Pandemic Darlings The pandemic economy, in original documents
Home Court filings Brooks v. Thomson Reuters Corporation Public version of Exhibit B-3 — Brooks v. Thomson Reuters Corporation (Dkt. 152.3)

Court filing

Public version of Exhibit B-3 — Brooks v. Thomson Reuters Corporation (Dkt. 152.3)

Filed January 26, 2023 in Brooks v. Thomson Reuters Corporation; one of 127 filings from this case.

Record facts

CourtU.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
Filed2023-01-26

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California · No. 3:21-cv-01418-EMC · Doc. 152-3 · 2023-01-26 · Docket on CourtListener

Full text

EXHIBIT B-3 
 
 
 
 
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC     Document 152-3     Filed 01/26/23     Page 1 of 3

WHITE PAPER 
How CLEAR helped track 
down a fugitive who owed 
$63,000 in unpaid child support 
One reason Thomson Reuters® CLEAR investigative software is so useful is that it pulls 
together disparate pieces of information about an individual — from financial records, court 
documents, vehicle registration, property records, utility payments, and other databases — to 
help investigators identify and locate people. It's not uncommon for users to make connections 
using CLEAR that would not otherwise be possible. Then again, sometimes the user finishes 
the investigative puzzle; CLEAR just provides the missing pieces. 
For example, many states have departments and officers who 
are responsible for locating the parents of children who have been 
abandoned, whose paternity needs to be confirmed, or whose child 
support payments are delinquent. In instances of child-support 
delinquency, when the amount in arrears is over $10,000, the 
offense is officially a felony. And when the delinquent parent is in 
another state, federal agents are often called upon to help locate 
the individual. 
CONNECTING THE DOTS 
In one recent case, a noncustodial parent in the upper Midwest 
owed $63,000 in back child support. 
Federal investigators had determined that the man was living in 
another state, and had traveled there to apprehend him. But when 
they arrived at the address where they thought he was staying, the 
man was nowhere to be found. Frustrated, the agents called a parent 
location official from the originating state to find cut if there was any 
other information available that might help them locate the parent. 
• THOMSON REUTERS® 
TR-BROOKS001564 
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC     Document 152-3     Filed 01/26/23     Page 2 of 3

"Time was of the essence. They had to find him, but they didn't know 
where to look," recalled the parent-location officer who took the call. 
An experienced CLEAR user, the officer ran a comprehensive 
report and scanned the results for possible clues to the parent's 
whereabouts. With the clock ticking and impatient feds waiting on 
the line, she searched for something — anything — that might lead 
investigators in the right direction. 
Nothing jumped out at first, but then the officer noticed 
something strange. 
"I noticed in one of the reports that the man had an adult son who 
lived in the same town," she says. "And vehicle-registration records 
indicated that the son owned a distinctive yellow truck with an even 
more distinctive set of personalized License plates" 
Over the phone, the officer read the information about the truck and 
its registration address directly from CLEAR to the investigators in 
the field. While she stayed on the line, she listened as federal agents 
for the Office of the Inspector General pulled up to the son's house, 
identified his truck, and knocked on the door. The tip paid off: The 
man they were looking for was inside the son's house. The agents 
promptly arrested him and brought him back to the originating state, 
where he was prosecuted for "gross child neglect" 
"That was a big win for us,' the parent-location officer explains. 
"We didn't get the $63,000 all at once, but we did get it" 
"Time was of the essence. They had 
to find him, but they didn't know 
where to look." 
CLEAR PROVIDES LEADS, CLUES 
For the parent-location officers in this particular state, most child-
support reclamations amount to a few thousand dollars. But with 
close to 2,000 open cases at any one time, and only three officers 
investigating them, CLEAR has become an essential tool for them. 
"Without it, especially those comprehensive reports, there's no way 
we'd be able to round up all that information," she insists. With 
CLEAR, her office is able to close 20 to 30 cases a month. Not all 
of them involve financial remuneration, but many do; and for the 
families that need and deserve that money, the capabilities of 
CLEAR are a necessity. 
"Address information is the key for us," the officer explains. "Once we 
get a verifiable address, we pass it on to the child-custody unit, and 
they take it from there" Dashboard alerts related to financial activity 
and arrest and incarceration data are also useful, and in cases where 
paternity must be established, models of personal records and 
various social and business interactions can provide leads. 
For this officer of the state, CLEAR 
provides both the tools and peace of 
mind she needs to do her job effectively. 
Locating people who do not want to be found can be extremely 
difficult, however. Since 2009, her office has been tracking a woman 
who is constantly on the move, and who, to date, has recorded 10 
different aliases. "Every time we think we've got a bead on her, she 
disappears again," the officer says. CLEAR provides dashboard alerts 
anytime one of the woman's aliases registers activity, but she has yet 
to be taken into custody. 
Such cases are the exception, however. More often than not, her 
office uses CLEAR on a daily basis to track down parents who have 
skipped out on their responsibilities, or to reunite kids caught in the 
social-service system with their parents. Sometimes, children in the 
system don't even know who their parents are, or if they are alive — 
and vice versa. CLEAR helps investigators identify and locate these 
estranged parties so that law-enforcement personnel can take the 
next appropriate steps, whatever they may be. 
Though her office utilizes other investigative tools, such as Accurint, 
"CLEAR is the one we use most," she insists. Not only is CLEAR more 
cost-effective, she says, "the comprehensive reports in CLEAR give 
us more information, and the interface is more user-friendly." Also, 
because she has hundreds of open cases to investigate at any given 
time, CLEAR helps her manage a higher volume of cases. "The alerts 
we are able to set up on specific individuals are a great help because 
with our caseloads we have a hard time checking on those hard-to-
find individuals as much as we would like" With CLEAR operating in 
the background, she can turn her attention to other cases, confident 
in the knowledge that nothing will slip through the cracks. 
For this officer of the state, CLEAR provides both the tools and peace 
of mind she needs to do her job effectively. Without it, the gears of 
justice would grind a little slower, she says, and in some cases might 
just grind to a halt. 
For more information about CLEAR and its ability to assist your clients with 
unpaid child support, visit us at tr.com/clear-family-service 
Thomson Rente¢,s not a room mer repnt,n] agency and none of it, sen,,res nr the data contained thereto rnnst,tnte a'rnnsnmer rep,rt' as s ich 
term is defined in :he Federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), 15 U.S.C. sec. 68 et seq. The data provided toyou may not be used asa factor 
nconsu
 debt sollectlon decls oning, establishing a consume's eligibility forcredit, insurance, employ men., government benefits, Cr housing, 
o
r
 
for any other purpose authorized under the FCRA. By accessing one of our services, you agree not to use the service or data for any purpose 
authorized under the FCRA orin relation to taking an adverse action relating :o a consumer application 
• THOMSON REUTERS® 
© 2021 Thomson Reuters S052502/7-21 
TR-BROOKS001565 
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC     Document 152-3     Filed 01/26/23     Page 3 of 3

File and source

File
gov.uscourts.cand.374304.152.3.pdf
Size
1,627,166 bytes
SHA-256
0cd152ec2012fe6c987b062b5a56c518e661ca25aa60ea7c1a6bd7ee327b00e7
Our copy
gov.uscourts.cand.374304.152.3.pdf
Original
PACER (login required)
Back to top