Private Detective Blog - Spy Center.com Call 800-743-2313 or 305-264-7878

By Jimmie Mesis 

It may soon become a federal crime to obtain a person’s telephone records. The Senate made that possible Friday night when they approved legislation similar to a bill passed by the House 

The Senate bill increases the proposed fine to $500,000 and includes imprisonment up to 10 years in cases involving domestic abuse. The penalties can even be greater if classified as a special circumstance. The bill also details penalties and prison time for anyone who buys or sells the deceptively acquired phone records. The caveat is that those involved must know the records were obtained deceptively.

This legislation specifically addresses the act of ‘pretexting’ to obtain a person’s telephone records without permission.

As expected, there is an exemption for law enforcement. However, there is also an exemption for private detectives, but only if they are hired to acquire the confidential records by law enforcement.

By ANNMARIE TIMMINS
Monitor staff
December 01. 2006 8:00AM

The state Supreme Court yesterday upheld a Concord woman’s stalking petition against a local private investigator, partly because the investigator refused to tell the court why he’d been hired to follow the woman.

The state’s stalking law does not specifically exempt private investigators. And it requires that people have a lawful and “legitimate purpose” for following someone. In an unanimous decision, the justices ruled that Brian Blackden’s unwillingness to reveal his reasons for following a woman last year made it impossible for the trial judge or them to determine whether Blackden had a legitimate purpose to surveil the woman. Therefore, the justices said, the trial court was right to find that Blackden had been stalking her.

Blackden and his lawyer, Penny Dean of Concord, said the ruling will make it impossible for private investigators to do their jobs because no investigator is going to be willing to reveal in a public courtroom - likely in front of their target - why they’ve been hired to follow the person. Blackden also predicted that the ruling could hurt women and others who hire private investigators if the targets of the investigation learn they are being followed and retaliate.

“It puts PIs in a difficult position,” Blackden said. “If someone asks you what you are doing you don’t tell them, they can jam you up. I have a state license that says I can conduct surveillance. That should be enough for a court.”

Blackden, who was never criminally charged with stalking, and Dean said they plan to ask the Supreme Court to reconsider its ruling. And Blackden said he will ask a lawmaker to amend the state stalking law to exempt private investigators. Dean declined to discuss the ruling in more detail until after the court rules on her motion for reconsideration.

The stalking case began about a year ago when Blackden, owner of New Hampshire Forensic and Detective Services on South Main Street, was hired by Eric Raymond, 27, to watch Raymond’s ex-girlfriend, Rebecca Miller.

Raymond retained Blackden after the police arrested him for assaulting Miller and refusing to let her leave her home. According to the police report detailing the arrest, Raymond let himself into Miller’s Concord apartment, awoke her by shining a light in her face and restrained her on her bed. He also took items from her home when he left, the police report said.

At the time he was hired, Blackden suggested Miller had made up the charges against Raymond. He said he had been hired by Raymond to determine Miller’s motivation for fabricating her claims of assault. He has declined to be more specific.

Shortly after Blackden began watching Miller, a Concord police officer asked him what he was doing and told him to “rethink” his activities, according to Blackden. The officer, meanwhile, told Miller that Blackden was following her and that she should be careful.

Blackden continued his surveillance and followed Miller six times in a single day, including at her son’s school. The stalking statute requires only two instances of following. Miller responded by seeking a stalking petition against Blackden, saying the surveillance had frightened her. She asked the court to forbid Blackden to come near her.

Judge Michael Sullivan of Concord District Court granted Miller the restraining order, which required Blackden to keep a distance from Miller. Blackden faced criminal arrest only if he violated that order. The order also required that Blackden turn his firearms over the court, including those he had as part of his Main Street retail store. (Blackden and his attorney are awaiting a court hearing Dec. 11 to get the guns back because the year-long restraining order is now expired.)

In granting the stalking petition, Sullivan rejected Blackden’s defense that he had not done anything to harm or terrorize Miller, as is required to justify a stalking petition. Sullivan also rejected Blackden’s argument that as a private investigator licensed by the state he had a right to watch Miller and her house.

Blackden and his lawyer appealed the petition to the state Supreme Court on several grounds: They argued the stalking statute was too vague to be constitutional; that there wasn’t enough evidence to show Blackden had stalked the woman and that Sullivan should have recused himself because he had recused himself on a separate case involving Blackden’s business partner. They also reiterated their position that Blackden’s state license to conduct private investigations exempted him from the statute.

