Police who suspected a local tanning salon owner of spying on customers said they took no action to prevent the alleged activity during their seven-week investigation.

Local law enforcement and the district attorney's office are permitted to take action against suspects prior to filing charges, but it is unclear whether police sought a court order that would allow them to monitor the owner's behavior or inform customers of the allegations.

State College Police Chief Tom King said yesterday that while it is possible that Ron Hanslovan, owner of Tanfastique Tanning Salon, 159 S. Garner St., continued directing customers into a room adjacent to his office, the police department could not notify customers of its investigation until officers had probable cause to arrest him.

"We didn't have the legal right to do that," King said. "The only way we could do that would be through a court order -- our job was to investigate."

King said no actions were taken during the investigation to monitor Hanslovan's actions and ensure any spying that might have taken place stopped.

King said the U.S. Constitution requires police to obtain a court order to prevent unlawful intrusion. He added that police did not get a court order to monitor Hanslovan's behavior. However, it is unclear whether a court order was requested.

Hanslovan was charged March 24 with invasion of privacy and possessing instruments of crime for allegedly viewing tanners through "peep" holes police found in his office -- seven weeks after a customer reported to employees that she thought she had been spied on by Hanslovan.

Since charges were filed, at least one other customer has come forward to the police with similar suspicions. However, State College Police would not comment on the exact number of complaints they have received since the beginning of the investigation.

Detective Ralph Ralston said earlier this week that although they could not directly inform customers during the investigation because of legal reasons, detectives made the "peep" holes bigger to make the investigation obvious to customers.

However, King said police did not plug or alter the holes in Hanslovan's office in any way, but they did photograph them for evidence.

"Detective [Chris] Weaver took pictures of the holes to make sure they led from his office into the tanning booth," he said. "And we did this to preserve the evidence."

Ralston did not return repeated calls yesterday and Tuesday to clarify the discrepancy.

"Anyone during an investigation can continue to commit crimes," District Attorney Ray Gricar said. "And in this case, we just don't know, but it's entirely possible."

King said police could not "baby-sit" Hanslovan to ensure he was not spying on customers through the peep holes during the investigation.

"We can't speculate on what he could have done, but only on what we knew," he said.

The Pennsylvania Attorney General's Office said it is not involved in decisions regarding the handling of an invasion of privacy case, and that there is no statewide code of behavior to regulate investigations.

"There's no such thing as a statewide protocol," said Nils Frederiksen, spokesman for the Pennsylvania attorney general.

Frederiksen said local police and the district attorney's office would handle individual investigations.

"It' s not our investigation or our procedures," he said.

King said that only the property owner, HFL Corp., could alter the building and fix the holes until police had filed charges. King said he does not think the detectives working on the case notified HFL Corp. until after charges were filed for the same reason the police could not release information to customers.

"We needed to have enough evidence to charge Hanslovan with probable cause," King said.

HFL Corp. Vice President Tom Daley could not be reached for comment yesterday.

King said the detectives moved through the case with haste to avoid additional spying on female customers.

"We operated on a fast-track method," he said. "We moved as quickly as possible."

Pittsburgh Police Detective Tammy Hawthorne said that typically a district attorney would make decisions regarding what to do during an investigation such as the one at Tanfastique.

"This sounds like an iffy thing because nobody knew if a crime was being committed during the investigation," she said.

Hawthorne said that someone like a district attorney could make decisions about whether a camera could be put in the room to make sure somebody was not doing anything illegal, such as spying on someone while they were tanning.

"I don't know of any other way to be sure he wasn't doing anything unless someone was in the room watching him," she said.

Assistant District Attorney Lance Marshall said he has not had a role in the Tanfastique investigation, though he is prosecuting the case.

"The district attorney doesn't always get involved in the investigation unless it's a more serious crime, such as a sexual assault or white-collar crime," he said. "I'm not trying to belittle this case, but the charges are misdemeanors."

Marshall said he assigns a priority to each case he receives.

"This [preliminary hearing] is three weeks away, and is not very high on my list now," he said.

Hanslovan's lawyer Roy Lisko has declined to comment until the preliminary hearing, scheduled for April 27.