Working PIby Isaac Peck, Publisher
Surveillance in private investigator work is absolutely necessary and extremely challenging. Maintaining discretion while monitoring subjects is critical; any detection can compromise the investigation, since subjects will drastically change their behavior if they know they are being watched. Investigators have to blend into various environments and handle unexpected situations that could expose them. PIs also need to know the law, so they can make sure they don’t break it (and understand the risks if they do). Long hours and varying conditions require a lot of grit and determination.
Investigators are always balancing the need for detailed observation with the risk of being noticed. If the PI is too cautious, potentially vital discoveries will slip through their fingers. But taking too many chances means attracting unwanted attention and unraveling hours, days, or weeks of work.
There are also risks beyond mere information loss or compromised surveillance. People do not like being watched, and investigators are always at risk of encountering dangerous or irate subjects.
While common sense can mitigate many risks, there are no guarantees. Ideally, surveillance is mostly boring. “Excitement” can signal a major breakthrough, but it can just as easily indicate that something has gone terribly wrong.
This is a story of something going terribly wrong. The PI who experienced it has asked us to tell it as a cautionary tale. It begins with a snap logistical decision: having wrapped up a case in one part of the city, our PI would get a jump on his next one, an insurance investigation with a surveillance subject in the same part of the city.
What followed—physical assault, online harassment, frivolous lawsuits and more—was a nightmare no investigator should have to experience.
Here are the chilling details of this harrowing tale.
A Routine Job
Derek* has been an investigator for several years, runs his own PI firm and is recognized as a leader in the profession. Seeing an opportunity to save some time and travel, Derek made the snap decision to do some preliminary surveillance, although he only knew the most basic information about his subjects and if he’d had more time, he’d have done some additional pre-surveillance research.
On its face, there didn’t seem to be anything exceptional about this new case; the subjects were two adults (Mike* and Marsha*) and two children, who’d been involved in a car accident. Derek (our investigator) drove to the neighborhood where the subjects’ address had been listed. The street where they lived looked like a tight fit, with little-to-no extra street parking and no place to discreetly hang out to observe the house. This meant that Derek might be driving around a little more or parking in front of a neighbor’s house, which could make the neighbors suspicious. This led the PI to his second quick decision: he would go to the local police station to check in and let the police know he was working in the neighborhood. “I gave the police a sheet with a copy of my state private investigator ID card, my vehicle registration, my cell phone number, and the times I would be in the neighborhood,” Derek said.
During the investigation, Derek discovered another possible residential address nearby. His research also revealed a wealth of other information regarding the subjects. For instance, Mike was a violent felon convicted of attempted murder and had served just under 10 years in a state prison. Derek also learned that Mike and Marsha were currently engaged in a lawsuit against the school board of the town in which they lived.
According to news articles, Mike and Marsha were upset about some reading material that the children had access to within the school. As they expressed their outrage, they became angry and aggressive at several public meetings. On one occasion, Mike was excluded from an executive session. In response, he aggressively banged on the glass windows where the meetings were taking place, recording video with his phone while screaming at the committee members through the glass. This behavior was so disruptive that the school committee, with the assistance of the local police, banned Mike and Marsha from the school grounds, leading to the lawsuit. In the news articles, Mike described himself as bipolar and loud, attributing his abrasive communication style to his ethnic heritage.
Derek drove to the neighborhood of the second address he’d found, arriving at a dead-end road with the residence located at the end of the street. The house was concealed by a six-foot fence. Derek drove to the dead-end and executed a three-point turn in the street. During that turn, he noticed a vehicle parked at the house that matched what the couple was driving during the accident. Derek drove some distance away from the home and settled into a space that allowed him to monitor the dead-end road. After an hour of surveillance from this position, he observed a female leave the house, get into the car, and drive away.
A Disturbing Escalation
Derek discreetly followed the car until it arrived and parked outside a chiropractic office. He pulled over into a small parking area off the side of the road, approximately 300 yards behind the vehicle he was observing, hoping to document the operator exiting the vehicle. For nearly 40 minutes, Derek watched as the operator did not leave the vehicle. Then suddenly, a white Chevy hatchback aggressively pulled into the area where Derek was parked, boxing him in between a telephone pole and a fire hydrant.
