Lax Oversight for PIs and Security Guards In Ohio

Lax oversight of security guards by Ohio agency in charge?

Some in industry want more regulation

• By: Hagit Limor
• Produced by Phil Drechsler

CINCINNATI -

You see them at the malls, at your bank, most likely at your office. They’re security guards, there to watch over you. But who’s watching over them?

Some longtime security industry professionals say the state of Ohio has put off reforms for 20 years, even though some within the business itself are calling for greater regulation. While police officers undergo constant monitoring, security guards undergo background criminal checks only when they’re first hired by a security guard company. If they commit crimes after their hire, their company has no way of knowing unless it conducts its own checks. The state doesn’t require it to do so. “I’ve had employees with our company that had been with us for 40 years and the way the law is now, they get one background check,” said Gregg Hollenbaugh who owns Cal Crim Inc., a local security guard company.

          You wouldn’t expect a business owner to ask for greater regulation, but Hollenbaugh says it would keep people and businesses safer. An I-Team check found hundreds of cases of security guards in Ohio violating regulations, rules and laws. We found stories nationwide about security guards arrested for burglary, rape, assault and other crimes. Here in the Tri-State, police arrested Charles Conard, a security guard at Deveroes clothing store for selling drugs outside the store at the corner of McMillan and Gilbert. Police say he was packing his gun and a security guard badge during the sales.

         Hollenbaugh says not only does the state not require additional criminal checks after hire, allowing guards who commit crimes to skate under the radar, but it doesn’t require training of any guards unless they’re armed. Many are not, at least not officially. "I feel that the public has a misconception when they see a guard because they think that if you got somebody in uniform that they have some training and they know what they’re doing,” said Hollenbaugh. He says that’s not necessarily true and that can put the public in danger. Mike Brown Senior, a former Lincoln Heights police officer for 15 years, agrees. He now serves as a guard at a public library, working for Cal Crim. He says training is imperative for guards to know how to react to any situation. “I’m looking out for my safety and the company’s and the people out here, because you never know what might happen.”

       “You’re putting somebody out there that might not have any idea of what he’s supposed to be doing or what the laws are," said Hollenbaugh. He says that could put customers in danger and that’s why he’s been fighting for tougher regulation since 1991. He says every state department that’s been in charge of the security business has put off all suggestions to improve it. “For the life of me, I do not understand why they have dragged their feet so long. 'Why the state chooses not to do anything is beyond me.'” The Ohio agency currently in charge of oversight for security guards is Homeland Security, a division of the Department of Public Safety, or ODPS. We asked for an interview with its new director, but only received a statement from public information officer Lindsey Bohrer, saying: “We cannot speak on behalf of the previous administration as to why or why not things were done. We acknowledge the need to tighten security.”

       The department is backing legislation as part of the upcoming budget bill that would run all registered guards’ names through a criminal database constantly. Hollenbaugh says he’s not holding his breath, given that the budget bill will see serious cuts before it passes. He says Cal Crim runs its own background checks of its employees more often than the state requires, but without the force of law, he believes some of his competitors do not do the same. “If you do not have regulations somewhat, then people are going to take shortcuts,” said Hollenbaugh. While some businesses hire security guards through a service like Cal Crim, many hire guards directly. Any regulation the state puts in place would bypass these direct hires, over whom the state has no oversight. They do not have to register, get any training or even one background check.

>

GPS tracking of car without warrant contested

GPS tracking of car without warrant contested

Friday, January 21, 2011  12:11 PM

By John Futty

The Columbus Dispatch

Robbery defendants Montie E. Sullivan, 19, top, and David L. White, 23

Two men accused in a string of home-invasion robberies in Franklin County last year are trying to get the evidence thrown out because deputy sheriffs tracked them by placing a GPS device on their car without a warrant.

Ohio law on the issue is unclear, but recent court rulings don't bode well for the defendants, Montie E. Sullivan and David L. White. An Ohio appeals court has ruled that people driving on a public road should not expect privacy.

A judge in Fairfield County, where the last of the home invasions occurred, ruled in July that investigators didn't need a warrant to attach the GPS device to the car. The two men pleaded no contest in that case, and each was convicted and sentenced to prison. They are appealing the convictions, based largely on the GPS issue.

