View Full Version : PI Licensing in trouble
It's hard to believe that nearly 5 years have passed since Colorado's first PI Licensing in 35 years was actually put into place.
Of course, now that's it's up for its sunset, the future of the bill looks bleak. The regulating agency (DORA) never wanted it in the first place, and has been fighting tooth and nail against PIs since the day the law went into effect. Governor Polis has been repealing laws because, reasons.
Personally, I'm not very keen on regulation. But in this instance, I feel that Private Investigators really are one of those industries that need oversight and vetting. Imagine a family member in crisis, and in need of a PI's services. Now imagine there is no licensing for investigators. Bob the plumber could claim to be a PI, because there is no standards of industry when the licensing goes away. Bob likes to read mysteries, so thinks he'd make a good PI. And he's watched a few TV shows, so he knows some lingo. And he had some business cards printed up. So he responds to a call from your family member and says he can do the job. He gets a retainer of a couple of thousand dollars....and does nothing. He doesn't do the job. Or else he takes off and completely ghosts your family member. Or he strings them along for even more money. Or he screws the job up so badly that there's no recovering from it. Or he does enough of the job to suffice, and ends up going to court to testify as to what he did- where your family member finds out that Bob has a criminal past and as such, can't be a credible witness. That means everything that he was paid to do gets thrown out of court.
Or...how about this- Bob is a pedophile. Because there is no vetting process and no standards or ethics, Bob can interview children involved in a family law case. And because there are no standards or legal ethics in place, Bob can work for both sides of the domestic case. Well, until one side finds out that the person they've trusted to help them in their case has actually been also working and taking money from the soon-to-be-ex...
Right now, the license has been self-sustaining. There's over 1000 licensed PIs in the state. They have to be a minimum of 21 years of age, fingerprinted on both a state and Federal level; they have to pass a jurisprudence test to prove that they actually know the laws, and they have to have a bond in place for consumer protection. When the law was first enacted, the cost was $336 to initially obtain a license. It is now about $83, with a renewal fee of $32/year.
But that could all go out the window because legislators don't understand what a PI does and how the law might protect consumers. The State PI Association is desperately trying to fight this, but it takes time and money and is an uphill battle.
If you feel so inclined, reach out to your legislators- your Representatives and your Senators, and request they vote yes on HB20-1207, to continue licensure of Private Investigators, for the purposes of consumer protection. I'd sincerely appreciate it.
If not, well...cross your fingers for us PIs. It's a long and weary battle, and the fiercest fighting is yet to come.
Thank you.
Great-Kazoo
03-12-2020, 23:33
If you need some sort of certs for a security job, why are they resistant to this?
What exactly is the vetting job for a PI? An open book test?
I have to have a license with the city of denver to install security systems, all that is required to get a license is a background check, has no bearing at all on whether or not I know what I?m doing.
I did need to take a contractors test to get my access control license, it was open book using the latest NEC electrical code book and the latest city of denver building code book. So basically if you know how to look stuff up you can pass, still has nothing to do with whether or not I know how to run wire or install systems in a building correctly.
If you need some sort of certs for a security job, why are they resistant to this?
That is the question, isn't it?
What exactly is the vetting job for a PI? An open book test?
I have to have a license with the city of denver to install security systems, all that is required to get a license is a background check, has no bearing at all on whether or not I know what I?m doing.
I did need to take a contractors test to get my access control license, it was open book using the latest NEC electrical code book and the latest city of denver building code book. So basically if you know how to look stuff up you can pass, still has nothing to do with whether or not I know how to run wire or install systems in a building correctly.
The jurisprudence test is open book. It is the bare minimum in knowledge of the laws.
When this bill was originally crafted, it wasa far different creature. Then legislators added their own tweaks and removed some teeth- because you don't want the barrier to be TOO high, you know. So the continuing education component was removed. The background was tweaked. It was essentially muddled by people that have agendas and no understanding of this field,.... and no desire to really pay attention and understand.
