Fighting to Maintain Public Access to Public Records

Great piece by Thom Cole in the Journal today. Lots of good quotes from me. But really, this is absolutely absurd. They know the records are public and they can't change that, so they're trying to make it too difficult for you and me to find them.

Fear of Public Records

The right to inspect public records including court filings is a common law right in the US. In Nixon vs. Warner Communications, the US Supreme Court wrote, "It is clear that the courts of this country recognize a general right to inspect and copy public records and document, including judicial records and documents."

So why are court officials and government officials often trying to block the public's access to this information. Well, my best guess for example, here in NM where the Administrative Office of the Courts have gone on a binge trying to undue public access, that someone in AOC has something in his past that caused him to have a hard time finding a job. Now that he has clout, he has decided to prevent people from doing public records research as a form of pay back. Pretty petty and pathetic!

Making New Mexico the Laughing Stock of the Nation

I just heard that AOC, the Administrative Office of the Courts, has recommended that all criminal cases that don't result in a conviction and all criminal cases that result in a deferred sentence, meaning a conviction that gets dismissed after the defendant completes probation are to be removed from the state judiciary website.

Murder, rape and domestic violence have the highest non-conviction rates. AOC wants to make New Mexico the state that actively seeks to protect violent people so that they can continue being violent. This is absolutely the dumbest possible thing a state can do.

This will effectively nullify the ability to do a background check. Period. Any employer who wants a safe workplace, can give that concept up. Better not to hire at all..

Flying Below the Radar

A good investigator understands the benefits of keeping a low profile while working on a case, but realizes that at some point the other side will know that he's involved. The ideal situation involves getting your hands on information before the other side gets the chance to interfere with that process.

There is no doubt that word spreads fast about an investigation. You can knock on only so many doors before telephones begin to ring. Therefore, you need to structure your investigation to perform the tasks that have the most potential benefit first. You don't want to lose that opportunity. You also need to be flexible, because any new promising lead should be pursued as soon as it develops.

Once the other side knows that you are involved you have to keep to your head down and keep moving forward. But expect resistance to your efforts. What should you do? Whatever you do, don't butt heads. It doesn't work. It's better to find another seam to follow than to run head first into a wall. There are almost always multiple approaches to get to the same result. Knowing which avenue to follow is one of the main differences between a good investigator and a bad one.

Most important of all is the rule that you never fight the battle in public until you have enough information to stand on your own. Publicly attacking the other side before you have all of the information you seek almost guarantees that you won't get what you are after. You may score a brownie point-- but scoring an "I got you" isn't the same thing as winning the big prize.

The Arrogance of Incompetence

This is something that sticks in my craw as the saying goes, and I bet my fellow professional investigators too. As a profession we are constantly belittled by those who think they're above what we do. For example, we are not some hoity-toity "Opposition Research Firm" that does really piss poor work, but gets paid a whole bunch of money. Then, when their candidate is losing to our candidate, they run to the media and say "looook they are paying a sleazy PI to do exactly the same kind of work that we do" (well, let us be honest- the quality of the op-research firm's work pales in comparison to what we pros do" but they do get paid a bunch more for it.

This happened not just when Edward's folks tried that with the national bloggers, but also when I did Ben Ray Lujan's campaign. I unearthed a consent decree with the federal trade commission for price fixing by BRL's opponent, and the high and mighty "we are op-researchers NOT sleazy investigator" spent 20K of BRL's opponents money researching how many times BRL showed up at a volunteer non-profit board that he was gracious enough to donate time to. BRL wiped his opponent off the floor by a double digit margin in no small part do to the great price fixing commercials we ran against his opponent.

I have also been the target of campaign mailers myself- rather than the opponents focusing attacks on the candidate himself- a clear sign that their campaign was in disarray.

Anyway-- I am going to say this for all the professional investigators out there. We are a whole lot better at investigation than you wannabees. Perhaps we don't bill the five figures you folks can because of your political connections. But, it's doubtful that you get panicked calls from campaigns that hired us pros first, unlike the calls I get after they see your work...

A Step in the Right Direction

The ABQ Journal today called for the reintroduction of restraining order information on the state judiciary website in order to stop protecting abusers from their own actions. They said it quite articulately. Hopefully the powers that be will listen.

