Working PIby Isaac Peck, Publisher
Take a star high school football player, then add your typical small-town devotion to football, a private investigator, and a client’s long-held grudge—it can only spell disaster.
These unlikely forces converged in an Alabama school district. The result was bitter litigation against a meddling individual and the local PI he hired to conduct a residency-and-eligibility investigation.
High school football, often celebrated as a cornerstone of community spirit, can sometimes foster strong feelings, but also a confrontational environment (at times). Confrontations aren’t just limited to coaches, parents and officials, but can include people who live in the community, people who might bear long-time grudges, or strongly identify with the home team.
An investigation started with such a grudge and ended with a nightmare scenario for a PI, who eventually found himself in an adversarial relationship not only with the student’s family, but also with his client. There were many lessons learned on the way, each of them painful. Here’s what happened.
Background
This story begins with a football player named KJ Lacey. In his sophomore year in 2022, Lacey and his family moved to Saraland, Alabama, where KJ burst onto the scene as a national quarterback prospect at Saraland High School.
In the years that followed, he would go on to be named “Alabama’s Best High School Football Player,” win the state’s “Mr. Football” award, and sign to play for the University of Texas Longhorns football team. Insiders say he’s a strong professional prospect. But before any of that happened a man named John Quinnelly Jr. began a campaign to question the student’s eligibility to play football.
Quinnelly asserted that the Lacey family had not actually made a “bona-fide” move to the area, and that consequently, KJ was playing football for Saraland illegitimately. The family had previously lived in the Daphne school district. Quinnelly claimed that the family still lived part-time in their home in their previous district.
Quinnelly hired private investigator Eric Winberg to investigate the family. Winberg’s investigation included extensive surveillance of the family with particular emphasis on Karle Lacey (the father), including his social media accounts, utilities, and more.
It is unclear whether Winberg knew that Quinelly’s campaign against the Lacey family hadn’t begun with the hiring of the PI but that Quinnelly had already been spreading rumors that painted an unflattering picture of the Laceys. The Lacey family would later say that Quinnelly had been publicly and loudly attacking KJ’s ineligibility as far back as May 2022, before Winberg had been hired.
It’s also unclear whether Winberg knew that Quinnelly (his client) had a personal motive beyond his concern for his local high school football team: A few years prior, the client’s own son had played for Daphne High School and had been “ruled ineligible due to a violation of the bona fide move rule,” according to a local news source. Daphne High School had to forfeit several games because of that rule, which the Laceys’ attorney would later argue motivated Quinnelly’s crusade, calling him a “father on a rampage” of revenge in relation to their case.
Bona Fide Move
Winberg began his surveillance in August and concluded it in October. During that time, Winberg, in his own words, “conducted video, photo, and in-person surveillance” of the Lacey’s old home in Daphne where, Quinnelly alleged, part of the family was still residing.
Using methods that the family would call illegal and intrusive, Winberg allegedly performed this surveillance by entering the property itself, both surreptitiously and “disguised” as a city worker. As a result of these methods, Winberg reported that he had “regularly” observed Mr. Lacey at the residence during the day, sometimes with the younger children.
But that wasn’t all. In his initial report to Quinnelly, Winberg alleged that “Mr. Lacey was documented overnighting at the residence on the evening of August 14, 2022″—an allegation Lacey’s wife would forcefully dispute in a professional licensing board meeting for Winberg much later (after Winberg’s own client filed a board complaint against him).
The Bona Fide Move rule, as outlined by the Alabama High School Athletic Association (AHSAA), ensures that student athletes who transfer schools do so legitimately and not for athletic advantage. Under this rule, families must completely vacate their previous residence for at least nine months and establish a new, permanent home. The former residence should be sold, rented, or closed and not used by the family. Any ongoing use—such as staying overnight or maintaining voter registration—could raise eligibility concerns. Proponents of the rule say that it is designed to prevent teams from recruiting players improperly and to maintain fair competition across high school athletics.
If the Lacey family hadn’t met the requirements of a Bona Fide Move, then Saraland was fielding an ineligible player, risking its reputation and rankings, and violating the spirit of fair competition across Alabama high school athletics. Quinnelly had been saying as much in his allegations, but with data from Winberg, he now believed his claims would be vindicated.