Great-Kazoo
03-13-2020, 08:13
The jurisprudence test is open book. It is the bare minimum in knowledge of the laws.
When this bill was originally crafted, it wasa far different creature. Then legislators added their own tweaks and removed some teeth- because you don't want the barrier to be TOO high, you know. So the continuing education component was removed. The background was tweaked. It was essentially muddled by people that have agendas and no understanding of this field,.... and no desire to really pay attention and understand.
Sounds like local, state and federal gov employees, in general.
If you need some sort of certs for a security job, why are they resistant to this?
No shit. Bullseye.
Sounds like local, state and federal gov employees, in general.
Sounds to me like politicians. They think they're somehow endowed with expertise in every field once elected.
A bartender turned House Representative comes to mind.
Sounds like local, state and federal gov employees, in general.
Gman's got it, in one. Politicians.
Some are ready to listen and try to understand what's involved. Many are more concerned with more important things.
The Governor prefers to listen to the regulatory agency that wants this licensing gone, so the agency is spreading lies by saying "there's no need for this, because there's been no complaints." Which flies in the face of their own report, as well as in the face of logic. "The program is working, so let's do away with the program."
Zundfolge
03-13-2020, 08:54
I would rather see private PI associations/guilds over government regulation.
I would rather see private PI associations/guilds over government regulation.
In a perfect world, that would be awesome. Because PIs all work well together and all pull for the common benefit of the industry.
In reality, what we have is people that should never be PIs moving from states that require licensing, to states that don't. That means they can prey on people, move to a different city, print up business cards with a different phone number and seek more people to exploit. After all, associations have no power over members save for administrative methods. And frankly, speaking as a board member for 13 years, it's like herding cats to get everyone on the same page.
Looking at it from an advantage for PIs themselves to be licensed: I've had people that would not settle for an interview until they saw my license. I have to show it to clerks to get records. Sure, the THEORY of Open Records is alive and well, but we all know how theory rarely pans out into reality.
In reality, what we have is people that should never be PIs moving from states that require licensing, to states that don't. That means they can prey on people, move to a different city, print up business cards with a different phone number and seek more people to exploit. After all, associations have no power over members save for administrative methods. And frankly, speaking as a board member for 13 years, it's like herding cats to get everyone on the same page.
How is this any different than most other contract work though? In the industry I work in, some states require a license, and some don't. The ones that do, the testing has increasingly little to do with one's ability to actually do the job and the whole licensing issue just becomes about money for the state and the testing agencies. I can see arguments for both sides, but not strong ones.
How is this any different than most other contract work though? In the industry I work in, some states require a license, and some don't. The ones that do, the testing has increasingly little to do with one's ability to actually do the job and the whole licensing issue just becomes about money for the state and the testing agencies. I can see arguments for both sides, but not strong ones.
Agreed. It's largely an opportunity to charge fees. The requirements are usually so poorly worded by the politicians that they become meaningless.
I don't want to highjack this thread into a discussion that goes off topic though, because people wanting to improve their industry for the betterment of the end user is a great thing and we need more of it.
How is this any different than most other contract work though? In the industry I work in, some states require a license, and some don't. The ones that do, the testing has increasingly little to do with one's ability to actually do the job and the whole licensing issue just becomes about money for the state and the testing agencies. I can see arguments for both sides, but not strong ones.
Agreed. In most licensed industries, DORA hardly regulates them at all, it's fee collection. Ones they are supposed to inspect they usually don't, severe violations are a slap on the wrist, etc., and revocations are very few. It's all about $ when you involve DORA.
That's not to say that PI's shouldn't be regulated somehow, but I'm not in general agreement that DORA does anything other than administers a test at the beginning and then exists just to collect $. Any revocations initiated by a DORA investigation? (and not, from say, a felony conviction). And even the regulation argument isn't the strongest out there, because prior to (was it 2013?) it seemed to self-regulate relatively well; moreover requirements tied to the justice system can result in a monopoly that deprives certain people of assistance. (e.g. their friend can't help them get evidentiary photos, because "not a licensed PI", or they can't get a suggestion from the retired attorney down the block because "not a licensed attorney".)
