Understanding Investigative Services
People who want to understand what the different investigative methods actually are — educational, not a sales page.
Guides are educational, not legal advice. Investigative services are provided under Frazier Forensics license.
Start Here
Investigation Is Not One Method. It Is a Series of Different Ways to Test a Factual Question.
Written for people who want to understand what the different investigative methods actually are — educational, not a sales page.
“Hire an investigator” sounds like a single action until somebody actually has to decide what the investigator should do. A witness interview, surveillance shift, field investigation, background investigation, locate, records search, and scene canvass can all be legitimate investigative work, but they do not answer the same question, produce the same kind of evidence, or carry the same limitations. Choosing the wrong method can produce a perfectly professional report that still does not answer the question the client actually needed resolved.
Washington law itself reflects how broad the profession is. A licensed private investigator may work through a licensed investigative agency on matters involving crime and related information; identity, conduct, credibility, activities, movements, whereabouts, affiliations and transactions; causes and responsibility for accidents, damage, losses and injuries; evidence intended for use before courts and other bodies; and the truth or falsity of statements or representations. That breadth describes the territory investigators may work inside, but it does not mean every investigative method can establish every fact within that territory.
The useful question is therefore not simply, “What can an investigator do?” It is, “What do I need to know, and which investigative method is capable of testing that particular question?”
If the question is where a person is now, a locate may be the starting point. If the question is what can actually be seen from a witness's claimed position, field investigation and scene work may matter more. If the question is what a witness remembers, an interview is required because a database cannot provide firsthand memory. If the question is what somebody does during a particular period, surveillance may be appropriate. If the question concerns historical litigation, businesses, licenses, ownership, filings, prior addresses, or other documented events, records research or a broader background investigation may be useful.
Complicated matters often require more than one.
A locate may identify a probable address, field investigation may verify that the subject actually appears connected to it, and a witness interview may then develop information about the event that prompted the locate in the first place. A scene canvass may identify a previously unknown witness, whose interview reveals a business camera, whose footage contradicts a statement already in the file. A records investigation may show that an address is historical rather than current, preventing surveillance from being conducted at the wrong residence. Investigation becomes stronger when methods cross-check one another instead of allowing one source to carry more certainty than it deserves.
The same discipline applies to negative findings. Surveillance during one eight-hour period showing no activity does not prove that an activity never occurs; a records search that finds no responsive public record does not establish that no underlying event occurred; a canvass in which nobody answers the door does not establish that there were no witnesses; and an interview in which a person says they do not remember something does not establish that the event did not happen. Each method produces information inside a defined observational window, source universe, or human perspective, which is why the limitations belong in the investigative conclusion rather than disappearing once the report is written.
Legal access also depends on the source and purpose rather than on the investigator's license alone. Washington regulates private investigation as a profession, but separate laws continue to govern private conversations, protected government information, consumer reports, motor-vehicle information, private property, and other restricted data. For example, Washington generally requires the consent of all participants before recording a private conversation or private telephone communication unless a statutory exception applies, while federal law restricts access to state motor-vehicle personal information to specified permissible uses.
The strongest investigation is therefore rarely the one that collects the most information. It is the one that matches the method to the question, preserves the source, verifies what needs verification, documents uncertainty, and stops short of claiming more than the evidence can actually establish.
The guides below break down the major investigative methods individually, including what each method is designed to answer, what it cannot establish on its own, and which other methods usually make it more useful.
Begin with these 8 guides.
Each guide opens to a preview below — read the two-paragraph intro, see what you'll learn, then open the full guide on its own page.
Methods Combine. Findings Should Converge.
The easiest way to misunderstand private investigation is to imagine that each method delivers a final answer independently, when most complicated cases are developed through convergence, with several sources or methods approaching the same factual question from different directions.
A witness says a vehicle came from the north, while a scene investigation establishes the witness had a clear northern sight line, surveillance video from a business captures a matching vehicle entering from that direction, records identify the vehicle, and a later interview develops who was driving. No single piece necessarily carries the entire conclusion, but together they produce a factual structure considerably stronger than any one source standing alone.
The reverse matters too. When methods conflict, the answer is not to choose the source that best fits the client's theory; the conflict becomes the next investigative question. A database lists one address while field investigation supports another. A witness remembers an incident at 9:00 p.m. while digital records place an important event at 8:17. A surveillance observation appears inconsistent with a prior statement. A scene photograph undermines a claimed vantage point. Those discrepancies are not failures of investigation.
They are often where the investigation finally becomes useful.
The method tells you where to look. The evidence determines what you can say after you looked.