SPONSORED BY:

A Private Eye’s Legacy

 

Email To A Friend

Please fill in the following information and we'll email this link.

Separate multiple addresses with commas

SPONSORED BY
 

Few things in American law are as zealously protected as private conversations between individuals. While the Fourth Amendment prohibition against unreasonable search and seizures has been gradually watered down, eavesdropping on conversations is an exceptional step for law enforcement, and one that requires lengthy, time-consuming applications to courts—applications which typically can only be submitted only by top prosecutors or their designated deputies. As a result, in the entire United States, in 2007, there were a total of just 2,208 nonterrorism wiretaps ordered by federal and local courts.

Pellicano reportedly charged large fees for his services, and counted some of Hollywood's leading legal talent among his clients. Yet he chose to represent himself in court when charged with 110 violations of federal law. It was a gamble that did not, in the end, pay off, as last week's conviction attests.

Pellicano did not appear to have enough sophistication to intercept cell-phone communications, putting a major crimp in his conversation-interception abilities. But federal agents had trouble piercing some of Pellicano's encrypted information. The bureau sometimes tests the technological frontier in monitoring targets—in a New York mob case, for example, in which agents sent software remotely to cell phones so they could listen in surreptitiously on the phones' users and those in their vicinity. But it's an open question how many PIs are able to manage such feats.

Is more regulation needed to prevent another case like this one? Not in Pellicano's backyard; California has some of the most stringent rules for investigators in the country, requiring anyone seeking a license to log 6,000 hours of experience and successfully complete a written test. Most other states have some form of licensing requirements and background checks as well. But perhaps in the wake of the Pellicano verdict, police departments, state agencies and telecommunications companies will keep a tighter rein on illegitimate requests and do a better job of policing in-house leakers. The best way to prevent another investigator who is tempted to cross the line into unethical territory is to stanch the demand for illegally derived information—and throw the book at clients who seek it.

O'Donnell is a lecturer at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York City.

© 2008

Label

Newsweek Top Stories
Visions of a Decade
Visions of a Decade

From 2000-2009, one photo per month.

The Failure of Copenhagen
The Failure of Copenhagen

Why there could be a silver lining in a failed climate treaty.

Sex Scandals of the 2000s
Sex Scandals of the 2000s

From John Edwards to Mark Sanford, the decade's memorable affairs.

118 Days in Hell
118 Days in Hell

A NEWSWEEK journalist recounts his captivity in Iran.

Discuss

Sponsored by

Member Comments

  • Posted By: Self Styled Sleuth @ 05/27/2008 8:51:35 PM

    I stand corrected. Thanks for getting back. I apologize for the remark. It was in bad form. Won't happen again.

  • Posted By: confident2 @ 05/25/2008 10:31:00 AM

    I, for one, am a PI with a different perspective. People like this guy just adds to the "shady" name that PI's incur in this industry. I like to work in the child custody arena, legally. Drugs are everywhere and couples split everyday. And always, there's one parent taking small children into bad environments, now placing them in harm's way just so 1 person can hold control over the other using these small children. Then as these children age, they teach them to lie to protect their selfish, immoral acts. I try to always remember that most situations are immoral, not illegal. The children can't choose, so that's what I try to do. Offer them a voice so they can be heard. The adults are usually about themselves & just a moments pleasure. What this guy has done, he will be punished for. Shame on his tactics, but sadly, there are those PI's out there
    that will stoop to some pretty low levels to get that info. I have found that the laws are so strict, that it just pretty much shuts us (PI) out of gaining most information legally. This guy has just made my job harder. I'm not proud of that. BUT....I am proud of the fact that if I can just get 1 child out of a bad situation, then I'll take all the bad names most sling out there with the profession. BTW where I'm from, most folks can't afford that $125.00 fee mentioned earlier. And for the most part, Attorney's, once paid their blood money, see their clients just as clean as the driven snow. I'm not a fan of them. I, at least have the PREROGATIVE to choose to take on a client's situation or not. To me it's clearly about the situation & not the money. But yes, the money is an added bonus to help a child.

  • Posted By: sickofit08 @ 05/23/2008 4:03:02 PM

    Yes, SSS, there is one run on sentence and I did use an ellipsis. The use of an ellipsis actually indicates missing words or phrases which seem uneccessary to include. I admit, I did use the puctuation improperly in this context. I was going for more of a dramatic pause. Did you actually notice some of the other comments in this thread? I can actually take criticism when it comes to correcting my grammar. If you had an opinion about the topic, you should have also included it. THATTHATTHATTHATTHISANDTHAT.

Reply

Report Abuse

Enter comments if any for reporting abuse

My Take

Customize the NEWSWEEK homepage
to feature your favorite columnists.

Customize Now