(story continues)
Going Public
From this point, the stories between client Quinnelly and investigator Winberg diverge. As Winberg recollected during his licensure hearing, he was under the impression that Quinnelly would use the information Winberg had gathered solely to show the proper authorities—the school districts and the state high school athletic association. But Quinnelly went well beyond that.
“I took Eric’s report, his book, his findings, his writeup—I took everything that he gave me, turned it into the Alabama High School Athletic Association,” said Quinnelly. But because the AHSAA would only hear eligibility complaints if raised by coaches or principals, one might assume that the natural next step would be to go to the coaches and principals. Yet, as he told the Private Investigators Board, “none of the coaches wanted to submit it. None of the principals wanted to submit it because they didn’t want blowback from the Alabama High School Athletic Association.”
Quinnelly elaborated: “I went through every one of Saraland’s opponents. None of those coaches wanted to turn it in. I found that shocking … St. Paul’s, if they would have turned it in, they would have gone to the playoffs instead of Saraland.” However, according to Quinnelly, St. Paul didn’t want to get involved. “So, I just said: Look, if I can’t get a principal to turn it in and I can’t get a coach to turn it in—I mean, you’ve got the wolves looking after the wolves.”
So, Quinnelly went to the media. “I forwarded it to every news agency, every one,” he said in his testimony. He further testified that Winberg had known his client was going to do this, which Winberg vehemently denied.
Quinnelly’s media campaign was aggressive and, arguably, obsessive, striking many in the community as rageful rather than mere concern. In long and often repetitive mass texts, Quinnelly accused Mr. Lacey of lying about spending the night in Daphne, and used strong, demanding language such as, “I expect a full investigation from the AHSAA of these findings to determine the following,” naming the 15-year-old student, and inviting people to contact either himself or Winberg with questions. The texts repeatedly misspelled Winberg’s name but do include his contact information—which Winberg said he had not consented to.
Before long, reporters were calling Winberg asking for statements. Denials were issued by the family and the school district, and attorneys were readying injunctions, cease-and-desist letters, and full-on lawsuits.
Lawsuit Filed
The Lacey family had discovered a surveillance device Winberg allegedly installed on their property, a skillfully hidden camera inside what appeared to be an “official” utility box. Whitney Sheldon, KJ’s mother, described when the family discovered the surveillance device. “I went to … Daphne Utilities, and I asked the lady was it normal for them to install—and I showed her a picture of the box at … and she said, ‘No, this is not something that we would do'” Sheldon reflected at the hearing.
Next came a cease-and-desist letter, sent by the Lacey family’s attorney to Quinnelly and copied to Winberg. “You are terrifying this young man, his siblings, and his family, causing them undo [sic] stress and mental anguish, and you are forcing them to live in fear. You are putting this young man’s future in jeopardy,” the letter read. The letter demanded that Quinnelly and Winberg stay away from the family and their property, stop slandering and harassing them, and not send anyone to enter and record on the Lacey property. The letter also made it clear that the family was planning on suing the two men.
While the cease-and-desist came from the Lacey family’s attorney, Saraland City Schools was the first to file a suit against Quinnelly and Winberg for defamation and sought a temporary restraining order. The lawsuit alleged that Quinnelly spread false claims about Saraland’s football program and a player’s eligibility.
Soon after, the Lacey family joined the suit. The counts in the family’s complaint included defamation, invasion of privacy, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and trespass. The complaint requested a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction enjoining Quinnelly and Winberg “from continuing to defame Plaintiffs, including their minor children.”
In response to the allegations that they still resided in the Daphne residence, the Lacey family argued that they ran a business, and only ran a business, out of that building. “There was not one night that we were spending in Daphne because our principal and our head football coach broke down the Bona Fide rule and let us know what we would be risking if we did, in fact, sleep in our home,” Whitney Sheldon later told the PI Board at Winberg’s professional hearing in Montgomery.
At this point, Winberg was stuck between a rock and a hard place. No doubt taken aback by the blowback of having his client send his investigative report to numerous news outlets, and facing pending litigation from two separate parties, Winberg signed an affidavit at the end of October 2022 in which he rejected any conclusions that the Laceys still lived at their old residence and attempted to qualify his earlier report.
