Got the Surveillance Blues

I have a bit of a complaint to make, Dear Reader, and it concerns one of my most beloved of activities.

Surveillance!

Now the complaint isn't really directed at anyone specfically, perhaps it is more of a disgruntlement towards the industry itself, or at least the general trends in regards to conducting surveillance operations.

Recently I canvassed a few other PIs around the world regarding their standard practices; typically, when conducting surveillance, how many operators did they routinely use?

Perhaps unsurprisingly, around a third stated they operated alone. Not necessarily because they wanted to but because this was the expectation of their clients.

And we're not talking about your standard douchebag client either, but insurance companies and the like. As far as they were concerned, surveillance on a mobile subject rarely needed to be more than a 1-person job.

Hmmmm. Really?

Granted, surveillance can be carried out by a lone operator, just like a single pilot can fly an Airbus A380 or one surgeon can carry out open heart surgery. However, the thing that all these activities have in common is that they are better performed, with greater liklihood of success, by a team.

Case in point, I did several days of surveillance for a business client recently where an employee was the subject of the investigation. The client wanted to know what their errant employee was up to since he wasn't staying on the job site. Knowing where the subject lived and his current worksite, and mindful of the client's nominal budget, I started out doing the job by myself.

I should have known better really.

Day One I started by positioning myself near the subject's residence. Some four uneventful hours later, the subject's vehicle departs and I follow him all the way into the city without any problems. Great! When we get to the worksite, the immediate problem is where to position myself as it is a small, quiet, cul-de-sac. I opt for the main road but, unfortunately, have to make a decision - will the subject depart towards or away from the city? I choose towards as the road is a main arterial route and traffic is ridiculously difficult to go against, and park-up accordingly.

Wrong choice.

Nope, after little more than 30 minutes on the job, the subject departs turning away from the city. Crap! By the time there is a gap in the traffic allowing me to do a U-turn, the subject is unsighted and there is a long (200 metres) queue of traffic between me and his last known position.

Naturally I drive around trying to reacquire the subject but it is a waste of time so call it quits for the day.

On Day Two I start by parking up at the end of the cul-de-sac, waiting for the subject to arrive at work. After a couple of hours waiting, there he is. Again, he spends less than an hour on-site before heading off again but this time I'm behind him as he turns toward the city. At the corner I give way to another vehicle which is now between us. No problem, a bit of cover is always useful.

But at the lights, which are yellow, the subject turns left instead of stopping. The car between us, however, decides not to go through the yellow light and comes to a halt with me stuck behind it. The subject is now out of sight.

By the time the lights changed (and that took a while as this is a major intersection) the subject was gone. Again, I drove a while trying to reacquire the subject but there were a number of possible main routes he could have taken (let alone the lesser) and I had no idea as to his possible destination. It certainly wasn't work-related. So I called it a day again.

Day Three I brought in Pedro. Having another set of eyes in another vehicle made all the difference in the world. Not only did we successfully follow the subject all day long, we also were able to 'bracket' him at one point where Pedro was in front of the subject, I was following. It could not have gone any smoother even with the subject's erratic behaviour where at one point we thought he was deliberately trying to shake us but we later realised that he was blythely unaware of our presence.

Lesson to be learnt is that there is so much more that can go wrong when trying to do a surveillance job by yourself. Yes, there were some particular circumstances that made this case a little more difficult (the area and traffic around the worksite) but I've yet to get a surveillance job where everything is 'perfect'. There are always going to be issues and difficulties you need to work around.

Now I don't mind doing a 1-person static surveillance (ie a 'stakeout') and once spent several weeks doing exactly that where there was no intention of going mobile.

Something else I found interesting was that there were several firms (notably UK-based) who did not conduct any surveillance with less than a 3-4 person team. If the client wasn't prepared to spring for a team, they'd turn the work down. One cited health and safety reasons (mainly safety) for not conducting surveillance singly - particularly when the subject may be conducting criminal activity.

Good point there!

Whereas our Australian cousins, on the other hand, mostly go it alone as a routine matter of course.

At the end of the day the clients set the budgets and the expectations. Many will see the stipulation for even a 2-person team as an attempt at price-gouging rather than an effort to maximise likelihood of success.

I don't know what the answer is but I suspect that the future will hold more of the same; tighter budgets, greater client expectations.