Sullivan and White are waging a similar legal battle in Franklin County, where they are charged in six home invasions and where the device was placed on the car.

Franklin County Common Pleas Judge Michael J. Holbrook heard oral arguments last week on the defense motion to suppress evidence. The judge asked attorneys on both sides to submit additional briefs by the end of the month. Trial dates for Sullivan, 19, and White, 23, are tentatively set in May.

Fairfield County Prosecutor David Landefeld said he hopes the judge in Franklin County follows the same reasoning as the Fairfield County judge. "The Franklin County judge is not bound by a decision by a common pleas judge in another county," Landefeld noted.

The highest courts in New York, Oregon and Washington have ruled that warrants are required when law officers want to track someone with GPS technology, but the Ohio Supreme Court hasn't considered the issue.

The most-recent appeals-court ruling in Ohio found that warrants aren't necessary. In November, the 12th District Court of Appeals upheld a lower-court decision that the Butler County sheriff's office didn't violate the constitutional rights of a suspected drug dealer whose movements were tracked with a GPS device placed on his van without a warrant.

"Law enforcement need not obtain a warrant to observe where a driver chooses to drive on public roads, nor do they need to obtain a warrant to observe via a GPS device where a driver chooses to drive," wrote Judge Robert E. Hendrickson.

That sentence also summarizes the position of the Fairfield County prosecutor in the case of Sullivan and White.

"If the sheriff's office had sufficient manpower, it could follow a car 24/7 without a warrant," Landefeld said. "In essence, you're doing with a GPS device what you could do with officers if not for manpower issues."

Joseph E. Scott, Sullivan's attorney in the Franklin County case, said the satellite-based tracking of his client for nine days without a warrant violated his Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches.

"Certainly, a person expects when they travel on public roadways that portions of their route might be observed by others," he wrote in his motion to suppress. "However, a reasonable person does not contemplate a comprehensive mapping of the totality of their movements, including the location of each stop and the duration of the trip, will be monitored and recorded around the clock for a period of nine days."

A Franklin County deputy placed the device on a car registered to Sullivan in a public parking lot on Jan. 14, 2010, after Sullivan and White were linked by investigators to a string of home invasions. The car's movements were monitored until an officer detected suspicious activity in the area of a Fairfield County residence on Jan. 23.

Within minutes, a resident reported a home invasion on Bickel Church Road. By the time Fairfield County deputies arrived, two gunmen had fled after firing through a side door and killing a Labrador retriever inside.

The GPS was used to track Sullivan and White to an apartment on the East Side of Columbus, where they were arrested.

Aaron Conrad, White's Fairfield County attorney, said deputies easily could have obtained a warrant for the GPS device. "All you need is probable cause," he said. "It's not a high burden. They are not hard to get. I don't know why they didn't."

The American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio agrees that use of GPS to track citizens without a warrant is a violation of the Fourth Amendment, said James Hardiman, the organization's legal director.

"The issue ultimately is going to have to be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court," he said. "It's a very slippery slope we're on. As we give up more and more of our rights, we take giant steps backward."

PO-PI Pleads Guilty to a Felony

The following is another example of an unlicensed individual operating as an unlicensed PI only in this case he's also a police officer. 

 

Akron police lose 20-year veteran after he pleads guilty to felony charge involving database

By Phil Trexler Beacon Journal staff writerPublished on Wednesday, Dec 22, 2010 

An Akron police officer, whose career started with an explosive high-speed crash, has ended with a few illegal strokes of a computer. Sgt. Gary Webb, a 20-year veteran of the Akron police force, has pleaded guilty to a felony charge that he improperly used a law enforcement database to investigate parents regarding residency requirements for Copley-Fairlawn schools.

He performed the work off-duty as a contracted private investigator for the suburban district.

Webb, 47, resigned from the department Friday in anticipation of his appearance in Summit County Common Pleas Court.

On Monday, Webb pleaded guilty to a fifth-degree felony and was given six months of probation by Judge Patricia A. Cosgrove.

His attorney and the department's union chief said the state law that forced Webb's departure, claimed the career of a good police officer who made an unwitting mistake. ''I don't think he had any intention of violating the law and it's a shame because the city of Akron is losing an exemplary officer,'' defense attorney Brian Pierce.