“Recently, I became aware [the father] operated a dog kennel and breeding business at the Daphne residence,” Winberg said in the court document. “Based on my understanding of (the father’s) business operation, I cannot conclude he lived or resided at the Daphne residence during my company’s investigation.” He added that he could not, in fact “conclude [Mr. Lacey] was ever at the Daphne residence during the surveillance period for anything other than legitimate business purposes.”
Winberg also provided Saraland’s and the Lacey family’s attorneys with written proof that he had advised Quinnelly to abide by the cease-and-desist order. And apparently the AHSAA did end up looking at the allegations when rival Spanish Fort High School had asked the association to do so. The AHSAA Central Board of Control upheld executive director Alvin Briggs’ decision to clear the Saraland football team of any wrongdoing.
(story continues)
Litigation Continues
Winberg’s cooperation with the family’s and school district’s lawyers was not enough for the family, who continued to pursue their lawsuit against Winberg and Quinnelly. That cooperation also did not sit well with Quinnelly. After learning that Winberg had changed course and was cooperating with the plaintiffs, Quinnelly filed his own lawsuit, as well as a professional complaint, against his private investigator.
At the hearing on that complaint, Quinnelly insisted that Winberg knew they would be going to the media and that he had kept Winberg in the loop about it. Winberg replied at his hearing. “[I]t was my understanding that I would provide my investigative report to Mr. Quinnelly and then Mr. Quinnelly would then furnish the report to the Alabama High School Athletics Association … it would have to go through somebody like Coach King at Daphne High School or a principal or some board member. I knew that much.”
Quinnelly’s response was to call Winberg a liar. In the end, that wasn’t enough to convince Alabama’s professional licensing board to put Winberg out of business, but that offered scant relief to the PI, who remains a defendant in the family’s lawsuit. The case remains ongoing.
Lessons Learned
This case got messier at every turn, especially for the investigator, who found himself first under attack from the subjects of his investigation, and then under attack from his client. Entangled in a case driven by Quinnelly’s personal grievances, he had made his professional position precarious. Whether his findings held weight or not, the way they were gathered put him under scrutiny. To complicate matters further, he’d been compelled to correct his report, and seemingly acknowledge the innocence of the Lacey family early in the litigation. It’s the kind of scenario where the validity of the investigation became secondary to the controversy surrounding how it was pursued.
What are key takeaways from this tale?
First, the importance of indemnification. It’s essential, which is why we have talked about it in Working PI before. OREP’s Senior Underwriter Bryan Crosco, says: “You need a client indemnification clause in your client engagement letter where your client agrees to indemnify you and hold you harmless for litigation that you get pulled into because of the client’s use of your information and/or the dispute that the client is in. It is not uncommon for PIs to get pulled into litigation between two conflicting parties and if you weren’t deliberately negligent, a client indemnification clause offers you some protection.”
Next, you can “do everything right” and still get in trouble. Even if you only report on what you can see, you can still wind up getting sued. For instance, a subject could claim defamation or invasion of privacy, despite the investigator acting within the bounds of the law.
Another takeaway is to be careful about trespassing. Trespassing laws prohibit entry onto private property without permission, and investigators must conduct their work from public areas or locations where they have legal access.
Respecting private property (and trespassing laws) is critical for private investigators to comply with legal requirements, avoid criminal penalties, and maintain the integrity of their evidence-gathering process.
That’s why insurance is necessary. Most PIs can get $1M of coverage for $700 or less. Cases like this remind us that uncertainty is everywhere, and investigations are no exception. Private investigators should carry full liability insurance because even the most routine cases can take unexpected turns and unpredictable worst-case-scenarios can become reality.
Finally, and this can’t be stated strongly enough: You can choose your clients. Be careful how you do that. Ask them what they really want, and why they want it, and then ask yourself whether you’re okay with helping them get it. In some cases, it might be worthwhile to put that into your client engagement agreement.
Discernment, self-interest, and good protection can all go a long way toward smooth operation and the satisfaction of finishing up a good investigation for clients who are worth the effort.
Stay safe out there!
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.
