make promises that they do not keep. For example, some private investigation schools promise to assist the graduates to find employment, but do not. There is no way to gauge the qualifications of the instructors or the quality of the curriculum. PALI does not endorse any of these private schools.

There is one institution of higher learning, Academy of Investigation and Protection, which has been accredited by the Pennsylvania Department of Education, currently offering programs for private investigators and security professionals. Temple University also is preparing a program of instruction. The Temple University program will initially be non-accredited, but it is anticipated that this program will become certified by the Commonwealth to offer continuing education credits, and may eventually be offered as a regular accredited program.

PALI has been offering continuing education programs for the past ten years. These programs are presented bi-annually or annually and provide an opportunity for speakers to provide both members and non-members with updates to issues affecting the industry. PALI is in the process of expanding its seminar program to include more frequent “mini-seminars” in different parts of the state. It is intended that these programs will be approved by the Licensing Board prior to presentation.

There is at least one entity in Pennsylvania which purports to train individuals for a career in freelance fugitive recovery. The Northwest Fugitive Recovery Agency describes itself as a member of United States Professional Bail Bond Investigators Association (U.S.P.B.I.A.).

It is anticipated that the Licensing Board will have significant input into the development of these and other programs.

(20) Explain the requirements for renewal of a license, certificate, registration or other form of regulation, including continuing education.

Licenses will be renewed for any licensee who has met the continuing education requirements, and, in the judgment of the Licensing Board, is deemed fit to continue the practice of the category of license. A renewal fee and bond will be required for renewal. Any other requirements will be established by the Licensing Board.

(21) Describe the extent to which a private organization provides credentials to, sets standards for, or imposes sanctions on practitioners of this occupation or profession.

There is currently no private organization that credentials, disciplines, or sets standards for private investigative or security licensees. PALI has adopted a code of conduct and ethical standards, but this cannot be applied to non-members. Indeed, the only sanction that PALI can impose for violation of the Code of Conduct is expulsion from the Association. On occasion, PALI has made the relevant District Attorneys aware of illegal activity on the part of a licensee, but has no authority to force an investigation.

It is unclear what standards for fugitive recovery are set by the United States Professional Bail Bond Investigators Association (U.S.P.B.I.A.).

(22) Explain the extent to which amendments to, or stronger enforcement of, existing statutes might serve as an alternative to the legislation.

The Private Detective Act of 1953 provides for licensing of private detectives and security professionals by each county’s District Attorney and President Judge. The current Act has no entrance requirements other than those of experience and satisfactory moral character as evidenced by the attestations of other licensees who are familiar with the applicant. License renewals are granted automatically unless the District Attorney becomes aware of some egregious activity on the part of the licensee. There is no continuing education requirement, and no requirement for liability insurance to protect the public. The current Act does not provide for the consistent application of an accepted Code of Conduct for each licensee. The fact that there are virtually no standards for the good conduct or professional development of licensees of any category, and that there is inconsistent application and enforcement of the current Act from county to county, make it impossible for the current Act to serve as an alternative to the proposed legislation.

The current legislation is 53 years old, and does not reflect modern practices in any of the categories of licensees named in the proposed bill. The private investigative and security professions have changed drastically during the past 50 years with the enactment of multiple federal and state laws that place restrictions on the activities of private sector investigations. These laws include: The Financial Modernization Act of 1999, (also known as the “Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act” or the GLB, which includes provisions to protect consumers’ personal financial information held by financial institutions). The GLB protects consumers from individuals and companies that illegally obtain their personal financial information under false pretenses, a practice known as “pretexting.” Additionally, the Driver Privacy Protection Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2721 et. seq., was enacted in the mid 1990s and some changes were made to the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq. that affect private sector investigations. In that federal law, professional investigators were specifically included as persons authorized to access personal data, albeit for permissible purposes only.

These are issues private sector investigators and security professionals deal with daily and the District Attorneys deals with rarely, if ever. A Licensing Board, comprised of members of the professions, as well as members of the public and several government representatives, would provide greater oversight, clearer definitions of unprofessional conduct, set more appropriate standards, develop entry level competency tests and continuing education requirements that the District Attorneys do not have the requisite staff and experience to do. The reality of the current practice of private investigators, security professionals, and fugitive recovery agents requires that each category be given greater oversight than can be provided under the current system.