Police Chief Craig Gilbride said Tuesday that an investigation determined Webb was conducting private investigations for Copley schools. The work required him to determine whether some families lived in the district.

On occasion, that private work led to the sergeant's use of LEADS, a state law enforcement database, to check license plates of families claiming to reside in the Copley-Fairlawn district. He used department computers to conduct the work, the investigation showed.

Ohio law prohibits the use of the LEADS system for anything other than law enforcement purposes.

''It's sad,'' Gilbride said, ''but it's the law and we continue to police our own.''

Paul Hlynsky condemned the internal investigation that led to Webb's criminal charges, a conviction that leaves him with a felony record that cannot be expunged for three years. With the conviction, he is banned from carrying a firearm.

Webb is vested in the state pension system, but he did not serve the required 25 years for a full payment.

''I think the law that was created is overly harsh and provides no latitude for a reduction to a misdemeanor. It's a classic case of creating a bad law,'' Hlynsky said.

Webb joined the department in February 1990 and was the partner of patrolman Russ Long. The two officers in 1991 were involved in a high-speed chase that ended in a violent crash. Long was left paralyzed. Webb also was injured but eventually returned to the department. Long's name is attached to the department's annual ''Officer of the Year'' award given since 1996.

Hlynsky said the computer violation investigation allowed Webb to fall victim to a ''personal vendetta'' waged by ''a few'' higher-ranking officers in the department. He declined to name the officers, but he said the entire matter should have been conducted internally without felony charges being brought.

''I hope these people that did this to Gary examine themselves because what goes around, comes around,'' Hlynsky said. ''This is nothing but vengeance against a guy that didn't deserve it.''

Brian Poe, superintendent of Copley-Fairlawn schools, said Webb began working as a contractor with the district in September 2008. His work ended in February 2010, and he had been paid $3,790 for 95 hours of investigative work.

Residency violations have been an on-going problem in the Copley district. In several instances, families have been found living outside the district and as a result, parents have been sued for back tuition payments.

Poe could not say if Webb's work revealed any residency violators, but he said the district does not condone illegal activities while conducting the work.

Akron police conducted an internal investigation. The State Highway Patrol conducted a criminal investigation. The Ohio Attorney General's Office handled the prosecution.

---

Same Robber Different Mask

Same Robber Different Mask           

The Ohio Association of Security & Investigative Services was founded in 1947 and incorporated in 1954 as the Ohio Association of Private Detective Agencies, Inc., a not for profit Ohio corporation. The later name change came about as security companies applied for membership and representation in the organization.

Initially, those entities were licensed by the Ohio Department of Commerce under a 1792 enacted piece of legislation that became Ohio Revised Code No. 4749.  As with any licensing entity, their assigned task was to collect fees and regulate the industry.  They exceeded their expectations in the collection of fees but poorly failed at the regulation of the industry. They were so good at collecting fees that the industry overpaid the State of Ohio $1.4 million dollars in licensing fees. Because of this overpayment the industry was promised that licensing fees would never be raised.

            Three problems arose with Commerce from this overpayment issue. First, when asked by the industry to increase its regulation enforcement, the industry was told that there was a hiring freeze and they could not add additional personnel, even though there was a surplus. Secondly, when public records requests were forwarded to Commerce in an effort to view the accounting of the licensing fees and this surplus, it was repeatedly denied. And last but not least, when the Taft Administration had a budget shortfall, it “stole” $400,000 from the industry’s surplus and covertly moved it into the State’s General Fund. 

            Because of the industries frustration with the Department of Commerce, legislative action was taken to move the licensing and regulation of our industry to the Department of Public Safety, Division of Homeland Security.  This was a move that was forced upon Public Safety, who did not want to undertake the responsibility.  Part of that legislation included wording for a Governor’s advisory commission of industry professionals to advise those in Public Safety of the difficulties of operating a successful business in Ohio with outdated rules and regulations.  The commission was legislatively directed to be up and running in a year’s period.  Two years after the legislation passed, the legislation establishing the Advisory Commission was still not operational. It was not until the Chairman of the Senate Transportation Committee held up Public Safety legislation and directed the then Director of Public Safety explain to the committee why the commission had not yet been seated. In order to forward Public Safety’s legislation, the then sitting director relented and proceeded with the formation of said commission.

