The In-House Loss Prevention Manager and the Bank Call
Jordan is a salaried loss-prevention manager for a 14-store Oregon retail chain. He is not licensed as a private investigator. Over the past 18 months he has reviewed CCTV, interviewed 23 employees about cash shortages, and twice followed a suspected employee after work to a bar where the employee met a vendor. The company now asks him to (1) find a former employee who owes a $38,000 civil judgment and (2) call the former employee's bank, identify himself as an 'account auditor,' and ask whether the employee has an account and what the balance is. Jordan's supervisor says the internal-matters exemption covers all of this because Jordan is a company employee. Jordan asks whether he needs an Oregon PI license before doing the new assignments. The company has no written policy on investigations and no licensed PI on staff.
1. Does Jordan's existing in-house work require an Oregon private investigator license? Explain using the statutory definition and the internal-matters exemption.
Read the worked answer
Start with the statutory definition, not the job title. ORS 703.401 defines a private investigator as a person who, for compensation, obtains or furnishes information about a person's identity, habits, conduct, whereabouts, affiliations, transactions, reputation, or character, or evidence for a civil or criminal matter. Jordan is paid, and interviews and surveillance are classic investigative activity. The internal-matters exemption in ORS 703.411 is the exception: an employee may investigate the employer's own internal matters without a PI license. Cash shortages, CCTV review, and employee interviews are internal. The off-site follow is a closer call; if it is part of the internal theft inquiry and Jordan does not hold himself out as a PI, it can remain within the exemption, but it loses protection if he investigates the vendor's separate conduct or begins doing outside work. He should keep the scope internal and document that.
2. Can Jordan perform the two new assignments-locating the former employee and calling the bank as an 'account auditor'?
Read the worked answer
The new assignments fall outside the exemption. Locating a former employee to collect a $38,000 civil judgment is not an internal employment matter; it is furnishing whereabouts information to the company as a judgment creditor for compensation, which is private-investigator activity. Unless another exemption applies, Jordan must be licensed before doing it. The bank call is independently unlawful. The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, 15 U.S.C. § 6821, prohibits obtaining customer financial information from a financial institution by false pretenses, and Oregon fraud and identity-theft statutes can apply. A license would not authorize pretexting. The lawful path is a licensed PI using permitted skip-trace sources, the judgment-creditor discovery process, or a debtor's examination through counsel. Jordan should refuse the bank call outright and not do the locate until licensed.
3. What should Jordan do if his supervisor directs him to proceed anyway?
Read the worked answer
Jordan should separate the lawful internal work from the unlawful requests. He can continue the internal loss-prevention function within the exemption, but he should not locate the former employee or call the bank. He should put his refusal in writing, explain the licensing and GLBA issues, and ask the company to retain a licensed PI or counsel for the collection matter. If the company insists that he make the pretext call, he should escalate to compliance or legal and decline; a supervisor's instruction is not a defense to unlicensed practice or pretexting. He should also avoid using a title such as 'investigator' in external communications and should document the scope of his internal role. If the company wants a broader investigative function, it should sponsor his license application or hire a licensed PI.