There is no current regulation of freelance fugitive recovery agents.

The creation of a Licensing Board would ensure that the regulated categories of licensees comply with changes in federal and state law. This would provide safeguards that would benefit the public who use the services of an investigator or security professional, either directly or through their legal counsel or during an insurance claims investigation.

(23) If the legislation would create a new board or commission, explain the extent to which this occupation or profession could be regulated by an existing board or commission.

There is no existing Board or Commission regulating private investigators, security professionals or fugitive recovery agents. PALI believes that no other regulatory board would be competent to regulate these activities. In half a century the categories of licensees and the marketplace have changed significantly and the current practice is completely unlike that of 53 years ago. It is hoped that a dedicated Licensing Board would be comprised of individuals qualified to regulate the complex elements of the licensed activities.

(24) Provide the estimated biennial fiscal impact of the legislation.

As stated in item # 14, the financial impact on licensees regulated under this Bill would be limited to a reasonable increase in the license fee to be determined by the Board, the cost of continuing education courses, and the premium for liability insurance. These increases would probably be passed along to the licensees’ clients.

(25) Establish why no alternatives to regulation will adequately protect the public.

The only adequate and impartial way to regulate the activities of licensees is by peer review. Currently there is no single body comprised of trained and experienced private investigators, security professionals and fugitive recovery agents that can oversee and consistently evaluate the activities of licensees throughout the Commonwealth. Peer review requires administration by professionals familiar with the laws and standards of the profession, the training required, and the complexities involved in providing competent and ethical services. Currently licensees are regulated by multiple county courts which cannot be expected to be aware of the requirements of the expanding federal regulation as it impacts the licensees, the technical aspects of the wide variety of investigative and security activities, and the place of the profession in a changing society. The county courts do not have the requisite experience or training to provide any level of oversight, and therefore, cannot be called upon to conduct peer review.

a) Identify any other states in which the subject occupation or profession is regulated and the manner in which the regulation has resulted in greater protection of the public health, safety or general well being.

Private investigators, security professionals and fugitive recovery agents are regulated in all but seven states. Four states have no licensing whatsoever, and three states have limited local regulation.

b) As an Appendix to this report, provide copies of the regulations from those other states.

As that would represent thousands of pages, we refer you to the International Association of Security and Investigative Regulators (IASIR) website: . Attached to this document are copies of the statutes regulating private investigators, security guards, and fugitive recovery agents from states contiguous to Pennsylvania.

APPENDIX A

NEWS ARTICLES REGARDING

MISCONDUCT OF PRIVATE INVESTIGATORS

APPENDIX B:

Description of duties of private investigators, security professionals,

and fugitive recovery agents.

Private investigator.

21 (1) An individual, corporation, partnership, limited

22 liability company or other legal entity which for a fee

23 primarily engages in the investigation of any of the

24 following activities:

25 (i) Crimes or wrongs done or threatened against an

26 individual, corporation, partnership, limited liability

27 company or other legal entity.

28 (ii) The identity, habits, conduct, movement,

29 whereabouts, affiliations, association, transactions,

30 reputation or character of any individual, group of

1 individuals, association, organization, society,

2 partnership, corporation, limited liability company or

3 other legal entity.

4 (iii) The credibility of witnesses or other

5 individuals.

6 (iv) The whereabouts of missing individuals.

7 (v) The location or recovery of lost or stolen

8 property.

9 (vi) The cases or origins of or responsibility for

10 fires or torts or losses, accidents, damage or injuries

11 to personal or real property.

12 (vii) The conduct of employees, agents, contractors

13 and subcontractors.

14 (viii) The securing of evidence for any civil or

15 criminal proceeding.

16 (2) The term does not include any individual excluded

17 from this chapter by section 324 (relating to exclusions).

Security professional.

19 (1) An individual, corporation, partnership, limited

20 liability company or other legal entity which for a fee

21 primarily provides security guards, watchmen or private

22 patrolmen for any individual, private corporation or other

23 legal entity.

