The 90-Day Qualifying Experience Problem
Marisol applies for her private investigator license. She has worked 2,800 hours over 14 months as an in-house loss-prevention investigator for a retail chain, conducting employee theft interviews and writing reports. Her employer's director of security, a licensed PI, will sign her experience affidavit, but he left the company four months ago. Marisol also completed a 40-hour online course in investigative techniques last year. The Bureau sends a deficiency letter stating her experience does not qualify because it was not obtained under the direct supervision of a licensee and was not 'investigative' in nature. Marisol argues that interviewing employees and writing reports is investigative work and that her supervisor held a license during most of her employment. She has 30 days to respond.
1. Identify the two distinct deficiencies the Bureau has raised and evaluate the strength of Marisol's rebuttal to each.
Read the worked answer
Deficiency 1 - supervision. The Bureau frames the hours as not obtained under a licensee's direct supervision. Marisol's strongest point is temporal: her supervisor was licensed for roughly 10 of her 14 months, so at minimum those hours were under a licensee. However, 'direct supervision' usually means the licensee actually directed and reviewed the work, not merely held a license in the building. She needs evidence of that (signed case reviews, supervisory notes).
Deficiency 2 - nature of the work. The Bureau says the work was not investigative. This is weaker for the Bureau if she can document actual investigative activity (surveillance, evidence gathering, case development) rather than purely administrative or guard-type duties. Employee interviews plus report writing can qualify, but only if tied to investigations.
Her rebuttal should be split: concede nothing on supervision for the covered months, but supply corroborating documentation. Do not argue the 40-hour online course cures the experience gap - coursework and experience are separate requirements.
2. What should Marisol submit in her 30-day response, and what is the risk of relying solely on her former supervisor's affidavit?
Read the worked answer
She should submit: (1) a corrected affidavit from the licensed supervisor covering only the months he actually supervised her, with a description of the supervision provided; (2) independent corroboration - pay records, case files she authored, performance reviews, client/employer letters; (3) a detailed hour accounting separating investigative from non-investigative time.
The risk of relying on the affidavit alone is that the affiant has left the company, may be hard to reach, and his statement is self-interested and uncorroborated. If the Bureau doubts him, her whole application stalls. Documentary corroboration is what makes the affidavit credible.