            It should be pointed out that at the time of the movement of the PI/ Security industry from Commerce to Public Safety, there remained $1,000,000 in what was then called the rotary funds. Public Safety reduced that by billing the industry $800,000 as the cost of the move from Commerce to Public Safety. Of note: the same 9 person panel, who issued licensed and investigated complaints, remained the same.

                       

As if the $800,000 movement fee was not enough, our industry was told that the computer system used for licensing our industry was a proprietary system that could not be transferred from Commerce to Public Safety so the industry was requested to cough up $395,000 for a new computer system. The system was acquired through a no-bid contract by the then Director of Public Safety through, a Tom Noe associate, and has never lived up to the bill of goods the industry was sold.  Since the remaining $200,000 in the rotary fund was not enough to cover the computer’s acquisition, the industry’s license holders agreed to a $25 yearly increase in fees.

For those of you who are unfamiliar with Ohio politics, Tom Noe, a lobbyist at the time of his demise, is currently serving time for bilking the State of Ohio out of millions of dollars. The deposed Governor of the State at that time pleaded guilty to lesser ethics violations.  

   All of the above was explained to the then incoming governor’s election team prior to taking office.  The industry was advised that the above abuse would be addressed by his administration.  We were later reassured by his legislative person that the revision of ORC 4749 was on his list of matters to be addressed.  Needless to say, that individual is no longer holds a staff position with the State and our industry continues to be abused on a daily bases. In fact, one of the members of the Commission recently made the public statement that, “We’re still being robbed by the same robber; he’s just wearing a different mask”.

            In regards to the abuse, the Governor’s first appointment to the Director of Public Safety, according to the State Inspector General, “ignored fraud and potential crimes for more than a year and failed to halt fraudulent activity.”  He was dismissed for said conduct.

            The Governor’s second appointment to Director of Public Safety fared no better, as she was given a vote of no confidence by the State Legislature, for lying to the State Inspector General. She was therefore not allowed to continue her appointment to said office. Interestingly though that during her reign as Director, one of her underlings, supposedly with the help of the department’s legal counsel, re-wrote ORC 4749, the legislation that governs the PI/ Security Industry.   It remains out there but is so self-serving and unconstitutional that it hopefully not see the light of day.

            Again, for those who are unfamiliar, the attorneys mentioned above come from the same staff of Public Safety that were either dismissed and/or convicted of lying to the Inspector General’s Office, attempting to set up the Inspector General by releasing confidential material, or illegally hacking into employee’s emails to search for alleged whistle blowers. Also of interest is the fact that a member of OASIS was approached by a lobbyist, who was related to the then Director of Public Safety, about representing them in fighting this purposed piece of trash the Department had forward as a revision to ORC 4749. A little lack of ethics, I believe, but then again, standard operating procedure for the State of Ohio.

Say It Isn't So Joe

                         While researching for my next blog I came across the following written by the late Joe Driscoll. No doubt Joe is rolling over in his grave as nothing has been done or accomplished since he was president of OASIS back in the early 90s. His thoughts are still germane even though no one is listening.

PI’s and Security: Wards of the State

By Joe Driscoll, OASIS Past President

Many years ago, I was employed by a state regulatory board and was involved in the day-to-day operations.  At that time, the board consisted of five members appointed by the governor – all of whom were peers of the licensed profession.  The board assistant attorney general, executive director and I attended board meetings and hearings.  While unanimity of the board was not always the norm, the board at least didn’t have to deal with members who may have had opposing professional agendas.  The profession was well represented by the board members’ experience, wisdom and ethics, maintaining a professional competence the public deserved and expected.  After all, protection of the public is the main reason state regulatory boards and commissions are in existence.  Thus, the public is not well served by interests in conflict with the mission of the licensed profession and its statutory requirements.  