24 (2) The term does not include any individual excluded

25 from this chapter by section 324 (relating to exclusions).

Private sector investigators provide many invaluable investigative services to consumers, businesses and law enforcement agencies. These essential services include, but are not limited to:

Preventing Fraud

Private investigators assist insurance companies, banks and others to uncover or prevent fraudulent activities. They perform the necessary surveillance to establish the extent of the truth to any claims or to identify any fraudulent activities before they go too far. They are often hired to investigate life, accident, malpractice, worker's compensation and other claims to ensure that they are not fraudulent. The cost of intellectual property theft may exceed $240 billion annually; $67 billion is lost each year due to fraudulent claims. Employee dishonesty and theft costs American businesses over $50 billion a year

Helping Identity Theft Victims

Identity theft is a growing national concern. The General Accounting Office has found that insufficient resources are allocated by authorities to investigate such crime and police face jurisdictional issues. Victims often turn to private investigators to help them recover their credit and good names. The Federal Trade Commission reports that from 2000-2004, over 27 million Americans were victims of identify theft costing close to $48 billion in 2003.

Investigating Casualty Claims

Private investigators are often hired to prevent business ruin and job losses by investigating embezzlement, robberies, burglaries, thefts, losses, fires and other casualty claims. Without private investigators, corporations and other injured parties would be limited to the resources that law enforcement can expend on the investigation. 3% of the nation's annual health care costs, or $51 billion, is outright fraud; others have placed this figure as high as 10% or $170 billion a year.

Investigating Gray Market Activity

Today's advanced technology has increased opportunity in the gray or underground market. American companies are susceptible to loss of intellectual capital through copyright infringement, patent theft and other diversions. They require the services of private investigators to assess how much money is being lost through tactics and to help identify and resolve some of the main sources of the diversion and infringement. Economists estimate that 25 million Americans earn a large portion of their income from gray markets.

Investigating Workplace Allegations

Businesses must be very sensitive to all types of claims, including discrimination, harassment and other allegations. Businesses often employ private investigators to determine the accuracy of such allegations. Private investigators can expose dishonesty, waste, carelessness, inefficiency, willful neglect, and violation of safety rules, favoritism, sabotage and all other irregularities. Resolving these workplace issues helps protect consumers, employees and business owners.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission received nearly 250,000 charges of various discrimination cases in 2004, including age, race, religion, pregnancy, sex and sexual harassment resulting in nearly $500 million in monetary benefits

Securing Evidence and Surveillance

In preparation for filing suit or the actual trial, attorneys rely on private investigators to secure evidence and perform necessary surveillance. Law enforcement officials do not have the necessary resources to perform elaborate surveillance activities for every case in which they are involved. Instead, private investigators pick up where the law enforcement officials leave off to gather information through physical evidence and surveillance.

Locating Witnesses

Frequently, witnesses to crimes or events under investigation do not come forward to authorities. For this reason, attorneys preparing for trial or adjudication frequently turn to private investigators to find previously unidentified witnesses or those who have retreated and decided not to come forward with testimony. Investigators often locate witnesses to assist defendants to prove their innocence.

Locating Missing Persons or Heirs

Today, private investigators are often hired by private citizens to help find missing persons. A persistent problem in the United States is family members disappearing with children during custody battles to other parts of the country. In these circumstances, access to records is essential for help parents find their missing children. In addition, these services are also requested by will executors looking for lawful heirs. Current technology and search methods allow investigators to resolve many of these cases, reuniting families. In 2003, it was estimated that $41 trillion in wealth will transfer from one generation to the next. In 2002, an estimated 58,200 children were abducted by a non-family perpetrator

Locating "Deadbeat Parents"

Parents who chose not to support their own children, either because they are not paying alimony and child support, or they have entirely abandoned their children-"deadbeat parents"-often inflict poverty on their own children. Critical personal information is vital to assist in recovery of delinquent child support payments. Investigators are frequently able to make recoveries of more than $20,000. The private investigators recover important resources for the children while reducing the toll on the public. U.S. Census data from 2002 show that of the 7.9 million custodial parents receiving child support, only 44.8 % received full payments.

