In 1995, actor Kelsey Grammer found himself embroiled in serious and public allegations stemming from claims of inappropriate conduct with his daughter’s 15-year-old babysitter during a 1993 trip to New Jersey. The case was presented to a Somerset County grand jury, which ultimately declined to indict Grammer due to insufficient evidence and the delayed reporting of the incident. A parallel investigation occurred in Yavapai County, Arizona, but the prosecutor, recognizing the matter as an extortion attempt, chose not to present the case to a grand jury.
I was retained to investigate on Grammer’s behalf, working alongside his legal team, led by renowned Miami attorney Roy Black. Joining me was a recently retired special agent in charge of the FBI’s Los Angeles office. Out of respect, I won’t name him here, but our collaboration was both productive and enlightening.
While I managed the Arizona side of the investigation, my FBI colleague handled matters in New Jersey. At one point, he handed me his business card, which identified him as a “Retired FBI Agent” and “Investigative Consultant.” Curious about the latter title, I asked what it entailed. His response? “You don’t want to know.” Naturally, my curiosity grew. He eventually admitted that his use of “Investigative Consultant” stemmed from his struggles to pass the California Private Investigator licensing exam—he had failed it twice.
My Experience with the California PI Exam
A few years later, I decided to pursue my own California Private Investigator license. Remembering my esteemed colleague’s struggles, I prepared myself for potential failure. The exam, as I discovered, was challenging—but not because the questions were difficult. Instead, they were poorly worded, ambiguous, and sometimes outright nonsensical.
One multiple-choice question asked: Where are old newspaper articles kept? The options were:
1. Archives
2. The morgue
3. Public library
All three answers were technically correct, yet the test required only one “right” answer. This typified the exam’s frustrating nature. Despite these obstacles, I passed on my first attempt—though the process left much to be desired.
When my results were instantly graded, I was informed that I had passed. Curious about my performance, I asked for my score and the specific questions I missed. They refused to disclose either, leaving me to wonder if I had aced the test or merely scraped by. Shortly thereafter, my license arrived in the mail, accompanied by a gun permit.
Reflections on the PI Licensing Process
The FBI agent I worked with was also a licensed attorney and had risen to lead one of the largest FBI field offices in the country. His struggles with the exam underscored the test’s flawed design. Over time, I discovered that many highly qualified homicide detectives—veterans of major police departments—also carried “Investigative Consultant” business cards. They, too, had been unable to navigate California’s convoluted licensing process.
In California, there are just over 4,000 licensed private investigators. Most are employees who are not required to take the licensing exam. The test is reserved for “Qualified Managers,” those who own and operate investigative agencies. While the intention behind the exam is to ensure competency, its execution often deters even the most capable professionals.
A Call for Improvement
My experience with the California Private Investigator licensing exam revealed a system in need of reform. A test designed to evaluate investigative skills should be clear, fair, and relevant—not a frustrating exercise in deciphering ambiguous questions. Despite its flaws, I am proud to hold my license and continue serving clients with integrity and professionalism. Still, for the sake of future applicants, I hope the system evolves into something more reflective of the expertise it seeks to certify.
Comments