Narrow Interests vs The Greater Good

The public's right to access information is often attacked by individuals and groups whose narrow agenda runs counter to what's best for the majority of us. By way of example, we can look no further than a new law in New Mexico prohibiting a governmental entity from asking a job applicant if he has ever been convicted of a crime until the "final" job interview. No more asking that question on the job application or during an initial interview. That way his being a convicted felon won't interfere with his ability to get a job.

The supposed logic is that too many people that screw up "once" are being denied the opportunity to get work because employers (in this case governmental, but soon I'm sure private employers too) don't want to risk hiring a convicted criminal. Truth be told, most criminals do not turn their lives around but we've already discussed that previously. (Leopards and spots).

The same goes for the legislators that introduce expungement bills. They want those who have a criminal conviction expunged to be able to lie legally and say "no" to the question of having been convicted of a crime. That want all records destroyed.

The real problem with this is that personal responsibility and public safety lose out to dishonesty. Yes we want people to return to society in a productive manner. But, aren't co-workers and members of the public entitled to know if they have to work with someone that might not be cured of his propensity for criminal conduct? It is far better to let them demonstrate honesty and show that they accept personally responsibility. After all, most employers would be glad to hire someone that absolutely gets it. Not someone trying to hide from who he is.

Protecting the Bad Guys Redux

Today, the Albuquerque Journal did a great follow up piece on the serial stalker who was released from jail on bond and then slaughtered two people. It's now been learned that as I suspected the judge did not know about his prior restraining order history because all traces of restraining orders have been removed from the state judiciary website. I am quoted in the article and the representative from the court system acknowledges that I am right when I say the removal protects the abusers.

Read about this travesty and let your elected officials that this is one travesty that should never ever be repeated.

Shielding the Bad Guys by Removing Public Records

I opened the Albuquerque Journal this morning and right there on the front page was an article that shows just how removing public records from public view enables the bad guys.

A school teacher and her university professor boyfriend were murdered in cold blood by a guy she once dated. A serial stalker with numerous restraining orders against him. Only problems is the restraining orders weren't there for the public to find because the New Mexico State Judiciary pulled all restraining order cases off of the website. The stated reason was to comply with federal law to shield victims. But that is total BS! The real reason was shear laziness since federal law only prohibits the dissemination of victims info not abuser info. Easier just to hit the delete button than to do your job!

Back when I learned about it, I contacted the Albuquerque Journal who did a huge story. I was quoted as saying that people will die because of this and made it very clear that the removal of all DV case information from the public protects the abuser more than the victims. The state's answer was too bad. It's too much work. Even the state's lead DV person was glib about it. Well I hope they now realize that the they are complicit in these deaths.

Enough of letting people hide from public accountability for their actions by keeping public records from the public!

Reopening a Cold Case

CNN is reporting that Natalie Wood's sister has called on the LA County Sheriff's Department to reopen the investigation into the circumstances surrounding Natalie's death. Apparently, the captain of the boat, who has since written a book about the episode now admits to keeping quiet about what he knew at the request of Wood's actor husband Robert Wagner. This news follows on the heels of the DA in Mass who announced holding an inquiry into the death of Seth Bishop at the hands of his sister.

For an investigator, reopening a cold case represents a great challenge and test of your investigation skills. In years past, when I still did work for members of the public, I successfully moved a couple of cold cases forward to a point of criminal charges. I also had the opportunity to investigate anew old homicides as part of the defense team for people charged with old killings when I was still working in Calif. A cold case is a cold case whether you are proving guilt or raising reasonable doubt.

So how should an investigator called on to take a fresh look at an old case go about it? For starters, it is essential to have all of the police reports that were prepared during the original investigation. A new pair of eyes often sees things that got overlooked. For example witnesses that were never interviewed because they weren't available or information that was accepted at face value rather than being dissected as it should have been. Read the materials twice through to make sure that you get up to speed and that you get ever detail. Look for information that needed to be confirmed and information that calls into question the theory of the case that was pursued at the time the case went cold.

Next, create an A List/ B List of people who need to be located and interviewed. Include those people who were interviewed during the course of the investigation if it looks like the information they provided was ignored or minimized because it didn't fit the theory of the case. Include on your list the information you wish to cover with them.

Run a background investigation on the main witnesses and also the main players. Update the background beyond the time frame of the event. This is critical to getting a better understanding about the people involved. You can also use the background process to locate updated locations for the people you need to contact.

Then its time to knock on doors. Don't say that you are investigating as that's too formal. When you introduce yourself tell them you are taking an independent look at the matter. Take really good notes and then prepare your interview summaries.

