Sidewalk, Bumper, Backyard, Booth
A workers' compensation carrier hires you to check whether a claimant with a "debilitating back injury" is working or doing heavy physical labor. Day 1: you photograph him loading lumber at a jobsite from the public sidewalk across the street. Day 2: you magnetically attach a GPS tracker to the rear bumper of his pickup in a Publix parking lot and collect 72 hours of location data. Day 3: you fly your drone at 150 feet to film over his six-foot fence into the backyard, where he is stacking pavers. That evening, you sit in the next booth at a restaurant and use your phone to record 11 minutes of his conversation with a friend about the "easy money."
1. Evaluate each of the four methods for legality and professional risk. Rank them from safest to most dangerous.
Read the worked answer
1. Sidewalk photography - lawful and standard. Observation and photography from a public vantage point of activity visible to passersby does not intrude on a reasonable expectation of privacy. Boundaries: stay off the property, stay out of curtilage (driveways close to the house, fenced areas), don't block or harass, don't create a confrontation.
2. Address research / public records - lawful. Not used here, but it is the correct substitute for the next two items.
3. Restaurant audio - high risk. Florida is an all-party-consent state (s. 934.03). Recording an oral communication without the consent of all speakers is interception, a felony-grade offense, whenever the speakers have a reasonable expectation of privacy. The fact that it is a restaurant booth does not make the analysis safe - and the recording is likely to be excluded anyway. The "easy money" statement is not worth the exposure; the pavers video is worth more.
4. Drone over the backyard - unlawful. Florida's drone privacy statute (s. 934.50) bars using a drone to capture images of privately owned property or its occupants with intent to conduct surveillance in violation of a reasonable expectation of privacy without written consent. A six-foot-fenced backyard is the paradigm case the statute was written for. Add FAA operating rules and local ordinances, and this is a straight no.
5. GPS tracker on the truck - most dangerous. Section 934.425 makes it a first-degree misdemeanor to install a tracking device on a vehicle you do not own or lease without the consent of the owner or lessee (with narrow exceptions aimed at law enforcement and parents). There is no private-investigator exception. Criminal charge, excluded evidence, license discipline, and a gift to opposing counsel.
Ranking (safest to worst): sidewalk photography → public-records research → restaurant audio → drone → GPS.
2. How would you get equivalent evidence lawfully?
Read the worked answer
Replace each technique with one that survives a deposition.
- Instead of GPS: old-fashioned mobile surveillance. Pick up at the residence, follow at a safe distance, document departures and arrivals with time-stamped video. It costs more hours and yields better evidence because a human being can describe what he saw.
- Instead of the drone: establish the activity from lawful vantage points - the street, the sidewalk, a neighbor's property with the neighbor's written permission, a public park or right-of-way, and long-lens photography from a public place. If the yard is truly unobservable, note that in the report rather than manufacturing access.
- Instead of the restaurant recording: silent video from a public table if he is visible; canvass of coworkers and neighbors; the jobsite itself; and social-media and public-records collection.
- The strong case here is already made: loading lumber on Day 1 and stacking pavers on Day 3 directly contradict a debilitating back injury. Those two observations carry the file.
Report discipline: describe vantage points, distances, and camera position for every shot so the carrier's attorney can establish the foundation in one page.
3. The carrier says, "We've always done the GPS thing - everyone does." How do you respond?
Read the worked answer
Industry practice is not a defense, and in this area it is a liability.
- Section 934.425 has no business or investigator exception. It criminalizes the act itself; a carrier's policy manual cannot authorize what the statute forbids, and a contractual indemnity clause will not cover a criminal charge or a licensing complaint.
- The carrier is not the one at risk first - you are. The investigator installs the device, the investigator's license is on the line, and the investigator is the one who will be deposed about how the location data was obtained.
- The evidence usually loses anyway. Once the method is challenged, the carrier spends more defending the technique than the surveillance was worth, and the claimant's attorney gets a free theme ("they broke the law to watch him").
- Give them a workable alternative, in writing: mobile surveillance at a quoted hourly rate, a written confirmation that no tracking devices, drone flights over private property, or recorded conversations will be used without written consent, and a note in the file that the limitation was communicated and acknowledged.
- Escalate internally to the qualifying licensee. A client instruction to break the law is not an instruction the agency can accept.