Our report on Carfax focused on the reliability of the well known vehicle history service.

But there's another related issue that's very important for buyers and sellers of used cars -- who is responsible for disclosing damages in a car that's up for sale?

Our story featured the case of Stephanie and Matthew Gehrs of Festus. Last December, they purchased a 2005 Jeep Liberty with 18,000 miles on the odometer. They bought their Jeep after seeing a Carfax vehicle history report showed no serious damage issues with the car.

They would soon learn that Carfax report was wrong.

After a minor accident in February, the Gehrs took their car to a dealer recommended by their insurance agent for repairs. The dealer discovered substantial twisting in the car's frame, indicative of a serious accident at some time in the past.

A little luck and some smart detective work on Matt Gehrs part led him to the Jeep's previous owner. She told him how she ran the car into a bridge pillar on Interstate 70 in North St. Louis County in the summer of 2007 -- just months before it was sold to the Gehrs.

So how did that 2007 accident not show up on the Carfax vehicle history?

The previous owner, who was leasing the car, was able to drive it home after the accident. At that point, the leasing company repossessed the vehicle and sold it at auction. A dealer purchased it and sold it to Matt and Stephanie Gehrs.

It's not clear who repaired the damage but what is clear is that all this took place without a police report ever being filed or an insurance claim being filed. In other words, there is no record -- at least no public record -- of the 2007 accident, the damages or the subsequent repairs. That's why the accident and the damage is not on the Carfax vehicle history for the Gehrs' Jeep.

A Carfax spokesperson was quite emphatic in stating to the obvious... that Carfax can not report information that doesn't exist. By the way, Carfax does not get any records from insurance companies.

Who's Responsible?

So, in cases like this, who is responsible for disclosing damage like this to a potential seller?

David Griffith, the public information officer for the Missouri Department of Revenue has a simple answer. The responsibility lies with the seller. And that applies whether the car is being sold by a licensed dealer or a private individual.

So if you take out an ad in the local paper, or stick a "for sale" sign in your car window, then you are required to tell the buyer if you know of any accidents or other conditions that may negatively impact the performance of that car. While previous accidents are the most common example, our recent flooding suggests another scenario that bears mentioning. It is not unheard of for flood cars to be cleaned up and dried out to such an extent that the water damage is not immediately detectable. But of course, flood damage is a serious issue and as such must be disclosed.

And it doesn't have to be serious damage. Griffith points out that if a potential buyer asks if a smoker used the car, then you have to disclose that.

Weak Laws?

So the law is clear. Unfortunately for consumers, it is weak.

Griffith says violations of the disclosure requirements are not criminal offenses. So consumers who discover undisclosed problems after purchasing a car have to seek remedies on their own and at their own expense.

And soon, it could be much harder for Missouri consumers to take any kind of court action in cases like this. A bill recently passed by Missouri legislators would make it harder to sue some dealers for selling cars with undisclosed damages.

Supporters of the bill say it protects both dealers and consumers, but critics say it serves only to shield dealers from legitimate suits.

The bill is awaiting Governor Matt Blunt's signature.

News 4 Investigates producer Steve Perron contributed to this edition of the Daily Briefing.

Comments (0)

---

It's scary to think that when your back is turned that someone could download a program to your cell phone that allows them to keep track of all your calls, emails and text messages. The Flexispy software that we tested, also brags that it's capable of turning on the microphone of the targeted cell phone to use it like a hidden microphone and can even allow you to listen to calls as they're being made.



You'll have to pay around $380 dollars for the software version with all of the features.

But if you buy it and use it, keep in mind that you may be breaking the law, and here's why.

1) 2-party-consent electronic eavesdropping laws in Illinois and 10 other states (including important states like California, Florida, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, and Maryland) prohibit listening to or recording conversations by anyone who is not a party to the conversation.
2) Even 1-party-consent electronic eavesdropping laws, like those in Missouri and most other states, would probably be violated, if a phone that A used to call B were manipulated such that non-parties to the conversation like C could hear it or record it.
3) The federal eavesdropping act, sometimes called Title III, includes some special provisions such as prohibitions on listening or recording, even by a party, when there is a criminal or tortious purpose.
4) The federal Electronic Communications Privacy Act, prohibit interception of so-called "stored communications" which might include email and text messages that have been stored on a cell phone or a service provider's servers.
5) The federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, and many state counterparts prohibit unauthorized access to a computer system, or access beyond the scope of one's authorization. The definition of a protected computer might well include modern cell phones.
6) State common law (judge-made) doctrines of the right of privacy protect individuals from intrusions into areas where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy.

If you want to read more about the software, here's the company's website:
http://www.flexispy.com/

Comments (0)

---

What's in the ice that you put in your cup of soda? Sometimes bacteria and sometimes mold. That's not a pleasant thought, but our tests found bacteria in several cups of ice from fast food restaurants and convenience stores in the St. Louis area and a level of bacteria well over the health department's acceptable level for one. Contrary to popular believe, ice doesn't kill bacteria, it just leaves it in something like a state of suspended animation. If there's bacteria in the ice that goes into your drink, as the ice melts, the bacteria comes to life. We also found mold, just like the mold that grows on old cheese or bread, in some of the ice we bought. It usually won't make you sick, but it's a sign that the restaurant or convenience store hasn't cleaned their ice machine recently. It takes mold 7 days to grow to detectable levels.