Yesterday, the court rejected all those points.

While other states do exempt private investigators, New Hampshire does not, the court ruled. To be exempt, Blackden needed to show his purpose in following the woman was lawful and legitimate. “(Blackden) contends that he met this burden of proof by testifying that he secretly followed (Miller) in his capacity as a licensed private detective,” the court wrote. “We disagree.”

By ANNMARIE TIMMINS

Parents are increasingly worried about the caregivers who care for their children. While carefully pre-employment screening can help parents find qualified nannies and babysitters, parents need to remain vigilant even after hiring, as problems can occur at any time.

According to 2002 census studies, about 360,000 US children (or about 3.7%) were cared for by non-relatives in their own home. These child care workers included au pairs, babysitters, and nannies working in the child’s family home. Given that so many parents are allowing caregivers into their home – and trusting these individuals with the welfare of their children – it is not surprising that many parents worry about the care their children receive. High-profile cases of nannies and babysitters accused of abuse only heighten anxiety.

Before Hiring A Nanny

To get the best possible care for their children, parents need to be pro-active in hiring the best possible caregivers. Complex hiring laws mean that parents cannot always ask the questions they wish to ask in order to hire the best possible nanny or babysitter. Caregiver agencies may or may not have strict hiring guidelines in place, so an agency is not always a better option. To really find out whether a caregiver is safe, parents need to turn to an experienced, local investigator, who can conduct a completely legal but thorough pre-employment check on the caregiver.

Potential Signs of Trouble

Even when parents have chosen a babysitter, nanny, or caregiver wisely, child safety is not guaranteed. Parents need to remain alert, since changes in the nanny’s personal life may affect the caregiver’s behavior after the caregivers are hired. A nanny may not have a record of reckless driving or criminal behavior, but can develop serious problems at any time. Staying alert for signs of trouble include watching for the following signs:

• Sudden lack of communication. Good caregivers spend time talking with parents and with children. This helps keep lines of communication open and helps put everyone at ease. If a nanny suddenly becomes withdrawn, there may be a personal problem or issue that needs to be resolved.

• Changes in appearance, weight, or personal hygiene habits. Again, this can be a sign of a worry or problem. It can also signal a problem that can affect the caregiver’s ability to do their job. Parents should ask whether everything is alright and make an offer of help.

• A new group of friends that seem to be a bad influence. Not every parent knows who their nanny or caregiver socializes with. However, if a parent suddenly notices their caregiver spending time with questionable persons, that may be a sign of trouble.

• Sudden changes in behavior.

• Sudden changes in children’s behavior. If children suddenly have an issue with the caregiver or seem to be having more accidents than normal, resulting in bruises, it is time for parents to get involved.

• Others report signs of problems. Parents may be among the last to know that a caregiver is in trouble. All reports of potential problems must be taken seriously.

Any parent who notices signs of trouble after hiring a nanny should contact a qualified private investigator for help. An experienced private investigator can run a discreet and completely legal investigation to ensure that the children are safe and well cared for.

Are Nanny Cams The Answer?

Many parents worry even when there are no warning signs of trouble. After all, in some cases there are no signs of problems until disaster strikes. Some people are simply very good at hiding neglect, criminal behavior, or personal problems. As a result, some parents consider nanny cams as a possible solution. These hidden cameras monitor nannies and caregivers occasionally or around the clock, giving parents a “sneak peek” at what goes on when the caregiver is left alone with children.

Nanny cams can uncover and stop child abuse and neglect. They can also be an inexpensive way to get some peace of mind. However, these types of spy cameras can cause a number of legal hassles. In many cases, videotaping someone without their consent can lead to lawsuits. In California, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Washington it is illegal to tape someone without their consent. At the very least, videotaping a caregiver without getting their consent can lead to friction and to a termination of employment – not what most parents want when they find a qualified caregiver.

The solution is to ask for permission before installing a nanny cam. Parents who think there may be something amiss need to take additional steps – it is unlikely that caregivers will allow themselves to be caught on tape neglecting or abusing their charges. A better solution is a private investigator, who can set up a surveillance system in the home and legally gather evidence that will stand up in court. A qualified investigator will provide more thorough information than a nanny cam and will do a better job of protecting children from potential abuse and neglect.

Parents everywhere can use the PInow.com Worldwide Directory of Private Investigators to find local, qualified investigators who can help them get the truth about caregivers. For real results from professional investigators, the PInow.com Worldwide Directory of Private Investigators is the smart parent’s choice.

