Does a North Carolina licensed professional engineer need a separate private investigator license under Chapter 74C in order to perform engineering investigations such as fire-cause analysis or accident reconstruction?
Plain-English summary
The Executive Secretary of the State Board of Registration for Professional Engineers and Land Surveyors asked the AG whether a North Carolina licensed engineer needed a separate Chapter 74C private investigator license to perform engineering-related investigations and consulting work. Typical scenarios: a chemical engineer hired to investigate a fire's cause, a structural engineer hired to investigate a building collapse, a mechanical engineer hired to investigate an industrial accident.
Senior Deputy Attorney General William W. Melvin answered no.
The Practice of Engineering statute, N.C.G.S. § 89C-3(6), defines the practice of engineering to include "such services or creative work as consultation, investigation, evaluation, planning, and design of engineering works and systems." That language gives a licensed engineer affirmative authority to conduct investigations within the engineer's training and expertise.
Chapter 74C, the Private Protective Services Act, defines a "private detective" or "private investigator" broadly enough to include any person engaged in investigation work. The 1987 definition specifically covered investigations into the cause or responsibility for fires, libels, losses, accidents, damages, or injuries. On the surface, an engineer investigating a fire's cause might fit that definition.
But Chapter 74C had a carve-out, even in its pre-October-1987 form: § 74C-3(a)(8)(d) said that scientific research laboratories and consultants were not included in the definition of private investigator. After October 1, 1987 the General Assembly added a more explicit consultant exemption in § 74C-3(b)(10): a consultant who analyzes, tests, or applies expertise to interpreting, evaluating, or analyzing facts or evidence submitted by another to determine the cause or effect of physical or psychological occurrences, and furnishes opinions and findings to the requesting source. That language was added specifically to cover the engineer/consultant pattern.
The AG applied three rules of statutory construction to reach the conclusion:
First, specific over general. Food Stores v. Board of Alcoholic Control (1966) is the leading North Carolina case for the rule that a specific statute prevails over a general statute in the same area. § 89C-3(6) is the specific statute on what licensed engineers may do; Chapter 74C is the general statute on investigation activities. Where they overlap, the specific (engineering) statute prevails.
Second, legislative intent. State v. Fulcher and In re Hardy stand for the proposition that statutes should be construed to carry out the legislative intent, not defeat it. A reading of Chapter 74C that requires engineers to hold PI licenses to conduct engineering investigations would defeat the legislative intent in § 89C-3(6).
Third, avoidance of absurd consequences. The AG identified a practical absurdity: § 74C-8(d)(3) requires a PI license applicant to have three years of investigation experience within the past five years, OR experience as a member of a federal, state, county, or municipal law enforcement agency. The practice of engineering, as defined in § 89C-3(6), does not include any law enforcement activities. Most professional engineers therefore could not meet the PI license prerequisites. If the law required them to hold a PI license anyway, they would be barred from doing investigations they are licensed to do under Chapter 89C. The two statutes cannot be read to produce that result.
The AG also cited the California case Kennard v. Rosenberg (1954) as persuasive authority. In Kennard, two licensed chemical engineers were hired to investigate a fire and sued for fees when the client refused to pay on the grounds the engineers were not licensed private investigators. The California Court of Appeals held that the PI licensing statute "was not intended to apply to persons who, as experts, were employed as here, to make tests, conduct experiments and act as consultants in a case requiring the use of technical knowledge." The North Carolina AG noted that the California PI statute was "substantially identical" to North Carolina's Chapter 74C, and adopted the Kennard reasoning.
The bottom line: licensed engineers conducting investigations within the scope of engineering practice do not need a separate Chapter 74C license. The 1987 amendment adding § 74C-3(b)(10) made the result more explicit going forward.
Currency note
This opinion was issued in 1987. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here. Chapter 74C has been further amended since 1987, expanding both the private protective services definitions and the exemptions. § 74C-3(b)(10), the consultant exemption added in 1987, has continued to be used as authority for the licensed-engineer scenario the AG addressed. Modern engineers performing forensic work should still confirm with current statute text and Private Protective Services Board guidance, particularly if their work includes activities outside traditional engineering scope (such as surveillance of persons, polygraph testing, or background investigations).
