BEFORE THE DIRECTOR

DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS

FOR THE BUREAU OF SECURITY AND INVESTIGATIVE SERVICES

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

In the Matter of the First Amended Accusation   )   

Against:                                                                )     Case No. Al 2008 1567

                                                                              )

SCOTT J. SHAW                                                 )    OAH No. 2010011215

d.b.a.  FINANCIAL CRIME                               )

INVESTIGATION SERVICE,                            )

                                                                              )

Private Investigator License No. P1-25077          )

                                                                              )

                                              Respondent.            )

_______________________________________)

                                                                DECISION

         Thy attached Proposed Decision of the Administrative Law Judge is hereby accepted and adopted by the Director of Consumer Affairs as the Decision in the above-entitled matter, except that, pursuant to Government Code section 1151 7(c)(2)(C), the typographical error on page 15, Order, the third line of paragraph 8, of the Proposed Decision is corrected as follows:

The phrase “$2,500/5,000.00” is corrected to read “$5,000.00”

This Decision shall become effective October 23, 2010

           IT IS SO ORDERED this 14^th day of September, 2010.

                                                                                    DOREATHEA JOHNS0N

       Deputy Director, Legal Affairs

                                                                             Department of Consumer Affairs

Based on the foregoing findings of fact, the Administrative Law Judge makes the following determination of issues:

CONCLUSIONS_OF LAW

1.         First Cause For Discipline - Grounds exist to revoke or suspend respondent’s private investigator license pursuant to Business and Professions Code section 7561.1, subdivision (b), in that respondent used title pages to his investigative reports, a title, and business identification card with the intent to give an impression that he was connected with the federal government in violation of Business and Professions Code section 7359, subdivision (e), based on Findings 9 and 21 above,

2.         Second Cause for Discipline - Grounds do not exist to revoke or suspend respondent’s private investigator license pursuant to Business and Professions Code sections 7561.3, subdivision (a), in that it was not established that respondent used a letterhead, cover page, or other printed matter in a manner so as to represent that he was an instrumentality of the federal government, based on Finding 11 above,

3.        Third Cause for Discipline  -  Grounds exist to revoke or suspend respondents private investigator license pursuant to Business and Professions Code section 1561.1, subdivision (b), in that respondent submitted a written report to his client in which he failed to exercise diligence in ascertaining whether or not the facts and information about a subject of his investigation were true and correct in violation of Business and Professions Code section 7359, subdivision (c), as set forth in Finding 17 above.

4.        Fifth Cause for Discipline  -  Grounds do not exist to revoke or suspend respondent’s private investigator license pursuant to Business and Professions Code section 7561.4, in that it was not established that respondent committed any act or acts of dishonesty or fraud in the course of his business as a private investigator, based on Finding 23 above.

5.        Costs Reimbursement  -  Grounds exist to direct respondent to pay a sum not to exceed the reasonable costs of the investigation and enforcement of this matter under Business and Professions Code section 125.3 for having violated provisions of the Private Investigator Act, as set forth in Conclusions of Law 1 - 3 above. 

However, the costs of prosecution, as set forth in Finding 26 above, are excessive based on the breadth and cost of the Bureau’s investigation and the allegations of the First Amended Accusation that were established in this matter. Accordingly, the

12

reasonable costs of investigation and enforcement should be reduced and are deemed to be $5,000.00.

6.         Discussion  -  Here complainant proved that respondent violated provisions of the Private Investigator Act in connection with his investigation of a family law or child custody case in the fall of 2006. He used the title pages of his investigative reports and his self-appointed title of special agent and his business card to give the impression that he was connected with the government and failed to exercise diligence in ascertaining facts for his initial investigative report. Respondent did not show any particular remorse for his violations and did not admit that he did anything wrong in his investigation of the Copelands but it was precisely his failures to comply with the letter and spirit of the law that led not only to his becoming too involved in the child custody dispute of his client but also to the filing of the complaint against him.

First, due perhaps to his haste and willingness to find fault with the Copelands in order to please his client as well as lax investigative practices, respondent did not exercise diligence in investigating Beverly Copeland’s background. He reported that she had been a defendant in two federal criminal cases in Texas without having received the certified court records or fully researched and compared the identifying markers to confirm his conclusion that she was a defendant in the Texas cases. When the Copelands obtained his reports, it can be safely assumed that they were none too pleased to read respondent’s statements and conclusions about Beverly Copeland.