A male, later identified as Mike, quickly exited the driver’s seat, recording a video with his phone, and began pounding on Derek’s window. He yelled, “What are you doing here, who are you following, why are you sitting here?”
Derek partially rolled down the window and told Mike he was taking a call. Mike then opened Derek’s door and wedged himself in a way that prevented Derek from closing it. Continuing to record video and yell, Mike leaned over Derek and asked why he had a clipboard and why there was “spy stuff” in the back seat. Derek repeatedly told Mike to get away from him and his car, attempting to close his door over a dozen times.
Seeing that remaining in his vehicle was not resolving the situation, Derek stepped out. Mike was unaffected by this and continued yelling despite Derek’s repeated requests for him to leave. Derek created space between them, retreated back into the car, and was finally able to close and lock the door. Mike continued to attempt to enter Derek’s vehicle.
Eventually, Derek was able to depart the area and drive directly to the police station less than a mile away. He asked to speak with a desk sergeant. In a closed room just off of the lobby, he described the events to the sergeant, as well as a lieutenant who had joined them. The officers were both very familiar with Mike and Marsha.
During their discussion, Mike also arrived at the police station and stated his intention to file a report. After Derek described the events to the sergeant and lieutenant, they escorted him out of the rear of the department to his vehicle and said they would be in contact with him regarding the report.
About 15 minutes after departing the police department, Derek received a call from a number he did not recognize. He answered the call, and it was Mike. In a loud voice, Mike boasted that he “had connections” and had run Derek’s plate, obtaining all his personal information. He continued his aggressive tone and told Derek to come to his home so he could answer any further questions. Mike then called Derek two additional times and left voicemails when Derek did not answer. Derek subsequently contacted the police to report that Mike had told him he had run his plate and obtained all his personal information.
Then, at approximately 7:30 PM, Derek received a notification from Facebook that a review had been posted on his business Facebook page. The review stated:
Definitely wouldn’t recommend or hire. Horrible private investigator. Derek’s cover was blown within an hour. First, he was caught on our surveillance cameras coming down our dead-end street in his very noticeable dark car with dark blacked-out windows. Then he parked in an open parking lot with no other cars outside our street in his 2019 black Toyota Rav4. I noticed him immediately and pulled over. He then pulled over about 40 yards away. We both just sat there for 40 mins. I called my husband who came and confronted him in his car, asking why he had spy gear in his backseat. Everything was on camera, including Derek opening his car door and pushing my husband twice. That was the absolute worst private investigator skills I’ve ever seen. Derek, my husband is still waiting for you to return his call and tell him what you wanted. I can do a better job at following people. Call me if you’re hiring!
Derek reported the post to the police. That rough first day would set the tempo for the next several weeks, and things started to get scary.
(story continues)
Unexpected Allies
The police advised Derek that they did not find any record of his plate being run. If they had found such a record, it would have been through CJIS, a law enforcement-exclusive database. After viewing the video Mike had made during the encounter and listening to his version of events, they ultimately wrote up a report that confirmed Derek’s account. The police department also contacted the department in the town where Derek resides on their own initiative. They were concerned enough about Mike and Marsha’s history of behavior to advise the other department to perform routine patrols and keep them informed of any events.
Not wanting to lose several thousand dollars in business, Derek devised a plan to complete the assignment safely and discreetly, which he successfully executed. He informed his client of the events and his plan to continue, which they approved. Derek’s general plan involved allowing some time to pass and conducting extensive additional research to understand the subjects’ daily routines better, enabling him to conduct further surveillance without starting in their neighborhood. He also planned to utilize a different vehicle.
Derek also realized the importance of allies and informants in revealing details that are not accessible through traditional surveillance. This network enhances the investigator’s ability to gather comprehensive intelligence, corroborate findings, and ensure safety. Collaboration with informants and allies significantly amplifies the investigator’s capabilities and chances of success, making investigations more efficient and effective.