Now this brings us to the idea that licensed private investigators and security officer providers be given their own state regulatory board or commission.  When it comes to important regulatory issues, no profession should be of the mindset that something is better than nothing when petitioning for a board because over the years private investigators and security officer providers have had to deal with a license law that gave us an advisory commission and ultimately a mindset that we cannot function without the guidance and control of law enforcement.  When any board or commission is dominated by outside forces then the profession it seemingly represents (or are these outside forces representing their own interests?) can no longer assure the public that decisions are based upon the licensees’ own professional experience, wisdom and ethics.  Having served on the state Private Investigator and Security Advisory Commission, I can say that even the best intentioned often times become incapacitated by outside self-interests resulting in a loss of direction and purpose that can turn the motivated into the inane.  Such opposing mixtures and agendas on any private or public board/commission will ultimately experience more time spent treating results than causes.

On or about 1990, I conducted my own survey into the composition of Ohio boards and commissions.  What’s not surprising is that there was majority peer representation on every board and commission I could find, that is, until I came to the Private Investigator and Security Advisory Commission.  The Advisory Commission consisted of eight (8) members, four of whom were private investigator and security peers.  Our combined industry never had a majority.  Private investigator representatives, on their own, were outnumbered three to one, and security representatives, on their own, were also outnumbered three to one.  Unprecedented!  Majority peer representation on boards and commissions is a tradition, and I’d say even a legal right, that should never be denied to those worthy of licensure.  And law enforcement domination and influence, as found on our old Advisory Commission, can easily be seen in very problematic sections of our license law.  Obviously the politicians didn’t believe that our Advisory Commission was worthy of existence, thus ending the tortuous politics.  What it should come down to is that if we, as an essential aid to business and the legal community, aren’t good enough to govern ourselves then we shouldn’t be worthy of licensure. 

Can a board dominated by outsiders ever meet the muster of traditional representation?  The idea that law enforcement on our board will procure some important political favors for us just doesn’t wash, as evidenced by our current jump-through-the-hoops law.  I don’t know of any other law that requires so much of its licensees.  The first step in our independence, which would lead to our own political influence, would be a peer-controlled regulatory board of competent and reputable businesspersons.  “We will only know who we are when we know who we aren’t”.  We aren’t law enforcement and we aren’t bureaucrats. We shouldn’t want these interests on our board any more than they would want us on any of their review boards.  Such a situation would be like dentists dominating the State Medical Board or the optical glass industry dominating the State Optometry Board.  These professions and our legislature wouldn’t stand for it.  So why should we?

Some years ago, I was in contact with the presidents of two out of state organizations representing PI’s and security.  We compared our state license laws, and I can say without a doubt that both were very surprised by a few of our sections of law.  One president commented, “Why did you allow that?”  Professionalism is gauged by knowledge, ability and merit.  If we wish to look professional in the eyes of the industry, public and our legislature, then we must take stands similar to what we did in the North Olmsted and Mansfield court cases.  Shining moments for OASIS.  Training and continuing education mandates for any licensed industry should be researched, debated and voted on by ethical and competent peers along with a representative of the public serving on our own regulatory board.  Since we have been suffering from our own lack of political clout, we should petition our politically connected clients, including their associations, for support in our legislative efforts.    

There are concerns about which state office we may wind up in should be have our own board.  A strong license law would extinguish those concerns by giving us self-governance.  Thus, our board and the executive director will be in charge and calling the shots according to law no matter where the offices are located.  With the right effort, we could have exclusive offices.  Before any of this can occur, we must convince the legislative and executive branches of government that such a board is worthy of existence and is self-sufficient.  After all the operational costs of running a board have been tallied, the balance sheet will have to show a profit for the state.  But first we must get out of the mindset that we can do little better than what we have been given in the past. 

English politician, social critic and historian Hilaire Belloc wrote in 1924, “We must make our opponents understand not only that they are wrong in their philosophy, not only ill-informed in their judgment of cause and effect, but out of touch with the past, which is ours.”  With that accomplished, the future can be ours.  When the time comes to take the big step, we will have to send a consistent message that we will do whatever it takes to be treated right and proper.  For decades we have been conditioned to think that others must govern us, so we must now think in terms that if we are going to end up with the same thing then nothing will be better than something.  Accepting just anything sends the wrong message, indicating a pattern of weakness.  Staying strong and united in our self-governing endeavor can only magnify the legal and political leverage we gain along the process.