Second, respondent interviewed Bricker in his follow-up investigation and was able to obtain information from her about Alan Copeland’s business dealings. In starting his interview, respondent identified himself as and used the title of special agent, giving Bricker the impression that he was affiliated with the federal government.  When Bricker later realized that respondent was not a federal agent and discussed the interview and her disclosures with Alan Copeland and Sara Copeland and their counsel, Bricker and the Copelands focused on respondent’s investigative reports and hired their own private investigators to check into his background and investigative practices. Eventually, the Copelands and their investigators found reason to criticize respondent’s investigation and reports and to file a complaint against him with the Bureau.

Nevertheless, despite his lack of insight into his violations and his exhortations that he did nothing wrong, respondent has changed his private investigative business practices.  After speaking with the Bureau’s representative, he stopped using the title of special agent and removed the state seal and Bureau logo from the title pages of his reports and from his business stationary and website. Two attorneys and a supervising special agent for the National Insurance Crime Bureau testified in support of respondent and it can be implied from their appearances and because they have hired respondent to work as an investigator and as a licensed private investigator that these witnesses attest to respondent’s professionalism. It is also observed that

13

respondent committed his violations in this matter soon after he was first licensed by the Bureau and hopefully will reflect upon and learn from his actions.  As such, public welfare and safety will not be compromised if respondent is given a second chance and allowed to continue as a licensed private investigator while under probation.

* * * * * * *

Wherefore, the following Order is hereby made:

ORDER

Private investigator license no. P1-25077 and licensing rights previously issued

to respondent Scott J. Shaw, doing business as and the qualifying manager of Financial Crime Investigation Service, shall he suspended for 60 days, based on Conclusions of Laws 1, 3, and 6 above, jointly and for all; provided, however, said order of suspension will be stayed and respondent shall be placed on probation for two years under the following terms and conditions of probation:

1.         Obey All Laws  -  Respondent shall obey all federal, state and local laws, and all rules and regulations governing the programs regulated by the bureau.

2.         Quarterly Reports  - Respondent shall submit quarterly declarations under penalty of perjury, in a format designated by the bureau, stating whether or not respondent has been in compliance with all the conditions of probation.  Respondent shall also submit such additional written reports and verifications of actions requested by the bureau.  Should the final probation report not be made as directed, the period of probation shall be extended until such time as the final report is made,

3.        Interview with Bureau Representative  -  As necessary, respondent shall appear in person for scheduled interviews with the bureau chief or other designated representative for the purpose of monitoring compliance with the terms of this decision.

          4.          Out-of-State Residence or Operation  -  Should respondent leave

California to reside or operate outside this state, respondent must notify the bureau in writing of the dates of departure and return. Reporting in person may be waived if the

respondent moves out of the state.  However, respondent shall continue compliance with other terms of probation to retain California licensure.  Periods of residency.

14

business operation or employment outside California shall not reduce the probationary period,

            5.         Completion of Probation  -  Upon successful completion of probation,

respondent’s license will be fully restored.

            6.         Violation of Probation  -  Should respondent violate probation in any respect, the director of the Department of Consumer Affairs, after giving respondent notice and an opportunity to be heard, may revoke probation and carry out the disciplinary order which was stayed.  If an Accusation or Petition to Revoke Probation is filed against respondent during probation, the bureau shall have continuing jurisdiction until the mutter is final, and the probation shall be extended until the matter is final.

            7.         License Issued During Probation  -  Any license or registration issued to

respondent by the bureau during the period of probation shall be issued as a probationary license or registration and is subject to all the terms and conditions set forth herein. Respondent must comply with terms and conditions herein and demonstrate no cause for disciplinary action or denial of an application,

            8.         Reimbursement of Costs  -  Respondent shall reimburse the Bureau for

its reasonable costs incurred while investigating and/or prosecuting this matter, which is $2,500/5,000.00. Respondent may pay these costs during the term of his probation.

9.        Notification to Clients  -  Upon the revocation of his license, the stay of revocation, and the placing of his license on probation, respondent shall mail a notice of this Decision and Order to existing clients by registered or certified mail, on or before the effective date of this Decision and Order, and provide prospective clients with a copy of this Decision and Order before rendering services. Upon request, respondent shall provide the Bureau with proof of service of a copy of this Decision and Order to prospective clients.

          10.         Provision of Records  -  Respondent shall, upon request of the Bureau,

provide specific records, including, but not limited to, the cover page of any investigation reports, for Bureau inspection.

Dated:  August 19, 2010

Vincent Nafarrete

Administrative Law Judge

Office of Administrative Hearings

15