Locating Debtors

When the trial comes to an end, private investigators are employed to locate those against whom judgments have been made. Decisions of courts become meaningless if the aggrieved party cannot recover funds awarded by a judge or jury. Private investigators are often the only method for the creditors to pursue and capture their debts.

Performing Due Diligence: Protecting consumers and Corporations

Corporations hire private investigators to investigate applicants and employees considered for advancement to positions of trust and responsibility. These services are also requisitioned for building partnerships among corporate entities. Investigators work with both consumers and businesses to verify the backgrounds and licensing status of doctors, lawyers, and providers of child and elderly care. Information obtained by investigators can be used to determine if an individual has had a license suspended or a criminal prosecution pending in another jurisdiction. Due diligence must be performed in order to make sound investments and decisions.

APPENDIX C

Selected Sections of the Private Detective Act of 1953

a) "Private detective business" shall mean and include the business of private detective, private detective business, the business of investigator, or the business of watch, guard, or patrol agency.

(b) "Private detective business" shall also mean and include, separately or collectively, the making for hire, reward, or for any consideration whatsoever, of any investigation or investigations for the purpose of obtaining information with reference to any of the following matters, notwithstanding the fact that other functions and services may also be performed for fee, hire, or reward:

(1) Crimes or wrongs done or threatened against the government of the United States of America or any state or territory of the United States of America.

(2) The identity, habits, conduct, movements, whereabouts, affiliations, associations, transactions, reputation, or character, of any person, group of persons, association, organization, society, other groups of persons, partnership, or corporation.

(3) The credibility of witnesses or other persons.

(4) The whereabouts of missing persons.

(5) The location or recovery of lost or stolen property.

(6) The causes and origin of, or responsibility for, fires, or libels, or losses, or accidents, or damage, or injuries, to real or personal property.

(7) The affiliation, connection, or relation, of any person, partnership, or corporation, with any union, organization, society, or association, or with any official member or representative thereof.

(8) With references to any person or persons seeking employment in the place of any person or persons who have quit work by reason of any strike.

(9) With reference to the conduct, honesty, efficiency, loyalty, or activities, of employes, agents, contractors and subcontractors.

(10) The securing of evidence to be used before any authorized investigating committee, board of award, board of arbitration, or in the trial of civil or criminal cases.

(11) The furnishing, for hire or reward, of watchmen, or guards, or private patrolmen, or other persons, to protect persons or property, or to prevent the theft or the unlawful taking of goods, wares and merchandise, or to prevent the misappropriation or concealment of goods, wares or merchandise, money, bonds, stocks, chooses in action, notes, or other valuable documents, papers, and articles of value, or to procure the return thereof, or the performing of the service of such guard or other person, or any of said purposes.

The forgoing shall not be deemed to include persons engaged in the business of investigators for or adjusters for insurance companies, nor persons in the exclusive employment of common carries subject to regulation by the interstate commerce commission or the Public Utility Commission of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, nor any telephone, telegraph or other telecommunications company subject to regulation by the Federal Communications Commission or the Public Utility Commission of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania or an employee of any such company while performing any investigatory activities engaged in by his employer, or investigators in the employment of credit bureaus.

3

APPENDIX D

Qualifications for Licensure

(c) Qualifications.--All applicants for any license under

10 this chapter must meet all of the following:

11 (1) Be at least 25 years of age.

12 (2) Be a United States citizen.

13 (3) Be of good moral character.

14 (4) Not be addicted to the habitual use of alcohol,

15 narcotics or other habit-forming drugs.

16 (5) Have a criminal history which does not include any

17 of the offenses listed under section 318 (relating to

18 prohibition).

19 (6) Qualify by successful completion of a professional

20 entrance examination for the category of license which is the

21 subject of the application.

22 (d) Additional qualifications.--An applicant for a specific

23 license shall meet the following specific additional

24 qualifications:

25 (1) In addition to the other requirements of this

26 chapter, a private investigator license shall not be issued

27 unless the applicant for the license has held one or more of

28 the following positions for a period of at least five years

29 and was not separated from the position for a period of more

30 than five years from the time of application:

1 (i) Worked as an investigator as a member of the

2 Pennsylvania State Police.

3 (ii) Worked as an investigator as a member of a

4 state, county or municipal police force.

