Educational Feature: January 2000 {Prepared by John W. Ellis, B.S., M.A.J.}
Standing Together

One unexpected result of the recent member survey was the high priority that members reported on monitoring unusual incidents. KAPI has been doing this, but has really not been publicizing either the incidents or its efforts. Consequently, it occurred to me that a short history of unusual incidents in the private detective community in Kansas, the actions taken by individuals and KAPI, and the outcome would be of interest to the members. Here then is a short run-down of incidents reported to KAPI over about the last five years.

Incidents Involving Licensing/Regulatory Actions.

• Case #1. An applicant for an initial private detective license from the central part of the state reported that he was informally denied a license over the telephone. The reason cited by the regulatory agency was an unpaid traffic ticket in California found during the background check. The applicant had previously resided in that state, but did not recall receiving a traffic ticket of the type mentioned nor of failing to pay any traffic ticket. Even though he was not sure that the citation was his, he paid the fine in order to obtain his license. He did not contact KAPI initially and only mentioned it at a joint investigator's meeting because the incident still irritated him. The applicant was unaware of the formal requirements for license denial that are part of the Kansas Administrative Procedures Act.
  
• Case # 2. An applicant for an initial private detective license from the northeastern part of the state was informally notified that the processing of his license was being delayed due to work load in the fall. After the first of the year, he was called to Topeka to take the written test; in the process, he was provided with a form that he was required to sign stating that he did not hold a law enforcement officer commission. The applicant signed it and completed the test. After the test, in the hallway of the KBI building, the applicant was approached by a member of the clerical staff who started to hand him his license. The license was intercepted by a KBI administrator who stated that the license was being withheld on the basis that the applicant's membership in the U.S. Army Reserve with an officer's commission (reported on his application) made him ineligible for a license since it made him a law enforcement officer. The administrator stopped short of accusing him of lying on the form, but his implication was clear. The applicant responded by utilizing his education to research the matter over the next three days and produced a detailed 26 page ‘brief' explaining why this assertion could not possibly be legally valid. The document was reviewed by a staff attorney in the Attorney General's office who agreed with the brief and the license was issued without further delay.
  
• Case #3. An initial applicant for a private detective license from the northeastern part of the state was denied a license. The regulating agency stated that he had failed to report an expunged crime committed as a juvenile. The applicant stated that he had, in fact committed that offense, but that he had been advised by his attorney that he was not required to report it. The attorney was, apparently, unaware that the Kansas statute on expungement contains a provision that requires an applicant for a security or private detective license to report expunged offenses. This situation resulted in a consensual arrangement in which the applicant obtained a license with monitoring provisions. The monitoring provisions did not work well and the applicant left the private detective business. This situation provided the impetus for the provision of conditional licenses in the 1998 amendment to the licensing act.
  
• Case #4. Several private detectives received letters from the regulating agency indicating that they were being suspended for operating without insurance. Yet, the private detectives involved all had valid insurance in place. Several of the detectives called KAPI. A check showed that the insurance companies involved had not forwarded certificates of insurance in a timely manner. The administrative official discovering the lack of certificates was not familiar with the required steps of the Administrative Procedures Act and implemented the suspension without first seeking informal resolution or following the necessary steps. One private detective chose to formally ask for an administrative hearing on the matter. Since it was requested, the agency had to comply. This request and other calls resulted in an Attorney on the Attorney General's staff reviewing the situation and reversing the letters of suspension. The private detective that requested the hearing proceeded with it anyway and obtained a formal ruling in his favor. The formal action was taken, in part, to make an open record of the error by the regulating agency.
  
