Investigative Techniques and Case Management
This domain tests how a licensee plans, scopes, documents, and supervises an investigation so that it is lawful, useful, and defensible. It covers client intake, case plans, surveillance, interviews, skip tracing, subcontractors, and file control.
Core rules
- Open every matter with a written engagement defining the client, objectives, deliverables, budget, fee structure, authorized techniques, and the person who may expand scope. Record oral instructions by confirming email or memo.
- Build a case plan: facts to prove, sources, legal constraints, timeline, task assignments, and communication schedule. Identify conflicts before accepting the matter and recheck them if the client's target changes.
- Surveillance: stay on public property or property you are licensed or invited to enter; never trespass, block, chase, or harass. Log date, time, location, weather, camera settings, and observed activity. Record what you see and hear, not conclusions.
- Interviews and records: identify yourself truthfully and never claim law enforcement authority. New Mexico is a one-party-consent state for recording conversations, but the other party's state or federal law may require consent, so confirm before recording. Skip tracing must use permissible purposes under the DPPA, FCRA, and GLBA; pretexting for financial or phone records is prohibited.
- Manage the file with an evidence log, correspondence, time records, invoices, and a decision log. Supervise subcontractors in writing and require confidentiality.
Worked example
A client asks for "the ex's new address-my friend at the police can run the plate." The investigator should refuse the police contact, document the request, and instead use lawful sources such as public property records, court filings, and permissible database queries. The client's custody dispute may support a permissible purpose for some records, but a favor from an officer is not a lawful source and exposes both parties to liability.
Traps
Guaranteeing an outcome; accepting a vague scope and then billing surprises; mixing two clients' files; failing to document a scope change; continuing surveillance that a reasonable person would experience as stalking.