The truth about bugs, tracking, surveillance and more…

A bit of shop talk this week--or in other words: a quick piece of advice from (possibly) the only consulting detective that you know.

DON’T USE TRACKERS.

OR BUGS.

AND DON’T TRY TO CONDUCT SURVEILLANCE YOURSELF.

AND FINALLY: DON’T BELIEVE WHAT YOU SEE ON TV AND IN BOOKS.

I should probably stop there—as that is really all that needs to be said, but here are a few observations and facts.

First, trackers. And bugs. Very often we get approached with regard to surveillance, and the issue of trackers is brought up. Put bluntly, placing a tracker on a car that you do not yourself own is illegal. My view is primarily focused on Central Europe, but I cannot think of a single jurisdiction where that would be fair game.

And if you hire someone to place a tracker on a vehicle (in order to aid surveillance), understand the following:

• You are paying someone to commit a crime. This makes you an accomplice.
• Trackers make detectives lazy. They simply watch the route and then go out to check a location where a vehicle has been parked. You can imagine that they may just miss quite a few important events along they way.
• Trackers, actually, fall off of vehicles, run out of batteries, get discovered by mechanics, etc., and when guys try to place them they show up on CCTV. Imagine if you were caught on CCTV placing a tracker. Now imagine not knowing if you were caught on CCTV and, finally, imagine worrying about whether or not the police have been alerted, thus making you the subject of an investigation. Now imagine paying for that—and wondering if you are also soon going to wind up being the subject of an investigation.
• Bugs—i.e. listening devices—are the same. And even fair-game recording depends on your jurisdiction. In Poland, I can tape and record your conversation as a detective if I am actually in a conversation with you. In Canada (last I heard) if I am conducting surveillance on you, I cannot approach you and engage in conversation. And this all gets complicated when it comes to private property, public property, admissibility, etc. Make sure your investigator knows the game. And don’t be afraid to consult your lawyer along the way. A good detective should be able to run through the rules and laws quite clearly, however.
• Conducting surveillance by yourself just is not going to work. Surveillance is conducted with teams for a reason. Which is why it costs money. Or put it this way: streets in Europe are narrow and clogged with traffic. If you are conducting surveillance yourself (apart from the fact that you may be recognized), all it takes is someone who doesn’t know how to parallel park or a red light and the subject is gone. And even with a team, it pays to understand that on some days a subject may simply no be active. He may be home sick. He may decided to take the day off. Maybe he’s actually out of town. If you need surveillance, don’t blow it thinking it will be cheap and easy. It’s not.

Finally, from time to time—the rare moments that I actually get a break—I wander into bookstores, and invariably I am drawn to the detective fiction section. It’s a bit of a vice, as I like the style of writing, but I rarely come across anything realistic. And yes, I mean anything.

In short, books or films starring private detectives include a lot of cheating—as in detectives get stumped so they break into a house or office, break into a car, use illegal surveillance, etc.

Fun to read, but it’s just not accurate (or certainly shouldn’t be). Likewise, no, when it comes to the cops, it’s not all forensics and DNA. Talk to actual police officers and get their take on this. Yes, DNA evidence does solve crimes, but not as many as you think.

Have doubts? Here is another quote straight from Wikipedia: “As of December 2023, the use of this technology has solved a total of 651 criminal cases, including 318 individual perpetrators who were brought to light.”

That is in the US where, according to the CSG Center Accountability Project, as single year can see “no one arrested, charged, and referred for prosecution in over 800,000 violent crimes, including an estimated 10,000 homicides, 525,000 aggravated assaults, 169,000 robberies, and 98,000 rapes.” [Ed. note--these stats do seem accurate, as, for example, total homicides published for 2021, for example, came to approx. 24,000, and police actually due clear approximately between 50-55 percent of homicide and criminal manslaughter cases annually].

The reality is that DNA/forensics work is expensive, and that it is often best used to rule out a potential perpetrator. Why? The vast majority of the world’s population (and yes, this includes that of the US) simply is not in any kind of workable DNA database.

Which means that even the police do most of their work the hard way. As in through boots-on-the-ground site investigation; interviews with witnesses, interrogation (and obviously, it helps to have a warrant) and through the cross-referencing of those in databases for past crimes. And even when surveillance comes into play, typically they are in for the long haul.

It's just the way it is. Whether the case comes down to diverted monies or a spouse-on-the-cheat, investigating a subject takes time, teamwork and money. Shortcuts may be attractive, but they are typically illegal, and if not, they may likely burn any chances of future success.

Preston Smith is a licensed investigator based in Gdansk, Poland. He can be reached at query@cddi.pl.

Photo credit: still from the American drama film Sherlock Holmes (1922) with John Barrymore, on page 41 of the May 13, 1922 Exhibitors Herald.Goldwyn Pictures, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons.