  |
 SURVEILLANCE Surveillance investigations are central to the operations of many private investigation agencies. Surveillance may be overt or covert, mobile or static and may involve various technical applications including photography, tape or digital recorders, motion activated sensors and cameras as well as GPS tracking devices. In Canada, although subject to some debate, it is generally accepted that a private investigator conducts surveillance on behalf of or as the 'agent' of a client according to the principles and law of agency and, furthermore, the collection, use and disclosure of information without the consent of an individual is clearly contemplated by and permissible pursuant to various exemptions defined within the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, S.C. (PIPEDA). Yet, while surveillance may be a necessary - indeed unavoidable - investigation tactic in certain circumstances, surveillance is neither a necessary nor a prudent financial choice in many situations. Internet research, confidential sources and sophisticated pretext telephone and other contacts are often able to confirm information more quickly and financially more economically than is possible through the assignment of traditional surveillance assets, particularly at a distance where travel time, hourly rates and distance charges (kilometres/miles) can render surveillance investigations financially unjustifiable. The basic philosophy of Internal Affairs in relation to this issue is that there should be surveillance if necessary, but not necessarily surveillance. Where physical surveillance appears prudent and unavoidable, however, apart from certain corporate or well-to-do individuals, the average private client usually finds it financially awkward to fund the assignment of more than one surveillance agent to an investigation despite the fact that hourly rates for each surveillance agent are normally less than one third the amount which must be paid for even a junior legal counsel and may be the only method available to gather relevant information critical to the resolution of a civil or criminal litigation. It is wise, however, for a client who is faced with the necessity of a surveillance investigation to give serious consideration to funding the assignment of a least two, and, if possible, three surveillance agents to matter requiring physical surveillance to improve the odds of success by providing additional alternatives to the inevitable challenges posed by the realities of surveillance work that simply cannot be easily overcome by one field agent. A single experienced agent certainly can conduct surveillance operations successfully given sufficient time through repeated opportunities, but is more likely to encounter challenges necessitating the termination of surveillance activity on more occasions than will a number of agents working together as a surveillance team. (Internal Affairs is open to adjusting fees where the assignment of more than one surveillance agent at the normal hourly rate imposes too great a financial burden.) Not only is surveillance - particularly mobile surveillance - replete with practical challenges, but surveillance agents must conduct their activities in such a way that they do not violate existing criminal and other legislation. For example, in Canada, surveillance agents must avoid behaving in ways that may violate legislation found in the Criminal Code of Canada including Criminal Harassment (stalking), Intimidation, Watching and Besetting, Mischief, Trespass by Night, Criminal Negligence or Dangerous Driving. Similar legislation in other jurisdictions is likely to exist and impose similar potential liability for violation of local statutes. A person contemplating conducting their own surveillance investigation must be aware of the potential risks they - as amateurs - are taking by undertaking this activity without a clear understanding of the legal ramifications of their conduct and without the objective emotional detachment of a professional investigator. Finally, it is important that a client not have unrealistic expectations with respect to surveillance activity. Unfortunately, television and movie portrayals of surveillance operations create impressions and expectations that are usually not fairly or realistically applicable to real-life, real-time situations. A surveillance investigator is not movie director and can only observe and record what might happen when and if it happens. A surveillance investigator cannot cause an event to occur at a particular time, in the most favourable location, under ideal conditions or necessarily within the budget limitations desired by the client. A client is well advised to appreciate that there are a myriad of circumstances that can negatively impact surveillance operations including unanticipated mechanical breakdown, weather and traffic conditions. The client is wise to fairly consider the advice of experienced professional investigators, develop realistic expectations and come to a mature appreciation of the true nature and cost of a surveillance based investigation.  HOME PAGE • INTRODUCTION • INFORMATION • BIOGRAPHY • SERVICES • ASSET INVESTIGATION • FEES • HIRING A PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR • PRIVACY POLICY • CONTACT US • LINKS
Canada Background Investigations
|
 |
 |
||