• Case #5. An applicant for an initial private detective license from the northeastern part of the state was notified that his application for a firearms permit was being denied. The regulating agency stated that this was due to a misdemeanor domestic violence arrest which had occurred eight years before the application. No prosecution had resulted from the arrest. On receipt of the letter, the applicant contacted KAPI and asked for advice. KAPI assisted the individual, who was not a member, in preparing a response to the regulating agency and in seeking an informal resolution. When agreement on the terms of an informal agreement could not be reached, a formal hearing was requested. KAPI assisted the individual in preparing for the hearing and represented him at the hearing. The firearm permit was denied after the hearing by the administrative hearing officer. A request for review by the agency head was prepared by KAPI, but the finding was upheld by the Attorney General. The applicant resubmitted the application without a firearm permit and was licensed. He then sought expungement of the arrest record by a court. He is planning to seek a firearm permit when the ten year time period for misdemeanor consideration expires. The outcome of the matter was influenced by the applicant's decision, for personal reasons, not to disclose to the agency the true nature of the incident. It was not what it appeared to be in the arrest report, but disclosure of the complete circumstances would have caused problems within his family.

Incidents Involving Public Complaints/Police Contacts

• Case #6. A private detective in the northeastern part of the state was hired to check on possible internal theft at a restaurant/bar. Posing as a customer, he confirmed that the diversion of cash and assets was occurring. When the employee involved was confronted, she contacted her boyfriend who was a local police officer. The local officer identified and contacted the private detective and attempted to apply pressure to him to void the case. The private detective contacted KAPI members to consult on the propriety of his actions; nothing further occurred.
  
• Case #7. A private detective in the northeastern part of the state was hired to locate a businessman to pay an overdue account. The phone number provided was hooked to an answering service requiring a code number to leave a message. A visit to the house address given showed that it was vacant, but had a handmade Realtor sign in the front yard. Contacting the number given on the sign, the private detective arranged a visit to the office to confirm the legitimacy of the unrecognized firm and to check for an address on the missing businessman. The Realtor and detective could not arrange an appointment for two days due to scheduling problems. In the interim, the Realtor literally bombarded the private detective with sales attempts. On arrival for the appointment, the Realtor (alone at the home-office) was determined to be legitimate and the purpose of the visit was explained. The Realtor advised that the businessman was dead and that the house was being sold as part of an estate. The detective then departed. A short time later, the private detective received unusual phone calls in which the caller appeared to be soliciting the private detective to engage in some unusual, possibly illegal activity; the purpose was not clear. One to two weeks later, the regulating agency forwarded a letter indicating that a complaint had been filed against the private detective for ‘lying' and other inappropriate conduct; the complainant was the husband of the Realtor (a local Reserve police officer). In the complaint, the claim was advanced that the ‘private detective' had scared several people at the Realty firm and made misrepresentations to the firm which had caused an expenditure of money. The regulating agency found no basis for taking action, but the private detective forwarded a responding letter with his version of events and asked that it be included in the file.
  
• Case #8. A licensed private detective in the central part of the state was hired by the family of a defendant charged with a homicide. The family and the defendant stated that he had not committed the crime. The private detective accepted the case, and, in a short time, turned up evidence that indicated that the crime had, in fact, probably been committed by another person. The local county attorney responded to this by filing a complaint with the Attorney General's Office about the private detective's interference in the case alleging witness tampering. The private detective involved contacted KAPI for advice on dealing with the situation. She reported some apparent harassment from local authorities, but the regulating agency found no basis for action against her.
  
• Case #9. A private detective licensed in North Kansas City, MO was hired by a company to investigate internal losses. The industry had locations in both Missouri and Kansas. In the course of the investigation, the private detective and two others followed the subjects to a facility located in Kansas where they were observing illegal activity by the employees of the company at the company facility. Their surveillance came to the attention of the local police officials. The three private detectives were charged with a violation of the private detective licensing act; they were not licensed in Kansas. Local authorities declined to prosecute the employees involved in the internal thefts observed. While awaiting trial on this charge, the lead private detective died of natural causes; the case against the other two was dismissed. KAPI members declined to provide assistance in this case when requested for financial support.
  