About PInow.com
PInow.com (http://www.pinow.com/) is a Worldwide Directory of Private Investigators that enables law firms, corporations and the general public to find investigators anywhere. PInow.com strives to be the most trusted resource on the web to locate qualified investigators. All investigators listed on PInow.com are pre-screened and must meet specific listing requirements.

New Zealand businesses need more thorough checks on prospective employees, according to a recent survey.

The KPMG survey found more than half of New Zealand companies had been ripped off by insiders, prompting the victims to develop a profile of the average fraudster.

That fraudster is a thirty-eight-year-old trusted employee who has worked for his victims for five years. He has no known history of dishonesty and is walking away with almost half a million dollars because his bosses didn’t do their homework.

“Organisations aren’t looking at who they’re employing. This survey showed that 14% of frauds were committed by people with prior criminal history - that’s double from the 2004 survey,” says Mark Leishman, a Forensic Director at KPMG.

Fifty three percent of businesses said they were victims of fraud with an average loss of $479,000. Most fraudsters were driven by simple greed, followed by personal financial pressures and then opportunism and gambling.

“It’s often the way that it’s the most trusted, and I use that word in quotation marks, employee who turns out to be the worst offender,” says Private Investigator Trevor Morley.

Private investigators are urging businesses to check out potential employees before it’s too late. An Auckland fraud case highlighting the availability of fictitious university qualifications.

“They’ve got to find out what the person’s criminal convictions are if any, their traffic convictions and their credit worthiness because those are three things about a person’s character absolutely vital to their employment,” says Morley.

Private eyes recommend employers always take legal action when they suspect fraud, but many companies don’t. And the cost of fraud is high: in four out of ten cases none of the company’s money or goods were recovered.

By Timothy R. Homan
Daily News Correspondent
Friday, May 19, 2006 - Updated: 05:11 AM EST

Spouses who surreptitiously solicit online sex from juveniles now face a formidable challenge: the proliferation of spy monitoring computer programs.

As law enforcement groups and private vigilantes step up their efforts to lure in child predators, spouses too can analyze suspicious home Internet activity for about $40 to $100.

Programs initially used by parents to monitor what their children are doing online are also being used by wives willing to spy on their husbands, or vice versa. “Our consumer market is growing at about 25 percent a year,” said Kasey Sellati, spokeswoman for the Florida-based SpectorSoft Corp., a software manufacturer selling two spy programs.

Spector Pro, an undetectable program after installation, takes snapshots of the computer screen for later review.

“You can play things back, almost like a VCR on your TV,” Sellati said.

The company’s other program, eBlaster, allows for remote monitoring of e-mails, meaning a spouse in an office at work can keep track of e-mails sent from home.

“It will send you instant copies of each conversation,” Sellati said.

On Wednesday, former Southborough selectman William Christensen was arrested and charged with one count of indecent solicitation of a child, according to police.

He was apprehended in Rhode Island while walking toward a residence where he allegedly expected to have sex with a fictitious 15-year-old girl he met online.

With various software and hardware programs on the market, even the least tech-savvy computer users can find one they’re capable of installing.

Hardware devices, which work only on PCs, are usually plugged into the keyboard to record keystrokes but not e-mails or other means of communication.

Running spy software, on the other hand, requires at least a modicum of computer literacy. The programs are mostly password protected and provide copies of e-mails, as well as both sides of instant messenger conversations.

Software often takes up memory space, is sometimes detectable by other programs and can be used on a PC or laptop.

But there are legal limits to installing monitoring devices.

Spy programs may be installed by a spouse if there is joint ownership and use of a household computer, while a husband or wife’s laptop from work is considered off-limits.

The state’s attorney general office declined to comment on the specifics of installing monitoring programs.

In addition to computer programs, concerned spouses sometimes contact private investigators who point out telltale signs that a husband or wife may be involved in devious content online.

Tom Maher, a licensed investigator with Advanced Surveillance Group Inc. in Michigan, said one warning sign is “finding new stuff online designed to delete the cookies or history” of Internet activity.

The computer forensics specialist noted the difficulty in keeping tabs on a spouse soliciting juvenile sex, saying such people tend to be “a little more cautious.”

“At that point, it’s not going to be on a shared computer where someone else can get to it,” he said.

Private Investigator Brian McGuinness is on the case, lobbying for his industry, battling
stereotypes and giving private investigators a good name
BY LOANN HALDEN

WHEN MOST PEOPLE think of private investigators, they pluck their
mental images from the Hollywood file: unsmiling men in trench coats lurking
in shadows, willing to do whatever it takes to crack the case and seduce the
leggy blonde client with the questionable past. This, of course, bears no
resemblance to the truth.