Fortunately, by this time, Derek had learned that many people had come into conflict with Marsha and Mike, and some very heated disputes had happened. It became clear that the events Derek experienced with them were commonplace. Derek gained access to a Private Facebook Group, where the couple was regularly discussed. He learned that Mike was running for a seat on the school board whose meetings he’d been legally restrained from attending.
Later, an area resident, “SR,” contacted Derek, offering valuable information about Mike and Marsha’s daily activities. SR’s insights allowed Derek to finalize his strategy and continue with the assignment, with Mike and Marsha remaining unaware of his presence.
Extreme Escalation
Mike’s physical and verbal aggression towards Derek, his claim of being “well-connected,” and his history of public outbursts seemed to have abated; but Marsha’s actions were just beginning and they would cross a new, extreme line—the kind of actions that make private investigators leave the profession.
She accessed Derek’s social media accounts, posting pictures of his family— his wife and children—on a new Twitter/X account. The post included inappropriate comments. Then, after contacting Derek’s client in an attempt to discredit the investigation, Marsha sent a “get well” card to Derek and his family at their home address. Like the post, the card contained inappropriate comments about Derek’s family, and also referenced his alleged lack of skills.
For Derek, “these were the most invasive parts of the whole ordeal,” constituting direct threats to the people he loved the most. “It took an emotional toll on me and my family,” he said.
Marsha continued to contact Derek through various means, including his website, and made multiple calls to the state Licensed Private Detectives Association. When questioned by police, Marsha admitted to most of these actions (she did not admit setting up the Twitter/X account or sending the card to his home, even though the language in both was unmistakably hers) and was warned about potential harassment and witness intimidation charges. Despite this, she then immediately posted a negative review of Derek’s firm on the Better Business Bureau website. That was when the police informed Derek that they were charging Marsha with witness intimidation and harassment. Witness intimidation is a very serious felony charge, punishable by up to 10 years in prison even if no physical threats are made.
Following Marsha’s actions, Mike formally charged Derek with assault. Derek, who had initially decided against filing a criminal complaint himself, now hired an attorney and filed complaints against Mike for assault and breaking and entering of a motor vehicle. The matter was referred to a magistrate’s hearing to determine if there was enough evidence to issue formal criminal charges against either party.
Besides coming to the hearing with a copy of the original police report from the incident, Derek’s attorney had subpoenaed Mike to produce the video he had recorded of the confrontation (Mike had responded by inadvertently calling Derek’s attorney, expressing his dislike for Derek before realizing who he was speaking to). On the day of the hearing, Mike appeared in casual attire and initially claimed not to have the subpoenaed video. When pressed for the video later, Mike presented it in court. The video showed Mike pounding on Derek’s car, forcing it open, and leaning in while Derek repeatedly asked him to leave.
The confrontation video supported Derek’s account. Derek’s attorney told the magistrate that he’d never seen anything like this case in 30 years—where someone accusing someone else of assault had so clearly instigated and committed assault themselves. The video also revealed numerous instances of Derek asking to be left alone, important proof that he hadn’t committed any assault.
The magistrate asked Mike if he had contacted Derek after the incident. Mike initially denied this but admitted to it on further questioning. He claimed he had acquired Derek’s cell phone number by “Googling it,” and that he’d also Googled Derek’s license plate number. This could not have been true, since accessing personal details linked to a license plate requires law enforcement authority or some legitimate legal reason, and public databases and search engines do not have access to such information, according to Derek.
The magistrate told those assembled that he would render his decision and then the court would inform the participants by mail. As everyone was leaving, the magistrate took the attorney aside and advised him that Derek would not be charged. Unsurprisingly, Mike was then charged with breaking and entering of a motor vehicle and assault.
Derek had paid his lawyer $3500, and the matter seemed to be over. With both Mike and Marsha now criminally charged, and Derek having successfully wrapped up the investigation without incident and made his client happy, it was time to move on.
(story continues)
The Thing That Wouldn’t Die
A few months later, while Derek was still waiting to hear about the cases against Mike and Marsha, a Police Sergeant knocked on his door in the evening. The officer presented Derek with a Temporary Restraining Order ( R.O.) from the state’s Superior Court. It stated: “The Defendant is hereby restrained from interfering with, molesting, harassing, threatening, annoying or contacting the Plaintiff in any manner, directly or indirectly.”
