NH State Police: Overreach Exposed

Introduction

Imagine making a simple public records request, expecting transparency, only to face delays, denials, and even a state police investigation. If this can happen to me – a professional with 20 years of experience in the investigative field (not private investigation) – it could happen to anyone. This is my story of how a misunderstanding of federal regulations and a malicious online complaint turned into a fight for transparency, accountability, and fairness.

A Simple Request Turned Complicated

In September 2024, I submitted a routine Right-to-Know request to the New Hampshire State Police under RSA 91-A, the state’s transparency law. My goal? To access records concerning 3 complaints made about me. I was initially assured the request would be straightforward during a phone call with the licensing division.

• September 30, 2024: Trooper Victor Muzzy acknowledged my request, stating I’d receive the records within ten days.

• October 18, 2024: Instead of providing the records, he requested an additional 30 days, offering no clear explanation. Previously, I was told it would be done quickly during my call and then 10 days.

• November 27, 2024: My request was denied altogether. The response was vague, citing “privacy concerns” without referencing specific legal exemptions as required under RSA 91-A:5.

In my opinion, these actions contradict the intent of the Right-to-Know Law, which mandates timely and transparent responses from public agencies.

The Investigation: Misguided and Misaligned

Around the same time, I was informed by Trooper Muzzy during a phone call that I was under investigation. The reason? My use of the term “recovery-based investigator” allegedly implied I was acting as an unlicensed private investigator. He also claimed not to know what a skip tracer is, what permissible purpose means and inferred that debt collectors can’t engage in skip tracing. Almost every single debt collector across the county engages in skip tracing. Additionally, I know of a few agencies in NH where skip tracing is their primary focus, such as it is with my agency.

What I Do and What the Law Says

• Skip Tracing Defined: Skip tracing is a type of investigation used to locate individuals and assets for debt recovery. It’s an industry standard governed by federal laws like the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). These laws, enforced by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), permit debt collectors to locate debtors and assets under a “permissible purpose” clause.
  
  
• Distinction from Private Investigation: Skip tracing is not private investigation. It doesn’t involve surveillance, evidence gathering, or legal casework—activities regulated by New Hampshire’s RSA 106-F. Debt collectors are exempt from these requirements when acting within the bounds of federal laws and the permissible purpose of collections.

In my view, the state police’s involvement reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the industry and their own jurisdiction.

How a Troll Sparked the Investigation

This entire ordeal began with a complaint filed by an online troll. This individual, a former collection agency owner who engaged in skip tracing—though in my opinion, often exceeded her permissible purpose—filed a complaint with the state police and publicly mocked my situation on social media. While I’ve chosen not to name her, her actions highlight how malicious intent can waste public resources and damage reputations.

Broader Implications for Transparency and Industry

The mishandling of my Right-to-Know request and the baseless investigation have far-reaching consequences:

• For Public Trust: When agencies can arbitrarily deny records requests, it undermines the public’s ability to hold them accountable.
• For the Debt Collection Industry: Misclassifying skip tracing as private investigation could disrupt legitimate businesses and jeopardize jobs.
• For Fair Governance: Allowing state police to overreach into federally regulated industries sets a dangerous precedent.

My Call for Accountability

I believe the New Hampshire State Police should take the following steps to address this situation:

1. Drop the Investigation: Recognize their lack of jurisdiction and end the baseless inquiry.
2. Fulfill My Right-to-Know Request: Comply with RSA 91-A by providing the records I requested.
3. Issue a Public Acknowledgment: Clarify the legal distinction between skip tracing and private investigation to prevent similar misunderstandings in the future.

Final Thoughts

With two decades in the industry, I’ve dedicated my career to educating others and operating within the law. This experience has shown me how crucial it is to demand accountability from public agencies. My case isn’t just about me—it’s about ensuring fairness for everyone.

If this story resonates with you, please share it. Transparency and fairness are rights we all deserve, and together, we can push for change.

Victor Muzzey questioned what I could possibly teach private investigators. To check out my investigative related courses, CLICK HERE.

YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/theskiptracerzone

Thanks for reading!

---

Addendum

On Dec 6, 2024, the NH State Police confirmed there is no longer an active investigation and my records request will move forward.

---

Relevant Laws and Regulations

Below are the specific laws and regulations referenced in this article, providing the legal foundation for the issues discussed:

1. New Hampshire Right-to-Know Law (RSA 91-A)
   • Purpose: Ensures public access to governmental records and promotes transparency and accountability.
   • Key Provisions:
     • Agencies must respond promptly to public records requests.
     • Any denial must cite specific statutory exemptions under RSA 91-A:5.
     • Arbitrary or excessive delays violate the law’s intent for timely transparency.
       
2. Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA)
   • Purpose: Establishes rules for ethical debt collection practices and protects consumers from abusive or misleading tactics.
   • Key Relevance:
     • Defines permissible activities for debt collectors, including skip tracing to locate individuals for recovery purposes.
     • Prohibits misrepresentation of a collector’s role, ensuring clarity in actions and communications.
       
3. Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA)
   • Purpose: Regulates access to consumer credit information and ensures it’s used only for legitimate purposes.
   • Key Relevance:
     • Authorizes debt collectors to access credit data under the “permissible purpose” clause for locating individuals tied to financial obligations.
     • Protects consumers while allowing lawful recovery actions tied to broken contracts.
       
4. New Hampshire Private Investigator Licensing Law (RSA 106-F)
   • Purpose: Governs private investigative work, requiring licensure for activities like surveillance or evidence gathering.
   • Key Relevance:
     • Does not apply to debt collectors performing skip tracing for recovery purposes.
     • Clearly separates federally governed activities, such as debt recovery, from private investigation.
       
5. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) Regulations
   • Purpose: Enforces federal consumer protection laws, including the FDCPA and FCRA, to ensure fair practices in the financial and debt collection industries.
   • Key Relevance:
     • Confirms skip tracing falls under federal oversight and permissible purpose, outside state police jurisdiction.