In the brightly lit Coral Gables office of PI Brian McGuinness there’s
nary a femme fatale in sight; and sporting a cheery blue shirt, he is
positively anti-noir.

For more than 20 years, the head of McGuinness and Associates has
worked on a dizzying array of criminal and civil cases. His reality involves
large amounts of computer research, and field time is spent winning over
witnesses with his friendly demeanor rather than force.

“Often [our cinematic counterparts] are doing things that are illegal
and it gives us a bad rep,” he says. “We don’t bust in doors; we don’t
trespass. I’m very cognizant of the laws because I’ve visited too many
prisons over the years and I always feel good when I’m going out the door.”

As the past president and current board chair of the National Council
of Investigation and Security Services (NCISS), McGuinness has actively
lobbied on the state and federal level to curb misconceptions about his
profession and amend legislation that negatively impacts investigators.

Just like the general public, McGuinness says, the perception held by
many congressmen and state legislators is colored by television and movies.
“We’re constantly going to Congress and saying: ‘We understand your zeal to
pass privacy legislation … but you have to give up a little privacy for the
common good.’” He cites the example of his efforts to locate the witness to
a car accident that ended the major-league dreams of an aspiring baseball
player. He got the witness’ social security number and then found him
through a legal database search.

“Had that been your brother or son, wouldn’t you want somebody like me
out there trying to find that witness? That witness was key to assigning
liability in the accident, and ultimately this baseball player received a
pretty nice financial settlement.”

His advocacy has not gone unnoticed. In October 2005, McGuinness
received the Investigator of the Year Award from the Florida Board of
Certified Investigators. Four months later, NCISS presented him with its
prestigious “Duffy,” an award named after the group’s first president, which
recognizes an individual or entity whose leadership has brought credit to
the profession.

Eddy McClain, a past Duffy winner, calls McGuinness “a class act.”
Asked about his colleague’s credibility, McClain once said: “If McGuinness
tells you the sun won’t come up tomorrow, you better buy some candles.”

But don’t think for a minute that high standards equal a dull career.
McGuinness has more than his share of war stories to tell. He was one of two
lead investigators for the defense in the U.S. vs. Eric Rudolph case,
locating witnesses and reviewing evidence surrounding the bombings of
abortion clinics in Birmingham, Ala., and at the Atlanta Olympics. In
Operation Courtbroom, the nation’s largest judicial corruption case, he was
the defense investigator for a sitting circuit court judge; and he handled
the Florida investigation for the defense in Kobe Bryant’s sexual assault
case. McGuinness recently worked with Miami attorney Edward Carhart on the
defense of Washington Redskins safety Sean Taylor on aggravated assault
charges.

“One day I might get hired to find an heir and the next day I might
get hired to defend somebody on a marijuana trafficking case and end up
going to Belize to find a government witness,” he says. “That’s what I like
about the profession. I feel sorry for the investigators that just do one
thing.”

His resume also includes personal injury investigations, product
liability cases and securities fraud. Then there was the case of an importer
who relied on a “Who’s Who In Poultry” guide to find a chicken dealer for a
client who forked over more than $150,000 and never received a single frozen
bird. McGuinness quickly unearthed the company’s shady record. This, he
points out, is why companies should use an investigator for background
checks in advance of large financial transactions. “A good barometer of
somebody you don’t want to do business with is somebody who’s been a
defendant in a lot of fraud contract cases,” he says with a grin.

This year, the Miami PI expanded his reach even further when he became
one of a few investigators in the country licensed through the U.S. Treasury
Department to conduct investigations in Cuba. When a genealogical firm
contacted him about finding a Cuban national who was heir to a Maryland
estate, he earned the accreditation, traveled to the island and found his
man.

This self-proclaimed people-person loves his time in the field. Unlike
many investigators who are former police officers, McGuinness earned a
psychology degree from the University of Connecticut. He made Miami his home
when his car broke down here on a visit, and started his professional career
as a rehabilitation counselor for the state. He spent seven years as a
criminal defense investigator for the Miami-Dade County Public Defenders
Office before heading out on his own.

The counseling background has served him well. “I always say finding
the witness is the easy part; it’s getting them to become involved to the
point that they’ll be a witness for your part of the case that’s hard,” he
says. “That’s where good people skills come in.”