I think there's better solutions that may be available (not that e.g. I have a suggestion), but our state may not me amenable to them politically.
How is this any different than most other contract work though? In the industry I work in, some states require a license, and some don't. The ones that do, the testing has increasingly little to do with one's ability to actually do the job and the whole licensing issue just becomes about money for the state and the testing agencies. I can see arguments for both sides, but not strong ones.
No, I get you on this. It's a fine line. What it boils down to is consumer protection. If a PI with a license does something wrong that impacts their client (and I'm talking some serious crap- PIs can fuck people's lives up ROYALLY if they don't pay attention to what they're doing. I'm not talking just money. Assets, custody of kids, and people's secrets can all be massively scuppered really easily. And that's awful because people trust investigators) the client has recourse- PIs are required to have a bond, and they can lose their license. If there's no license (again) it becomes the wild wild west again and people that think PIs are licensed may be taken advantage of. It has happened, and it's happened too many times.
Agreed. In most licensed industries, DORA hardly regulates them at all, it's fee collection. Ones they are supposed to inspect they usually don't, severe violations are a slap on the wrist, etc., and revocations are very few. It's all about $ when you involve DORA.
That's not to say that PI's shouldn't be regulated somehow, but I'm not in general agreement that DORA does anything other than administers a test at the beginning and then exists just to collect $. Any revocations initiated by a DORA investigation? (and not, from say, a felony conviction). And even the regulation argument isn't the strongest out there, because prior to (was it 2013?) it seemed to self-regulate relatively well; moreover requirements tied to the justice system can result in a monopoly that deprives certain people of assistance. (e.g. their friend can't help them get evidentiary photos, because "not a licensed PI", or they can't get a suggestion from the retired attorney down the block because "not a licensed attorney".)
I think there's better solutions that may be available (not that e.g. I have a suggestion), but our state may not me amenable to them politically.
It may have seemed to self-regulate pretty well, but that was a very thin veil that the public saw. After all, people that were victims of people that called themselves PIs had nowhere to turn. Contracts were not a requirement, so there was no proof. The Attorney General's office was not interested. I lost count of all the calls received through the state association information line, and it broke my heart to hear the stories people told about being ripped off or sinking their life's savings into the so-called investigator's retainer. Then there was the investigator that was a pedophile (8 times over, no less) that could continue to work as a PI, because there were no standards or ethics required. Oh, he wasn't supposed to go near children, but I'm sure the potential clients didn't know that.
This doesn't even begin to scratch the surface of so-called investigators that lied about their experience, or the ones that worked both sides of cases. Or the "PIs" that were actually sociopaths and used their databases to stalk and harass exes.
And yeah, we would bring this up to DORA, and to legislators when we were seeking licensure. Between choices of protecting their constituents and protecting their backroom deals...I'll let you guess how things turned out.
Fine line indeed. Is there a way to better classify PIs in a way that forces a path to recourse for clients so it is in the PI's best interest to be above board? I guess that's what you're after in one form or another. I'm trying to think of how a profession like an architect instills less risk of fly by night individuals. I suppose the lengthy and expensive schooling is the major barrier to entry in that field, as opposed to 20-40 hours of continuing education every two years where the classes hardly change and you can snooze through them. Can/do PIs get E&O (Errors and Omissions) insurance policies like architects and similar professions can?
Either way, I wish you luck. Every profession needs less scammers and dirt bags.
Fine line indeed. Is there a way to better classify PIs in a way that forces a path to recourse for clients so it is in the PI's best interest to be above board? I guess that's what you're after in one form or another. I'm trying to think of how a profession like an architect instills less risk of fly by night individuals. I suppose the lengthy and expensive schooling is the major barrier to entry in that field, as opposed to 20-40 hours of continuing education every two years where the classes hardly change and you can snooze through them. Can/do PIs get E&O (Errors and Omissions) insurance policies like architects and similar professions can?