The Injustices of it all or in Ohio Love Kills

The Injustices of it all or in Ohio love kills

            The written word on law enforcement injustice in Ohio usually comes from the pen of private investigator/ author Martin Yant, who has written three books regarding that issue: Rotten to the Core I & II and Tin Star Tyrants, but as a follow-up to my last blog, I would like to add my personal touch and an explanation as to why that is a continuing problem in Ohio. It is something that every private investigator investigating in Ohio should know.

            If I might refer back to my last blog, if you read it, Ohio is a local rule state with 88 county sheriffs and therefore, 88 princedoms each financed by their respective local taxpayers. The concept hasn’t changed much since the signing of the Magna Carta in 1215.  Interestingly, enough since some of the 88 princedoms are located in poverty areas, some of those counties regularly run out of funds to provide law enforcement and again, Ohio has no law enforcement entity to provide a backup plan when that happens. If you need a deputy during one of those times you’re just SOL.

            Since the princes of those princedoms rule their respective domains with an iron fist, they may not allow the state’s enforcement arm, the Ohio State Highway Patrol, to enter their respective county.

            Case in point: several years ago, we were called in, two years after the fact, to investigate a fatal automobile accident in which a Suzuki Samurai rolled over in one of those above counties where the OSP wasn’t welcome.  The deputy usually assigned to road duty that evening had marked off sick, so the Sheriff handed a jail deputy a gun, provided him a cruiser and sent him on his way. Remember again from my last article, it only takes 582 hours of training to be sworn law enforcement officer in Ohio; it takes even less to be a jail deputy.

            Anyway, two young lads, after a night of drinking, were southbound on a State Route, which is usually enforced by OSP, when the road came to a Z curve. Needless to say, the vehicle continued to precede straight, full speed ahead and flipped in to a water filled ditch, causing one of the two to drown.  Neither wore a seat belt and the survivor claimed he wasn’t the driver.

Where does a private investigator usually start such investigations?  They get a copy of the police report.  In this case, the report consisted of the two required pages and nothing else.  No measurements, no photographs, no interviews and no chemical test run on either the deceased or the uninjured individual; Ohio law enforcement at its finest.

            If that didn’t make you scratch your head, this will.  We were requested by a plaintiff’s firm to run down facts regarding a possible wrongful death matter in Southern Ohio. The facts were as follows: a 20 year old male, with the mentality of an eleven year old, fell in love with a 15 year old female. The two ran away together because the 15 year old female’s mother didn’t want their daughter associating with a 20 year old, mentally challenged individual. They made an official missing report to one of those previously mentioned princedoms.

            As the Sheriff’s Department investigation in the missing matter progressed a deputy observed the two walking hand in hand, walking a dog. When the deputy attempted to apprehend the two, one of the youths struck the deputy’s face, allegedly, with the chain that they were using to walk the dog. It caused a minor scratch, according to an eyewitness at the scene.  Of course that’s not the way it was put out over the airwaves. It was officer injured attempting to apprehend two desperadoes.

The chase was on and the two unarmed, they had dropped the dog chain, desperadoes ended up in an upstairs bedroom of a vacant house. Prior to their demise a deputy had stated to one of the family members that: “when we catch him, we’re going to beat the crap out of him”.  They never got the chance.

The vacant house, to which the two fled, was surrounded by law enforcement and subsequently burst into flames. The two youths perished in the blaze which was ruled a murder-suicide, even though there was no evidence of an accelerant ever found in or around the areas near the bodies, nor found on any articles of their clothing. In an effort to “find traces of accelerants, the State Fire Marshal ordered the house to be “washed down”, three times, thus making the alleged “accelerant” unidentifiable.

            Thus is the life for a PI investigating in Ohio.  Every year, for as long as I can remember, and I been at this for 40 plus years, one or more of Ohio’s dually elected Sheriffs is indicted for wrong-doing.  The Buckeye State Sheriff’s Association keeps continuing this political farce while the Ohio Highway Patrol runs as fast as possible away from the idea of become a state policing agency. Forget a public records search. You can try but there may not be any truthful records on file regarding the incident you’re investigating or they may be so inadequate that are totally useless.

            In the next blog we’ll address the licensing entity for Private Investigators in Ohio. If you think the above is mind boggling wait till you read about that.