In Superior Court, Marsha had accused Derek of creating the fake Twitter/X account and of sending a typewritten letter to her home. She was afraid for her and her children because of how much Derek knew about them. She provided no proof, police reports, or other documentation, but because the court only needed a preliminary complaint in order to issue the temporary R.O., it had been granted pending a hearing, whose date had been set in a document accompanying the R.O. Derek wrote his attorney a check for another $3,500 and prepared to fight the latest round against Mike and Marsha.
“I don’t want to say this financially devastated me,” Derek said. “But $7,000 in a short amount of time is a lot for someone to come up with—and just to protect my name. My credibility is my most important credential. Regardless of any other license I have, if I have an assault charge, a restraining order against me that actually takes hold? I’m toast, man. I look like shit, and people will always question the evidence that I gather.”
What Have We Learned?
Derek shared his perspective with Working PI on the incident with Mike, reflecting on the challenges faced during the investigation and some of the mistakes he’d made.
“There’s a lot of debate about whether PIs should check in with the police,” Derek noted. “But none of this would have happened if I hadn’t.” By “this,” Derek referred to the negative outcomes that followed his initial confrontation with Mike. He suspects that someone at the police station may have inadvertently shared his information with Mike. This highlights a contentious issue within the PI community. Some investigators feel that notifying local police can compromise their cover, while others believe it is necessary for safety (and it’s absolutely necessary when working on open criminal cases, which Derek wasn’t).
Some states require PIs to check in with the police, arguing that it protects the investigator and conserves department resources. When this is the case, it’s crucial for police to uphold privacy protections. Although PIs like Derek are asking their state legislatures to create better legal safeguards, police errors presently remain beyond their control.
Derek focuses on two areas he believes he could have managed better: personal safety and online exposure. He emphasizes the importance of maintaining safety protocols for surveillance, such as always leaving a buffer and locking car doors. He points out that his car doors had automatically unlocked when he parked for the surveillance of the chiropractor’s parking lot, and locking them could have prevented the confrontation with Mike almost entirely.
Regarding online exposure, Derek acknowledges the difficulty PIs face in managing their social media presence, given the need to advertise one’s services and be seen as part of the community. He advises caution in sharing personal information, noting that his family’s privacy was compromised. Derek has since removed references to his child from social media and made his account private to protect his family.
There are broader issues, such as whether licensed PIs should have easier access to background information or if liability insurance should cover instances where investigation subjects use criminal charges to harass PIs. Derek suggests professional organizations create a defense fund, financed by members, to cover the expenses and loss of income from these kinds of retaliatory attacks. “My credibility is my most important asset in this business. Making sure it stays intact is of the utmost importance.”
But in this instance, Derek was lucky that Mike recorded the confrontation and that both Mike and Marsha admitted their wrongdoings multiple times. Not all subjects will be as willing to document their actions, underscoring the unpredictable nature of PI work.
Episodes like this can wear an investigator down and hurt their business, Derek says. “I was taking a lot of days off. I was concerned they might come after me physically. Or picket outside my house. I had police at my son’s bus stop. This was so far beyond anything I could have envisioned happening.” Stay safe out there.
*We have changed the names of all three people in this story.
About the Author
Isaac Peck is the Publisher of Working PI magazine and the President and Senior Broker of OREP.org, a leading provider of liability insurance for PI professionals. Working PI is the most widely read print magazine for investigators nationwide, reaching over 25,000 PIs. Investigators who become OREP Members enjoy two CE courses (15 hours of education) at no charge (Visit for details). Isaac brings over 10 years of experience leading teams in Professional Liability insurance underwriting, operations, technology, and marketing—with a focus on E&O and general liability insurance for professionals. He holds a Master’s Degree in Accounting. Reach Isaac by phone at (888) 347-5273 or email at isaac@orep.org. CA License #4116465.
We’re always listening. Send your story submission/idea to the Editor: kendra@orep.org.