Either way, I wish you luck. Every profession needs less scammers and dirt bags.
They sure can, and the professional PIs get E & O Insurance as well.
As far as consumer protection goes, that's why we have licensing. Unfortunately, after crafting the initial bill, the legislation process amended the teeth from it until it was a shell of what it once was. No continuing education requirements- and no way to add them now, because DORA points out that because the State Association provides training, it is a "self-serving amendment."
There's a whole lot more, but in the end the point is moot; there's no other option but to dance with the devil in the pale moonlight, as it's the only game in town. There is no other regulating agency but this one; they are adamantly opposed to us being licensed and they have the ear of the Governor. "Consumer Protection" is clearly lie.
Thinking about this a bit, I think there is a happy medium between distinguishing professional and non professional judicial assistance. Many other countries, for instance, let a person be represented by a non-attorney friend (for free), requiring appropriate signed disclosures, waivers, etc. Not here, of course, under the guise of "your protection" the system would prefer someone either receive no help at all or send everything they can to one of the "professionals", no intermediate choices. And indeed, even the original Greek attorney was required to work for free. I don't think requiring licensure and monopolizing the judicial system is a benefit to anyone. Obviously talking about more than PIs here, but the system is designed to generate profit selectively. Look at private prisons, civil, criminal, it is purvasive. Hell, even look at court records here - if you want a record of a public proceeding in most venues in this state for any reason, you HAVE to pay a transcriptionist on a list to transcribe the audio, perhaps up to $2000 a pop, and they cannot release said audio to you. That has no purpose except paying transcriptionist, there is no justifiable excuse. That is a lot of the "cost" of licensure and regulation in the judicial industry, the tenants work together to extract as much $ as they can. Every aspect of it instead needs two faces: one, the paid, insured, professional; the other, non-professional, free help with disclosures should not be blocked. A wife whose account was drained by her husband shouldn't be denied all evidence collection just because edge can't pay a professionals $2,000 "retainer". That type of thing can be just as damaging as a bad unlicensed PI.
I've seen a lot of licensed professionals that f shit to hell in the state too without recourse. I think the real defense is customer discernment, licensed "professionals" also take people's money without equivalent service all the time. Truth is, some people suck. There's good doctors, attorneys, and there's utter shit ones that will either get you killed or make you wish you were killed. All are licensed. The licensure doesn't separate the wheat.
I know a guy who was a part time pi (still has license when i last talked to him) and he was talking about expensive license fee etc imposed years back.
He does this as a "favor" for his friend and family or his co-workers. He does HOA dispute, some supplemental insurance scam, and etc. He does not do those infidelity/cheating types of domestic stuff.
He barters with small law firms for free legal hours.
He helps HOA stuff (i was about to write this HOA stories on the other thread today about ring camera and neighbor dispute).
He does have lots and lots of toys. One day, he forgot to bring huge lens for his camera. He used spotting scope and a phone camera from about 500m away to record this turd try to sue my insurance company for 100k for bullshit auto accident. Also we found out his turds' boss was same anderson alumni and told this turds' boss about future [possible] workers comp.... ...... (nevermind). :D
One day, his girlfriend got made taping him working on heavy lifting equipment on his garage. I think that gave him the idea that he was being watched and got a very tiny settlement.
I also introduced PI guy to my friend who had neighbor dispute. His neighbor was kinda well connected MD-turd who falsely abused the HOA rule to made my friend miserable.
Long story short, my friend made this idiot's life miserable back. This guy moved year later. [LOL]
Going back to the topic. He said something similar. License and insurance is one that gets avg joe away, BUT he also said getting a contract (with companies) and having to afford surveillance toys and knowing how to investigate are difficult. For an example, he is good with real estate law, but he knows nada on securities and investment compliance investigations.
He had to be good, because his fb post photos has him next to fed on missing child, and even have investigated w/"west colorado" city police depts.
Sadly, we do not talk anymore after early 2019.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.