The Stockroom Confession
Karen, a licensed PI, is retained by a regional retailer after $18,000 in gift-card fraud. The store manager identifies Luis, a 19-year-old cashier, as the likely source. Karen and the manager take Luis into a windowless stockroom, close the door, and tell him he cannot leave until he signs a written statement. They say the police will be called and he will be jailed; Karen rests a pair of handcuffs on the table. After three hours, with no break and no parent or lawyer present, Luis signs a confession drafted by Karen. Karen's report states that Luis 'voluntarily admitted' the theft and that 'no promises or threats were made.' Luis later recants; the prosecutor dismisses the criminal charge after viewing the store's video, which shows the door blocked.
1. Identify Karen's misconduct and the legal risks it creates for the retailer and the criminal case.
Read the worked answer
Karen is a private investigator, not a police officer. She has no authority to detain Luis, block his exit, or threaten jail to obtain a statement. Telling him he cannot leave, displaying handcuffs, and holding him for three hours without a break can support false imprisonment and coercion claims against Karen and the retailer. The statement is likely unreliable and vulnerable to suppression or exclusion, which is why the prosecutor dismissed after seeing the blocked door. Karen's report is also false: 'voluntarily' and 'no threats' contradict the recorded facts. The Board can discipline Karen for misconduct and for a report that misstates the interview. The retailer faces civil exposure and reputational harm.
2. What should Karen have done differently during the interview and in the report?
Read the worked answer
Karen should have made clear that Luis was free to leave, kept the door unlocked, avoided handcuffs and threats, allowed breaks, and let him leave if he chose. She could ask for a written statement only after a voluntary interview and should not draft a confession for him to sign. If Luis asked for a lawyer, she should stop; even without a lawyer, she should avoid any promise of leniency or threat of arrest. She should document who was present, the exact words used, the time, and any breaks. The report should quote statements and describe conduct, not label the interview 'voluntary' as a conclusion. If the retailer wanted a coercive interview, Karen should have declined and explained the legal risk.
3. The retailer now asks Karen to 'fix' the report before giving it to its lawyer. How should she respond?
Read the worked answer
Karen must not alter the original to hide the coercion. She should preserve the original report and notes, prepare a dated supplement correcting the false statements, and disclose the correction to the retailer and its counsel. 'Fixing' by deletion or backdating would be falsification and could constitute obstruction or fraud. She should explain that the original can be corrected, not rewritten, and that the corrected record should state what actually happened. Counsel can decide how to use the report in litigation, but counsel cannot direct Karen to create a false record or testify falsely.