It's a scene that repeats in law offices across Spain: the lawyer has the case won on paper, but is missing the fact. The cohabitation they can't prove, the unfair competition they suspect, the fraudulent sick leave everyone talks about and no one can demonstrate.
It's one of the questions we hear most from HR departments and labor law firms: ‘We have an employee on sick leave and there are signs they’re carrying out activities incompatible with their condition. Can we hire a private investigator?’
In the first entry of this series we explained why a private investigator's report has full standing in our courts. But a more interesting question remains: what exactly is investigator evidence? A document? Testimony? An expert opinion?
Even today, clients arrive at our first meeting with a certain wariness: ‘Is this allowed?’, ‘Is it legal to investigate another person?’, ‘Will I be able to use what I find out afterward?’
Popular imagination can still give the impression that becoming a private investigator is a matter of buying a camera, launching a website, and starting to investigate. In Spain, exactly the opposite is true.
In the opening entry of this series we explained why a well-built investigator's report has full standing in court. Today we look at the other side: the actions that can turn an investigation into a procedural time bomb.
Every week someone calls a private investigation firm with a similar request: ‘I want to know everything about this person.’ A professional investigator's answer should always be the same: ‘What for?’ And then: ‘On what grounds?’
Few questions cause as much confusion as this one: can a private investigator record someone without their consent? The correct answer depends on who is recording, where, what is being captured, for what purpose, and what rights are at stake.
One of the first things that surprises anyone who has never worked with private investigators is this: an investigator has no obligation to identify themselves as such to the person under investigation.
It's a question compliance departments ask us more and more: if the GDPR requires informing people that their data is being processed, how can a private investigator look into someone without telling them?
There's a scene lawyers know all too well. The case is won. The judgment is favorable. The ruling becomes final. Enforcement begins. And then comes the question no one asked at the start: where are the assets?
For most of the last century, a photograph or a video arrived in a legal proceeding with an extraordinary psychological advantage: if it was recorded, it happened. Generative artificial intelligence has put an end to that comfort.
In July 2026, the Civil and Criminal Chamber of Madrid's High Court issued a ruling that deserves close reading by insurers, lawyers, and investigation firms.
Artificial intelligence has arrived in litigation. Tools now exist that can analyze thousands of rulings, detect patterns, compare precedents, and estimate the probability of certain outcomes.
Everything we've explained throughout this series comes down to a single object: the report. The investigator's license. Legitimate interest. The limits. Proportionality. The photographs. The videos. Traceability. The future testimony in court.
‘It's on the internet, so it can be used.’ Few phrases better sum up the legal misunderstanding of our time. Open-source investigation —OSINT— is today one of the most powerful tools in private investigation.
Método 3 was founded in 1985. That year, a Spanish private investigator practiced a profession with a long tradition, but one still resting on a regulatory framework far more fragile than today's.
When we explained how an employee on temporary disability is investigated, we set out one essential rule: it's not enough to photograph someone ‘doing things.’
Few recent cases have put Spain's criminal evidentiary system under greater public strain than the Alves case. A conviction by the Barcelona Provincial Court (February 2024, four and a half years in prison); a unanimous acquittal by Catalonia's High Court (March 28, 2025) for insufficient evidence; and, as of today, cassation appeals by the Prosecutor's Office and the private prosecution pending before the Supreme Court, which will have the final word.