5 (iii) Worked as an investigator as a member of a

6 United States or state investigative service.

7 (iv) Worked full time as a private investigator

8 licensed under the Private Detective Act of 1953.

9 (v) Worked full time under the direction of a

10 private investigator who is or was licensed under this

11 chapter or under the Private Detective Act of 1953.

12 (vi) Worked full time as an investigator or in a

13 similar capacity for an insurance company in a special

14 investigation unit.

15 (vii) Worked full time as an attorney or an

16 investigator for an attorney or law firm.

17 (viii) Worked full time as an investigator for a

18 common carrier or any entity regulated by the

19 Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission.

20 (ix) Has other investigative or investigative

21 support experience that the board finds relevant to the

22 activities of a private investigator.

23 (2) In addition to the other requirements of this

24 chapter, a security professional license shall not be issued

25 unless the applicant for the license has held one or more of

26 the following positions for a period of at least five years

27 and was not separated from the position for a period of more

28 than five years from the time of application:

29 (i) Worked as a member of the Pennsylvania State

30 Police.

1 (ii) Worked as a member of a state, county or

2 municipal police force.

3 (iii) Worked as a sheriff or deputy sheriff.

4 (iv) Worked as a member of a Federal or state

5 investigative service.

6 (v) Worked full time under the direction of a

7 security professional who is or was licensed under this

8 chapter.

9 (vi) Worked full time as a private investigator

10 licensed under the Private Detective Act of 1953.

11 (vii) Worked full time under the direction of a

12 private investigator who was licensed under the Private

13 Detective Act of 1953.

14 (viii) Has other security or security support

15 experience that the board finds relevant to the

16 activities of a security professional.

17 (3) In addition to the other requirements of this

18 chapter, a fugitive recovery agent license shall not be

19 issued unless the applicant for the license has held one or

20 more of the following positions for a period of at least five

21 years and was not separated from the position for a period of

22 more than five years from the time of application:

23 (i) Worked as a member of the Pennsylvania State

24 Police.

25 (ii) Worked as a member of a state, county or

26 municipal police force.

27 (iii) Worked as a sheriff or deputy sheriff.

28 (iv) Worked as a constable or deputy constable

29 certified to perform judicial duties under 42 Pa.C.S. Ch.

30 29 Subch. C (relating to constables).

1 (v) Worked as a member of a state or United States

2 investigative service.

3 (vi) Worked full time under the direction of a

4 fugitive recovery agent who is or was licensed under this

5 chapter.

6 (vii) Has other fugitive recovery or related

7 experience that the board finds relevant to the

8 activities of a fugitive recovery agent.

9 (viii) Worked as a fugitive recovery agent prior to

10 July 1, 2009. This subparagraph shall expire July 1,

11 2014.

12 (e) Education and part-time work experience.--The board may

13 allow an applicant for any category of license under subsection

14 (d) to do any of the following:

15 (1) Substitute up to two years of relevant educational

16 experience for work experience required of an applicant under

17 subsection (d).

18 (2) Aggregate part-time work experience to reach the

19 minimum five years of the full time employment requirement

20 for an applicant under subsection (d).

APPENDIX E

SURROUNDING STATES’ LEGISLATION

OHIO

WEST VIRGINIA

MARYLAND

DELAWARE

NEW JERSEY

NEW YORK

OHIO

WEST VIRGINIA

MARYLAND

DELAWARE

NEW JERSEY

NEW YORK

* The most serious increase in costs to consumers will not result from HB 2493, but from the increased restriction on access public records. These restrictions make almost all investigation take far longer than necessary, requiring investigators to charge for more hours, and passing the costs along to consumers. That cost increase is based on the difficulty of securing public data. Restricting the private investigators’ use of public data allows for the criminal element of society to prey on the public, with the unintentional assistance of governmental agencies.

The creation of the Licensing Board would assist in ameliorating the harm that might ensue from the release of public records to private investigators by protecting the public from unethical or illegal conduct by these unscrupulous practitioners. PALI is in favor of a strong audit trail to document any authorized access to information in the course of conducting a permissible investigation.

-----------------------

[pic]

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download