Creativity also comes in handy. Like the time that McGuinness went to
the Bahamian home of a witness he needed in a smuggling case, but couldn’t
get anyone to answer at the front gate. Undaunted, he rented a windsurfer,
cruised over to the house via sea and told the witness’ mother that he was
“a friend of a friend.”

“I was probably within five years of the age of her son so she didn’t
think it was anything out of the ordinary – some guy windsurfing by, ‘Hey,
where’s Jeremy?’ I wasn’t able to interview the witness but I got a
reasonable assurance he was out of the country.”

Perhaps Hollywood should knock on McGuinness’ door. From AWOL poultry
to undercover windsurfing, his adventures contain more entertainment value
than most of their fictional detective tales – and all of his stories are
true.

Press Release
Thursday July 27, 9:15 pm ET

MIAMI, July 27 /PRNewswire/ – Responding to inquiries from the media, attorney Roy Black said today that a Palm Beach Police Department report alleging private investigator William Riley represented himself as a police officer while interviewing a witnesses is inaccurate.

“We provided the Palm Beach Police Department with Mr. Riley’s notes made on the day of the interview that show beyond a doubt that the witness made a false statement to the police about how Mr. Riley represented himself,” Mr. Black said. “We suspect that it was a police oversight in not correcting the report.

“Mr. Riley and his partner, Mr. Kiraly, are seasoned investigators who adhere to the highest professional standards and I have every confidence that they conducted themselves appropriately when they interviewed this witness,” Mr. Black added.

Along with his statement, Mr. Black released the notes (redacted below) taken by Mr. Riley on November 21, 2005 after the witness was interviewed.

—————————————————-

Yesterday, 11.21.2005, my partner, Steve Kiraly, and I traveled to Orange Park (Jacksonville), Florida, in order to attempt to interview [redacted]. [redacted].

The purpose of having two people present was to act as witnesses as to whatever might have been said by [redacted] during the course of our interview.

[redacted] lives with her 18 year old boyfriend, [redacted], and his mother and boyfriend at [redacted].

Upon our arrival at her house we noticed her Jeep Wrangler gone. We then began the process of waiting for her. At about 2:00 PM we observed her boyfriend,[redacted], arrive at the house. We approached him and asked if [redacted] was there. He told us that she had just started a new job at a debt collection agency, that he did not know the name of it or their telephone number, and that she would be home around 6:30 PM. We did not advise him of why we wanted to meet with [redacted]. [redacted] said we were welcome to come back after she got off of work. He also provided her cell telephone number of [redacted]. [redacted] was very cordial and friendly.

We decided not to call her but to wait for her to come home.

At approximately 6:30 PM [redacted] arrived home. We waited about 10 minutes and approached the residence.

I knocked on the door and a woman, who I now know as [redacted], answered the door. I told her that we would like to speak with [redacted]. She said there was no [redacted] there. I said there must be because her Jeep was parked out front. She then said, “I’m sorry, you mean [redacted]” and I said yes.

[redacted] then came to the door. The following conversation took place.

[Riley] [redacted], my name is Bill Riley (as I handed her my business card) and this is my partner Steve Kiraly. We are investigators from Miami working on behalf of Jeff Epstein

[redacted] I don’t talk to f*cking cops and I’m not talking to you

[Riley] [redacted], we’re not cops

[redacted] You need to leave. Get the f*ck off my property, leave now

[Riley] [redacted], there is no need to be hostile. We are not cops. We are just trying to learn the truth

[redacted] Get the f*ck off my property, What, you’re still standing here

[Riley] We’re leaving but we don’t understand why you’re so hostile

[redacted] You have no right to be here. I moved. All that sh*t is behind me in another world so get the f*ck out of here

[redacted] goes back inside the house and [redacted] came outside on the porch.

[Riley] Ma’am we’re not being hostile. We’re here just to learn the truth.

[redacted] Look, [redacted] is a good girl and she left down there. We’re trying to sort things out now and hire her an attorney

[Riley] I understand but we’re not the bad guys and we’re not cops

[redacted] Okay, but she doesn’t want to talk with you and you really have no right being here on my property this time of night

[Riley] I’m sorry we’re here at 6:45 PM but your son, [redacted], told us we could come back

[redacted] He doesn’t own this property

[Riley] I don’t know that do I

[redacted] came back outside

[redacted] You’re still here, get the f*ck out. I’m calling the cops if you do not leave

[Riley] [redacted], we’re talking with [redacted] and yes we’re leaving but all we wanted was to learn the truth from you about what knowledge you may or may not have

We then left the premises and I immediately made my notes of our short conversation.

