Indiana License Used for an Ohio Theft Investigation and a Subject's Admission

The Indiana license does not authorize the investigator to conduct regulated private-investigation activity in Ohio merely because the client is in Indiana. Ohio has its own licensing requirements, and the firm has no Ohio license or affiliate. The in-person interviews of Ohio employees may be less clearly regulated than surveillance or records acquisition, but the investigator still held himself out as an investigator and conducted an investigation centered in Ohio. The safer and correct approach was to associate with an Ohio-licensed investigator or confirm a specific exemption before doing the work.

The bank-records request is plainly improper. Calling an Ohio bank and posing as the manager's assistant is pretexting to obtain financial information. It can violate federal financial-privacy law, Ohio deception and fraud statutes, and Indiana law, and it exposes the firm to civil liability and licensing discipline. The lease review is different if the lease was obtained from a lawful source, such as public records or with the landlord's consent; reviewing a lawfully obtained document is not the same as impersonating someone to get it. The firm should stop the bank-records method, segregate what was obtained, and consult counsel about whether any of it can be used.

The investigator should not promise secrecy to the manager. The investigator was retained by the employer, and the manager is the subject of the investigation, not the client. The admission is a material factual result of the engagement and must be reported accurately to the client. The client's written policy requires referral of theft over $5,000 to law enforcement, and the investigator should not conceal the admission or help the manager avoid that policy. The investigator should document the admission in writing as soon as possible, including the exact words, date, time, location, and who was present, and deliver the report to the client through the agreed channel.

The investigator should also avoid becoming the manager's agent or giving legal advice. He should not negotiate repayment, promise not to disclose, or tell the manager he can 'make it right' without reporting. If the client directs the investigator to withhold the admission, the investigator should explain that the engagement requires accurate reporting and that the client's own policy applies. The investigator should not destroy notes or delay the report.

The threat changes the risk analysis. A recent threat against a coworker, combined with access to a firearm, is a potential imminent safety issue. The investigator should not wait for the final report. He should notify the client contact who can act immediately, recommend that the client contact law enforcement or its security counsel, and, if the threat appears imminent, contact law enforcement directly. The investigator should not attempt to confront or detain the manager or search for the firearm; private investigators are not police and should not create a confrontation.

The file should document the exact threat, when it was made, to whom, who heard it, the firearm information, the date and time the client was notified, and any law-enforcement report number. The investigator should also document the conflict between confidentiality and safety: client confidentiality does not require concealing an imminent threat of violence. The investigator should coordinate with counsel and keep the threat information separate from the financial investigation file if that helps control disclosure, while still ensuring the client and appropriate authorities receive it.