If the ice in your cup hasn't made you sick in the past, you might not worry about it in the future. But, if the results of our test gross you out, here are some tips from the health department.

1) If the drink is cold when it comes out of the dispenser, skip the ice.
2) Choose a bottled drink.

Remember, if you walk into a convenience store or fast food restaurant and it looks dirty, then it's probably dirty behind the scenes where the ice is made. And, the health department has found that ice machines that make and dispense, all-in-one, are usually cleaner because they're self cleaning.

Comments (3)

---

Sylvia Browne claims to talk with dead people.

And, according to the self-proclamed psychic, they talk to her too.

Five years ago, Craig and Pam Akers, the parents of Shawn Hornbeck, went on the Montel Williams show to see if Browne could give them fresh clues about what may have happened to their missing son. The show aired four months after Shawn's disappearance.

"Imagine your loved one vanishes without a trace," said Williams during the opening segment of his show. "Who do you turn to for some answers? Well, we called the right person and they're here to help. Please welcome the world-renown psychic Sylvia Browne."

Browne entered the room to standing applause and Williams kissed her on the cheek.

After helping Browne sell her book, Williams introduced the Craig and Pam Akers, then played a taped segment about Shawn's disappearance.

Immediately following the report, Williams introduced the Akers.

"There's absolutely no evidence to support any kind of theory" about what happened to Shawn, according to Craig Akers.

Desperate and willing to try almost anything, the Akers decided to see if Browne could help.

Here are her claims, if her revelations were TRUE or FALSE and what really happened:

1. Shawn was dead.

FALSE Four years later, Shawn was found alive in an apartment in Kirkwood.

2. Shawn was "picked up in a blue colored sedan. It's an older Chevrolet. Sort of with the tail fins on them, which was what 58, 59."

FALSE Shawn's kidnapper forced him into a pickup truck.

3. The kidnapper "was a guy named Michael" who was "passing through the area."

TRUE The kidnapper, Michael Devlin, lived in Kirkwood.

However, Michael has also been one of the most popular names in the United States for decades, according to the Social Security Administration, which means if the kidnapper wasn't named Michael he probably had a friend or close contact with that name. In other words, it was a safe bet.

It also seems logical that the kidnapper was from out of town. If he lived in the small community of Richwoods, it would have been much easier to find Shawn.

4. The kidnapper "was dark-skinned, although he wasn't black. He was more Hispanic looking. He had real long, dark hair....and he had dreadlocks."

FALSE Michael Devlin is white. He had a scraggly beard, short hair and did not wear it in dreadlocks.

5. Shawn was within a "20 mile radius" of his home in Richwoods and could be found in a wooded area "southwest of where you are."

FALSE Shawn was found nearly 50 miles northeast of Richwoods. He was living with Devlin, and recently kidnapped Ben Ownby, in Devlin's apartment in Kirkwood.

6. There were prominant landmarks in the wooded area where Shawn's body could be found. "Strangely enough there are two jagged boulders, which look really misplaced," she told the Akers. "Everything is trees, then all of a sudden you've got these stupid boulders sitting there. He's near the boulders."

FALSE Again, Shawn was found in an apartment.

When Sylvia Browne arrived at a St. Louis hotel Saturday night, I asked her if there was anything she wanted to say to the parents of Shawn Hornbeck.

The legendary self-proclaimed psychic looked very uncomfortable and quickly responded "No, no, no."

The woman who claims to talk with the dead and has always been eager to share her insight to strangers on almost any subject, still refuses to answer questions about her most controversial case.

Shawn's parents politely declined to talk about Browne or her claims about their son.

Sylvia Browne's involvement in one of America's most famous missing child cases speaks for itself.

I've provided several links in this blog, including one for Sylvia Browne. However, after reading numerous e-mails from our viewers I decided to provide two additional links for websites operated by Robert Lancaster and James Randi, her two most vocal critics. Both men have been following her for a long time and are skeptical of her alleged psychic powers.

The information in our story, and my blog, was taken directly from the Montel Williams show, then compared with various media reports, mostly the coverage of KMOV. I also used websites operated by Browne, Randi and Lancaster. However, KMOV covered the Hornbeck case extensively and our files provided the overwhelming majority of information in my report.

Randi and Lancaster were very helpful. Unfortunately, as you know, Ms. Browne and her staff never cooperated with us and Ms. Browne granted us only a very brief interview as she arrived at her St. Louis hotel.

I encourage anyone interested in our story to read all of the links.

Clearly, our story about Sylvia Browne has touched the nerves of many supporters and critics.

I appreciate the feedback from everyone.

Comments (35)

---