Source: Black, Srebnick, Kornspan & Stumpf

It’s little surprise that Florida, which has had one of the most open and accessible public records of all the states, –long available to private data agreggators– has drawn fire for the appearance of expunged criminal records in commercial databases. A background check on a prospective employee, who evidently wasn’t hired (or why would this be a news story?), may have underscored the truism: You can never really withdraw a declaration.

A criminal index records criminal charges. If the case is later expunged, the index and file removed from court public access, the original index with the criminal charges potentially still resides in the commercial databases. If these sources retain the previously reported charge, later deleted from the court docket, can it be noted in an employment background report?

By Robert H. Townsend.

The investigative interview is a very slippery slope. When assigned to obtain an interview, an investigator must understand that his challenge is to accomplish far more than learning the basic fundamentals of who, what, where, when and how. Insurance companies, attorneys, and corporations assign this effort rightly expect an alertness to critical information which enhances, mitigates, exculpates or clarifies the perceived degree of exposure of the matter involved. The interview, pivotal in many instances, is used as a critical tool to establish the overall cost effectiveness of whether to continue the litigation engagement or resolve the dispute by alternative methods. The investigator must be judicious and regard the interview as a process to be tailored according to the unique characteristics of a particular matter. Balance the interview with direct, assertive questions, revisiting those questions as necessary. Cloak the interview with engaging conversation and friendly, gently placed, non offensive or argumentative, adversarial interrogation. Be quick, well-organized, kind and courteous. Regardless of how often one has handled a matter involving substantially similar dynamics, the old rule of thumb applies– the best questions are informed questions. Research and prepare for an interview. Gather as much information as you can about the particular incident and subject that you are about to interview. A detailed briefing with counsel of the key elements of the case is recommended.

Private eyes favoured over police

12.01.2006
By KELLY BLANCHARD in Rotorua

Increasing numbers of Rotorua burglary victims frustrated by police responses are turning to private investigators to resolve crimes.
Local investigators say calls from people inquiring about their services following crimes like burglaries are on the rise.
While most people sympathise with police, who are unable to spend a lot of time investigating some crimes, they are frustrated about having to pay for a service they believe should be provided by police.

Rotorua private investigator Mike Dingwall from Private Investigations Ltd said he received up to three inquiries a week from people keen to book his services to track down burglars.

Many did not go through with it because of the cost but he had worked for about three burglary victims since November, he said.
A former Rotorua police senior sergeant, Mr Dingwall has been a private investigator for three years and said the number of people inquiring about his services to catch burglars had increased in that time.
Mr Dingwall said society was unfortunately moving towards a user-pays system which included crime-solving.

“If you want someone to do a good burglary examination, you have to pay someone.
“Once at big rugby games, the ground would be patrolled by police officers, now it’s security guards.”

Mr Dingwall said there was now more demand for police resources.

“Police try their best to deliver a good service and we’re not anti police at all. In fact, we see ourselves as complementing what they do … The only other solution is to have more police and that’s not very likely.”

Acting Rotorua police area controller Inspector Steve Bullock said burglaries were the top priority for local police.

He said police responded automatically if a burglar was still on a property and attended as soon as they could to reports of historic burglaries.

“We try to ensure we give the best service as possible and it’s also in our best interests to get to a burglary scene early.”

Mr Bullock said hiring private investigators was not new and he questioned its value.

“I would be surprised if a private investigator could provide a better investigative service than what we can.”

Last year, Rotorua police caught 190 burglars, solving hundreds of burglaries. The number of reported burglaries dropped 15 per cent last year.

Mr Bullock said hiring a private investigator was a personal choice.

“As far as I’m concerned police provide a response to burglaries as soon as we can and as professionally as we can … In saying that, we are reviewing our responses constantly.”

Former Rotorua senior sergeant Mike Campbell, now a private investigator in Auckland, said the public had always been dissatisfied with the level of policing - even 24 years ago when he was in the force.

“The things people were complaining about in 1981 are the same things they are complaining about today.”

Mr Campbell said he believed members of the public wrongly thought it was up to the police to find their burglars.

“About 90 per cent of my business right around New Zealand is investigating criminal activity. Police certainly have a role and they work in with PIs.

“There is a thin blue line to enforce the laws in the country.

“We would need an army of police if they were expected to enforce everything. It just can’t happen.”