Quick Enquiry
Get a Quote

Usually, the subject of an investigation is interviewed after the complainant has already been interrogated. It is a sacrosanct rule for the investigator to treat the subject with respect and fairness, and in no way should convey the message or impression that he is guilty.

A person accused of misconduct is expected to be defensive; hence, the investigator must not give an impressive that he is “after” the subject. Nonetheless, the investigator should make it clear that authorities are taking the complaint seriously and they have a strong intention to conduct an impartial, comprehensive investigation.

    Ethical investigative interviews typically include the following questions:
  • What is your response to the allegations of misconduct?
  • Can you provide additional information that is relevant to the issue?
  • He or she presides over court room proceedings, ensures that order is maintained, gives instructions to the jury, determines whether the evidence is proper, and gives sentence.

  • Do you know anyone who may provide relevant information?
  • They are entities or people directly involved in a lawsuit; they are either plaintiffs or defendants.

  • Can you provide documentations or any other type of physical evidence regarding the incident?
  • The main task of jurorsis to decide which party is telling the truth.

  • Why do you think the complainant make false allegations? (Should the subject insist that the allegations are false.)
  • They record every thing being said and produce a transcript of the court roomproceedings. They may also be asked to produce electronic sound recordings.


The legality of recording teleconferences and calls may differ from state to state. However, most states law and the federal laws implement the one party consent, meaning there must be at least one person being recorded to agree even everyone else is not being notified. With one party consent, a person can record his own phone calls without letting others know about the recording of teleconferences and calls.

However, consent laws have some exceptions. For instance, the law enforcement with legal warrants can record conversations without notifying anyone, or conferences with investors can be recorded without their explicit consent because recording is mandatory.

Meanwhile, some states such as California require all party consent, meaning all the persons on the conference must be advised of the intent to record, and they must agree on it.It is important to note that the Federal law prohibits recording any conversation outside of one party consent, i.e., the person recording the teleconferences and calls is not part of the conversation. The “Wiretap Act” protects a person’s privacy in his communications with other people.


The Federal law allows recording of telephone conversations with the consent of at least one party. Most state laws also adopt this one party consent. A few states, meanwhile, require all party consent, meaning all people involved in the telephone conversations must be notified that they will be recorded and must give their consent.

Under a one party consent, any person can record telephone conversations provided that he is a party to the conversation. Meanwhile, anyone who records a conversation in which he is not in attendance violates the “Wiretap Act.” Most states have laws similar to or based on this Act.

The “Wiretap Act” protects the privacy of a person’s communications with other people. However, it has someexceptions—like when the law enforcement has legal warrants for wiretapping, no party has to be notified; or the recording of conferences with investors does not need consent because it is always mandatory.