• Case #10. A private detective licensed in Blue Springs, MO was arrested in a sting operation in the northeastern part of Kansas. He was charged with attempting to bribe a county official to release information which was considered private under the Kansas records statute. The case was filed by the KBI; the private detective was convicted of the offense.
  
• Case #11. A licensed private detective in the northeastern part of the state was working bail bond operations locating fugitives in a city that required licensing of security officials and had a local ordinance prohibiting the open carry of firearms. The private detective was repeatedly threatened with arrest for carrying the firearm listed on his permit. He contacted a KAPI officer for assistance. The KAPI member accompanied him on a recovery operation in the city one night and personally witnessed harassment of the individual by uniformed officers of the city. When the KAPI officer identified himself and quoted both the state and local statutes to the officers, the verbal harassment changed from ‘carrying a firearm' to ‘not using a retention holster.' KAPI forwarded a letter to the police chief outlining the problem and pointing out that the city's own weapons ordinance exempted state licensed private detectives. The officers actions were giving the private detective actionable cause for a civil suit. A response was received by KAPI from the city attorney and some internal administrative action was taken. However, a year later, the same type of problem recurred.
  
• Case #12. A licensed private detective was on surveillance in the south-central part of the state. While sitting in a public park, the private detective was approached by two local Deputy Sheriffs who spotted the firearm that he was carrying. The private detective displayed his state-issued identification, but the Deputies refused to believe that it was legitimate. They arrested him and transported him approximately 40 miles to the local jail where his identity was confirmed with the KBI; they then returned him to his vehicle which had been left unsecured in the public park with his cell phone, binoculars, etc. in easy reach. The private detective contacted the regulating agency and was advised that there was no regulatory problem for him in this matter.
  
• Case #13. A licensed private detective was on the third day of a domestic surveillance in the north-central part of the state; she was working with a second investigator. During the surveillance, the private detective was stopped on a public roadway by a local Deputy Sheriff. The car stop was apparently based upon a complaint of ‘stalking' by the subject of the surveillance. The private detective was detained for a lengthy time period, the Deputy Sheriff repeatedly demanded to search her vehicle until she relented, and he made disparaging personal comments to her during the incident. The Deputy provided the private detective's identity, business name, etc. to the subject of the surveillance. A complaint filed by the private detective with the department produced no apparent response. She asked for assistance from KAPI; a letter was forwarded by KAPI to the department involved. The response received from an attorney of the department's behalf simply stated that an internal review had been conducted based on the private detective's complaint. The letter did not state what disposition had been made of the complaint. Legal action against the sheriff's department is being considered. KAPI is monitoring the case and will provide some assistance.
  
• Case #14. A licensed private detective in the central part of the state stopped at a local bar on the way home from work. He had some alcoholic beverages, and then departed. A short distance down the street, he was halted by local police and arrested for driving while intoxicated. During the arrest, the officers found a handgun under the seat of the vehicle; it was not listed on the firearm permit in his possession. He was also charged with carrying a concealed firearm. The private detective entered diversion for the DWI offense, but the CCW charge has not been resolved. He stated that he had qualified with the firearm with a local firearm instructor, but that the paperwork for qualification had not been submitted to the KBI for addition to his permit. The key question is whether the firearm was being carried as part of his duties as a private detective, the limitation stated in both the licensing act and the state weapons statute. If it was, then there is no violation. Otherwise, he is probably chargeable for the offense. He has declined to plead to the offense.

Concluding Comments. Many of the incidents described above demonstrated the need for various changes which were made to the licensing act. In addition, it is clear that many private detectives do not know the various provisions of the regulatory, administrative procedures. KAPI has experience in this area and serves as a source of information for private detectives who are not familiar with these. In coming issues, the basic procedures outlined in the Kansas Administrative Procedures Act and the Kansas Judicial Review Act will be reviewed and summarized. KAPI will continue to provide a source of expertise to private detectives who are confronted with regulatory action and need informal advice and assistance on the correct procedures to use.