Artificial Intelligence, Privilege, and the Private Investigator: Why United States v. Heppner is a Watershed Moment for the Private Investigation Industry
As technology accelerates, the private investigation industry stands at the edge of a profound legal transformation. Artificial Intelligence (AI) has already fundamentally altered how information is gathered, analyzed, and reported. However, a dangerous assumption has persisted: that communications with generative AI tools can be treated with the same confidentiality as legal strategy discussions.
On February 17, 2026, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York issued a decisive Memorandum Opinion in United States v. Heppner, No. 25-cr-00503 (JSR), rejecting that assumption and reshaping the digital landscape for investigators and legal professionals alike.
The Heppner Decision: A Warning to the Profession
In Heppner, the defendant used the generative AI platform Claude to prepare written analyses for his defense strategy following a grand jury subpoena. His attorneys later argued these documents were protected by attorney-client privilege or the work product doctrine.
The Honorable Jed S. Rakoff rejected both claims. The court’s reasoning provides three critical takeaways:
1. AI Is Not an Attorney
Attorney-client privilege applies only to communications between a client and an attorney for the purpose of obtaining legal advice. Claude is not an attorney. The court emphasized that discussing legal issues with a non-human platform does not transform that platform into a privileged channel.
2. No Reasonable Expectation of Confidentiality
The court examined the platform’s privacy policy, noting that the AI developer collected user inputs to train models and reserved rights to disclose information to third parties. Consequently, the defendant had no reasonable expectation of confidentiality. For investigators, this means inputting case facts into a public AI is equivalent to sharing them with the public.
3. The Work Product Doctrine Has Limits
Because the AI documents were created by the defendant on his own initiative—not at the specific direction of counsel—they were not protected. The court concluded that generative AI’s novelty does not exempt it from longstanding privilege rules.
Why This Matters to Private Investigators
Private investigators frequently use AI to summarize discovery, analyze financial transactions, or conduct Open-Source Intelligence (OSINT). However, the Heppner decision draws a bright line: Using AI does not magically create privilege.
If an investigator inputs sensitive case facts into a public AI platform without direction from counsel, those materials may be discoverable. This has profound implications for:
- Civil Litigation & Criminal Defense
- Corporate Internal Investigations
- Regulatory Matters & Insurance Fraud
The Conflict International Approach: Methodology Over Convenience
At Conflict International, we believe the difference between protected and discoverable information lies in procedural precision. We recommend the following best practices:
Strict AI Use Protocols
- Never input client-sensitive data into public AI platforms without explicit attorney authorization.
- Audit the platform’s privacy policy to confirm if data is stored, reused, or shared.
Rigorous Engagement Structure
Privilege is not about labels; it is about structure. An investigator’s work becomes privileged only when:
- The investigator is retained by counsel.
- The work is performed at counsel’s specific direction.
- The work is intended to assist counsel in providing legal advice.
Data Governance
Control where investigative data is uploaded. Avoid unnecessary duplication across third-party platforms and maintain secure, localized storage practices.
AI is a Tool — Not a Shield
The most powerful statement in Heppner is that AI’s novelty does not exempt it from traditional legal doctrines. Investigators must anticipate that courts will scrutinize AI-assisted investigations with the same rigor as traditional methods.
Future cases will likely examine:
- Enterprise vs. Public AI systems.
- AI "hallucinations" and their evidentiary risks.
- AI embedded within law firm infrastructure.
Conclusion: Discipline in the Age of AI
United States v. Heppner is a wake-up call. Generative AI remains an invaluable tool for data analysis and research efficiency, but it must be used ethically and within a structured legal framework.
The investigative industry’s greatest protection has never been technology—it has always been process. Firms that understand privilege, structure engagements properly, and treat methodology as paramount will lead the profession. Those who prioritize innovation without discipline invite exposure.
About the Author
Matthew Spaier is the Senior VP of Business Development for Conflict International in New York, NY, and the Chairman of the Associated Licensed Detectives of New York State (ALDONYS).
For a confidential review of your investigative protocols or to discuss structured legal support, contact Matthew at [email protected] or visit our investigative services.