To License or Not to License: An Examination of State Statutes Regarding Private Investigators and Digital Examiners

Lonardo, Thomas; White, Doug; Rea, Alan

doi:10.15394/jdfsl.2008.1046

Cited by 8 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Moreover, they argue that DEs and other similar technical investigative professions, such as penetration testers, should not be required to obtain a PI license (ABA, 2009). In our previous studies (Lonardo, White, & Rea, 2008, 2009 we reported that state legislatures appeared to be providing additional attention to this issue due to the controversy surrounding licensing. Since our last review in 2009, there has been some movement in those states who have reported that no license is required and those who report a license is required.…”

Section: Historical Backgroundmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…In our original paper (Lonardo et al, 2008), we examined how each state, as well as Washington DC, interpreted and implemented Digital Examiner licensing. We found that the licensing requirements can create a conflation between DE activities and PI licensing requirements that may be detrimental to both if not correctly interpreted and implemented.…”

Section: Addressing the Situationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In this paper, we update our original (Lonardo et al, 2008) study that provided the first set of responses from the state boards and discuss changes from our followup paper (Lonardo et al, 2009). We first review statutes for amendments and changes, analyze and interpret existing regulations, then discuss results of our third round of requests from state agencies for statute interpretations.…”

Section: Addressing the Situationmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

To License or Not To License Updated: An Examination of State Statutes Regarding Private Investigators and Digital Examiners

Lonardo¹,

White²,

Rea³

2012

JDFSL

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this update to the 2009 year's study, the authors examine statutes that regulate, license, and enforce investigative functions in each US state. After identification and review of Private Investigator licensing requirements, the authors find that very few state statutes explicitly differentiate between Private Investigators and Digital Examiners, but do see a trend of more states making some distinction. The authors contacted all state regulatory agencies where statutory language was not explicit, and as a result, set forth the various state approaches to professional Digital Examiner licensing. As was the case in the previous two iterations of this research, the authors conclude that states must differentiate between Private Journal of Digital Forensics, Security and Law, Vol. 7(3) 84Investigator and Digital Examiner licensing requirements and oversight.

show abstract

Section: Historical Backgroundmentioning

confidence: 98%

Section: Addressing the Situationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Addressing the Situationmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

To License or Not To License Updated: An Examination of State Statutes Regarding Private Investigators and Digital Examiners

Lonardo¹,

White²,

Rea³

2012

JDFSL

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Many researchers have approached the definition, but we will follow the definition put forth by Lonardo et al (2008) because it is used as a framework on which state statutes and other accrediting bodies have been analyzed:…”

Section: Defining Digital Forensic Examinersmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In this paper, we address current developments in the law relating to third party "consent to search" and the Fourth Amendment within the practice of Digital Forensics as defined by Lonardo, White, and Rea (2008). The various issues relating to third party consent are illustrated through various federal circuit court cases and the US Supreme Court and represent the challenges and issues of which one needs to be aware.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%