许可或不许可重新审查:根据国家私家侦探法规的数字审查员许可的最新报告

IF 0.6 Q4 COMPUTER SCIENCE, INFORMATION SYSTEMS
T. Lonardo, Alan I. Rea, D. White
{"title":"许可或不许可重新审查:根据国家私家侦探法规的数字审查员许可的最新报告","authors":"T. Lonardo, Alan I. Rea, D. White","doi":"10.15394/jdfsl.2022.1770","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In this update to the 2015 study, the authors examine US state statutes and regulations relating to licensing and enforcement of Digital Examiner functions under each State’s private investigator/detective statute. As with the prior studies, the authors find that very few state statutes explicitly distinguish between Private Investigators (PI) and Digital Examiners (DE), and when they do, they either explicitly require a license or exempt them from the licensing statute. As noted in the previous 2015 study, there is a minor trend in which some states are moving to exempt DE from PI licensing requirements. We examine this trend and look at some additional information in terms of exemptions, including those relating to practicing attorneys, employer/employee relationships, expert testimony, and penalties for violation of the PI statutes where it is believed a PI license is required. As with the previous studies (Lonardo et al., 2008, 2009, 2012, 2015), we reviewed all state statutes relating to PI licensing. Where statutory language did not explicitly address exemption or inclusion of Digital Examiners, we contacted the relevant state regulatory body (i.e., Secretary of State’s office, State Police, regulatory agency) to assess the applicability of Digital Examiners under the respective state statutes. Based on this statutory review and regulatory feedback, we present the various state approaches to professional Digital Examiner licensing. Our recommendation remains the same: states must differentiate between Private Investigator and Digital Examiner licensing requirements and oversight.","PeriodicalId":43224,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Digital Forensics Security and Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"To License or Not to License Reexamined: An Updated Report on Licensing of Digital Examiners Under State Private Investigator Statutes\",\"authors\":\"T. Lonardo, Alan I. Rea, D. White\",\"doi\":\"10.15394/jdfsl.2022.1770\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In this update to the 2015 study, the authors examine US state statutes and regulations relating to licensing and enforcement of Digital Examiner functions under each State’s private investigator/detective statute. As with the prior studies, the authors find that very few state statutes explicitly distinguish between Private Investigators (PI) and Digital Examiners (DE), and when they do, they either explicitly require a license or exempt them from the licensing statute. As noted in the previous 2015 study, there is a minor trend in which some states are moving to exempt DE from PI licensing requirements. We examine this trend and look at some additional information in terms of exemptions, including those relating to practicing attorneys, employer/employee relationships, expert testimony, and penalties for violation of the PI statutes where it is believed a PI license is required. As with the previous studies (Lonardo et al., 2008, 2009, 2012, 2015), we reviewed all state statutes relating to PI licensing. Where statutory language did not explicitly address exemption or inclusion of Digital Examiners, we contacted the relevant state regulatory body (i.e., Secretary of State’s office, State Police, regulatory agency) to assess the applicability of Digital Examiners under the respective state statutes. Based on this statutory review and regulatory feedback, we present the various state approaches to professional Digital Examiner licensing. Our recommendation remains the same: states must differentiate between Private Investigator and Digital Examiner licensing requirements and oversight.\",\"PeriodicalId\":43224,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Digital Forensics Security and Law\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Digital Forensics Security and Law\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.15394/jdfsl.2022.1770\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"COMPUTER SCIENCE, INFORMATION SYSTEMS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Digital Forensics Security and Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.15394/jdfsl.2022.1770","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"COMPUTER SCIENCE, INFORMATION SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在2015年研究的更新中,作者根据各州的私人调查员/侦探法规检查了与数字审查员的许可和执行职能相关的美国州法规和法规。与之前的研究一样,作者发现很少有州法规明确区分私家侦探(PI)和数字审查员(DE),当他们这样做时,他们要么明确要求获得许可,要么豁免许可法规。正如之前2015年的研究中所指出的,有一个小趋势是,一些州正在采取行动,将DE从PI许可要求中豁免。我们研究了这一趋势,并在豁免方面查看了一些额外的信息,包括与执业律师、雇主/雇员关系、专家证词有关的信息,以及违反PI法规的处罚,这些法规被认为需要PI许可证。与之前的研究一样(罗纳多等人,2008年,2009年,2012年,2015年),我们审查了所有与PI许可相关的州法规。如果法定语言没有明确规定豁免或包括数字审查员,我们联系了相关的州监管机构(即州务卿办公室、州警察、监管机构),以评估数字审查员在各自州法规下的适用性。基于这一法定审查和监管反馈,我们提出了不同州的专业数字审查员许可方法。我们的建议保持不变:各州必须区分私家侦探和数字审查员的许可要求和监督。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
To License or Not to License Reexamined: An Updated Report on Licensing of Digital Examiners Under State Private Investigator Statutes
In this update to the 2015 study, the authors examine US state statutes and regulations relating to licensing and enforcement of Digital Examiner functions under each State’s private investigator/detective statute. As with the prior studies, the authors find that very few state statutes explicitly distinguish between Private Investigators (PI) and Digital Examiners (DE), and when they do, they either explicitly require a license or exempt them from the licensing statute. As noted in the previous 2015 study, there is a minor trend in which some states are moving to exempt DE from PI licensing requirements. We examine this trend and look at some additional information in terms of exemptions, including those relating to practicing attorneys, employer/employee relationships, expert testimony, and penalties for violation of the PI statutes where it is believed a PI license is required. As with the previous studies (Lonardo et al., 2008, 2009, 2012, 2015), we reviewed all state statutes relating to PI licensing. Where statutory language did not explicitly address exemption or inclusion of Digital Examiners, we contacted the relevant state regulatory body (i.e., Secretary of State’s office, State Police, regulatory agency) to assess the applicability of Digital Examiners under the respective state statutes. Based on this statutory review and regulatory feedback, we present the various state approaches to professional Digital Examiner licensing. Our recommendation remains the same: states must differentiate between Private Investigator and Digital Examiner licensing requirements and oversight.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Digital Forensics Security and Law
Journal of Digital Forensics Security and Law COMPUTER SCIENCE, INFORMATION SYSTEMS-
自引率
0.00%
发文量
5
审稿时长
10 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信