Once that is done, assess any new information that you develop as part of the interview process. See where it fits in to the original investigation. Have you resolved disputed or unclear information? Have you locked down inconsistencies or have you created a whole new set.

Cold case work is a process that unfolds on its own time schedule. Sometimes things open up that weren't available before, while other times, witnesses pass away and information is lost. But, most of all be persistent. It's our trademark as investigators.

An Unabashed Plug for the Everyday Detective Info System

Ask any investigator what response they get when they tell someone they work as an investigator and you will universally get the same response. People always respond when learning that you are an investigator with two statements one immediately following the other-- "wow that must be interesting" and "you know I always thought I'd be a great investigator". I've been hearing this same response for twenty-two years from people from all walks of life.

Interesting. Yes, absolutely. I have seen things, both amazing and tragic, that most people would not see in 50 lifetimes. It would be hard to find any other work that truly makes an impact and is different everyday.

Could anyone be a great investigator? With the right training and to varying degrees, I have to say yes! Not necessarily as a professional investigator, but to use the power of information for their own benefit. No doubt about it.

I wrote my first book back in 2002. The Training Manual on Private Investigation, which is published by Thomas Publishing. It was primarily written for professional investigators, attorneys and legal assistants. It was specially tailored to improve the skills of those who already have some background in investigation.

Last year I created The Everyday Detective Information System. Unlike my previous work, this system was designed specifically for the general public to help them use the power of information to help reduce risks to their family and money. I took my twenty-two years of experience and broke the investigation process down in a step-by step manner that is easily understandable to non-legal professionals.

Call it a self-help manual for those tired of living reactively from circumstance to circumstance. Once you know how to go about finding information and using it proactively life changes for the better.

So check it out. You just might find that you do make a great investigator!

http://www.everydaydetective.com

Life in the Field

There are many types of investigators.

Some prefer to sit behind a desk conducting online research--"data detectives"-- you can do this work in your bathrobe. Others are most comfortable "working the phone" for information. Lot's of charm and patience needed-- especially working the abyss of government agencies. Others, myself included, are best when they're out in the field knocking on doors to get the information they need.

One of the great things about field work, is that you can do your work pretty much anywhere in the country, urban or rural, well to do areas or poor. Wherever the work leads you can follow. Field work also stokes the fires of "the chase" when you suddenly find a great source of information that you did not expect. You don't even need to take very much with you, a note pad, pen and a business card so you can travel light. You get all types of visual clues regarding your sources that the telephone and computer lack as well.

But there are some tricks to success in the field. You need to be able to plan routes, locate people on the fly and know the crux of the information that you are after. Field work is very much unscripted. You also have to be incredibly flexible and be open to the unknown since things often don't follow the path that you initially laid out. You also have to be willing to walk up to a total stranger's door and ask them questions about really difficult topics, the kind that investigators are called in to work on.

I always loved the movie "All the President's Men", because Hoffman and Redford, depicted the field work the way it really is. It can be both incredibly frustrating and incredibly productive and you don't know what the next door knock will bring. But, you keep at it because the results can be amazing. Well beyond what the phone and computer can bring.

Investigating with Half a Deck

The lead investigator for Mass. State Police that looked into the death of Seth Bishop announced yesterday that he never received the reports he asked for from the Braintree PD and without their information he had no choice but to rule the death accidental. The only witness to the shooting by Amy Bishop of her brother was their mother, the director of personnel for the city of Braintree. Perhaps the Braintree PD felt that if they did their jobs they'd be out of a job.

But, what is really clear is that commencing an investigation with limited information and resources is really just playing with half a deck. The information you need to uncover, may not actually be in the deck, no matter how many times you try to find it. Without being able to access that information, your investigation is more form than function.

Information that can turn a case or impact an election is often out there waiting to be found. But, too often the investigator may only have a half a deck to work with either because of budgetary reasons, or a client's fear of being seen negatively for unleashing an investigator. They may only want the investigator to stop after reviewing court filings, for fear that talking to people who have information will get back to the other side. (In truth, I don't see a down side to the other side learning that you are working full bore-- let them know that you play for keeps).

Yes, budgets matter. But the best way to ensure that your investigation is fruitful, is to put the budget into the efforts most likely to yield usable information. To do this, create an investigation wish list, then weigh out the pros and cons of each component of the wish list. Cover the basics first, then determine the most fruitful areas to pursue with the remaining resources. You can't be cost effective without being effective!