Federal Reference & Disclaimer

Federal statutes that govern private investigator activity across every U.S. jurisdiction, plus the universal legal disclaimer that accompanies this reference.

Legal Disclaimer & Limitations

This document is provided for general informational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice, and it is not a substitute for consultation with a licensed attorney in the relevant jurisdiction. Laws change frequently — both at the statutory and case-law level — and applicability turns on facts specific to each engagement.

Federal Statutes That Apply Nationwide

The following federal statutes apply uniformly across all U.S. jurisdictions and constitute the federal floor for investigative conduct. State laws may layer additional restrictions on top of these but cannot diminish them.

• Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) / Federal Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. §§2510–2522) — prohibits the interception of wire, oral, or electronic communications. Establishes the federal one-party-consent floor; states may impose all-party consent on top.
• Stored Communications Act (SCA) (18 U.S.C. §§2701–2712) — prohibits unauthorized access to stored electronic communications (e.g. email on a server). Frequently applied in cases of spouses accessing each other's webmail.
• Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) (18 U.S.C. §1030) — federal anti-hacking statute. Prohibits unauthorized access to "protected computers" (essentially any internet-connected computer). The Supreme Court in Van Buren v. United States (2021) narrowed the "exceeds authorized access" prong.
• Driver's Privacy Protection Act (DPPA) (18 U.S.C. §§2721–2725) — prohibits state DMVs and recipients of DMV data from disclosing personal information except for enumerated permissible purposes. PIs may receive DPPA-protected data for legitimate investigative purposes but must document the purpose.
• Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) (15 U.S.C. §1681 et seq.) — governs the dissemination and use of consumer credit information. Investigators conducting background checks must comply with FCRA's notice and consent requirements when their work falls within the statutory definition of a "consumer report."
• Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLBA) (15 U.S.C. §§6801–6809, 6821–6827) — prohibits pretexting to obtain financial information. Among the most aggressively enforced anti-pretexting provisions.
• Telephone Records and Privacy Protection Act (18 U.S.C. §1039) — criminalizes pretexting to obtain telephone records.
• Video Voyeurism Prevention Act (18 U.S.C. §1801) — criminalizes the capture of images of a person's private body parts in circumstances where the person had a reasonable expectation of privacy.
• Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) (15 U.S.C. §1692 et seq.) — when PI work touches collections, the FDCPA's restrictions on contact and disclosure apply.
• HIPAA (42 U.S.C. §1320d et seq.) — restricts access to protected health information. PIs cannot obtain medical records without proper authorization or subpoena.

Best Practices for All Jurisdictions

1. Default to the stricter rule — when an investigation crosses state lines, the strictest state's rules typically apply. A PI in a one-party state who records a call with a subject in an all-party state may face liability under the latter state's law.
2. Document permissible purpose — when accessing DPPA-, FCRA-, or GLBA-protected data, contemporaneously record the legitimate investigative purpose and retain that documentation with the case file.
3. Maintain chain of custody — for any digital evidence, hash the file at collection time, log every transfer, and store originals in tamper-evident systems. Most courts increasingly require chain-of-custody documentation for the admissibility of digital evidence.
4. Never pretext financial, medical, or telecom records — these are federal felonies regardless of state law.
5. Coordinate with counsel when in doubt — particularly for novel surveillance techniques (drones, IMSI catchers, biometric collection) and any time the investigation could become evidence in litigation.
6. Respect curtilage — even in jurisdictions where public surveillance is broadly permitted, the area immediately surrounding a home is constitutionally protected against intrusive observation.
7. Avoid stalking-statute exposure — most state stalking statutes turn on whether a reasonable person in the subject's position would feel fearful or harassed. Persistent, conspicuous surveillance can cross the line even when the underlying investigation is legitimate.