Situation:
Our client was a mother of four young children, two boys and two girls, who was in the process of divorcing her controlling husband. She was 100% sure that he had bugged her residence, vehicles and cell phone.

Results:
We discovered that the client was indeed being monitored by her soon-to-be ex-husband, however the violation of her privacy was even worse that she anticipated. We detected and removed the devices to give her back her peace of mind.

Details:
The client had been married a little over thirteen years ago to her high school sweetheart and initially came to us as the wheels of her marriage had come off. Her husband was very controlling, and she was looking for guidance in selecting a family law attorney. As this is probably the single most important decision made by a person who is in the process of getting a divorce, she was wise in seeking assistance and we helped her select the best attorney for her situation. A few days later, we received a call from her stating she had this uneasy feeling about her residence. Her initial thought process was that her home was “bugged” and she wanted someone to check her residence, cars and cell phone.

We revisited the fact that her husband was a total control freak. She believed he was hell-bent on knowing who she was speaking with, both in her personal life and to gain the upper hand in regards to her strategy with her family law attorney. While our client was a well-educated woman not prone to exacerbation, we were somewhat hesitant to roll out all our equipment to perform the three-phase, two-day sweep of her home as this process is not inexpensive. We discussed options with the client, and having peace of mind and knowing her conversations were not being monitored was of paramount importance.

We performed the sweep while the children were at school, and no listening devices inside the home or connected to the phone lines. Her two vehicles and cell phone were also found to be clear. Unfortunately our technicians not only found a camera inside the bedroom, they found two. One was strategically placed in the bedroom armoire to capture any and all activity in the master bedroom bed. The second camera was found secreted in a lamp that was seldom touched by the client as she rarely turned on the light and, when she did, it was from a wall switch. This provided a recording of any sounds in the bedroom and a video of the top half of the bed.

In these situations, we then consult with the client, their attorney and the principal of the agency as to whether to leave the devices in or taken them out. While this may seem counter-intuitive, leaving them in would give the client the opportunity to make statements that are not entirely true so that her soon to be ex-husband makes decisions on erroneous information. The client chose to have them removed (as most do) to restore her privacy.