Background and statutory framework
The 1987 opinion sits at the intersection of two licensing regimes that the General Assembly enacted at different times for different purposes. Chapter 89C, the licensing of professional engineers, dates to a long-standing scheme of professional regulation: engineers must meet education, experience, and examination requirements; once licensed, they are authorized to perform engineering services within their competence. The statutory authority for licensed engineers to "investigate" and "consult" is explicit.
Chapter 74C, the Private Protective Services Act, was enacted in 1981 to regulate private detectives, security guards, and related occupations. The definition of "investigator" was drafted broadly, in part because the legislature wanted to catch a wide range of unregulated investigation work. The breadth created an unintended overlap with licensed professionals (engineers, doctors, accountants, lawyers) whose professional practice already included investigation activities within their scope.
The pre-1987 carve-out in § 74C-3(a)(8)(d) (excluding "scientific research laboratories and consultants") was the legislature's first attempt to resolve the overlap. The October 1, 1987 amendment that added § 74C-3(b)(10) was a more explicit second attempt, motivated specifically by the engineering / forensic consulting use case the AG addresses in this opinion.
The Kennard v. Rosenberg case from 1954 California is a particularly instructive parallel. California's PI statute was substantially identical to North Carolina's Chapter 74C definition of investigator, and California courts had already worked through the engineer-as-investigator question. The North Carolina AG borrowed the California reasoning rather than starting from scratch. Borrowing is appropriate here because the underlying issue (how to harmonize professional-engineer licensing with PI licensing) is the same in both states.
The "specific over general" canon of construction the AG used is one of the most powerful tools in North Carolina statutory interpretation. When two statutes both apply to a situation, the more specific one controls to the extent of any conflict. The result is that the engineer's Chapter 89C authority is treated as a controlling specific authorization, and Chapter 74C's general PI licensing requirement does not override it.
Common questions
Does a non-engineer who investigates fires still need a PI license?
Yes. The AG opinion is narrow: it applies to licensed engineers conducting investigations within the scope of § 89C-3(6). A non-engineer fire investigator (no Chapter 89C license) doing the same factual work needs a Chapter 74C license unless they fit a different exemption (such as the consultant exemption in § 74C-3(b)(10) for non-engineer technical experts).
What about a licensed engineer doing investigation work outside engineering scope (e.g., surveillance of a person)?
The exemption is grounded in the scope of engineering practice. An engineer conducting surveillance, taking statements from witnesses, or doing background investigation on a person is no longer "investigating engineering works and systems" and is no longer covered by § 89C-3(6). Such work, if commercial, likely requires a Chapter 74C license.
Does the same logic apply to architects, doctors, or attorneys investigating within their professional scope?
The structural logic does. Architects (Chapter 83A), doctors (Chapter 90), and attorneys (Chapter 84) all have their own professional practice statutes that authorize investigation as part of practice. A specific-over-general analysis would similarly exempt them from Chapter 74C for investigations within their professional scope. The 1987 consultant exemption in § 74C-3(b)(10) was drafted broadly enough to cover this general pattern. Practitioners in those professions should verify with their own boards.
What about engineering firms (not individual engineers)?
The exemption tracks the engineer's professional license, not the firm structure. An engineering firm that employs licensed engineers and bills out their services for investigation work is performing engineering practice through its licensed personnel. The firm does not need a separate Chapter 74C license. A firm that holds itself out as an "investigation company" rather than as an engineering firm may face a different analysis.
Can a licensed engineer perform investigations as an expert witness in court?
Yes. Expert witness work for engineering matters is firmly within the engineer's professional scope under § 89C-3(6). The 1987 opinion's reasoning (specific-over-general, plus the express consultant exemption added in 1987) supports the engineer's authority to perform expert investigations and provide opinions to clients and courts.
Source
Citations
- N.C.G.S. § 89C-3(6) (practice of engineering)
- N.C.G.S. § 74C-2(a) (license required)
- N.C.G.S. § 74C-3(a)(8) and (a)(8)(d) (definition of investigator and consultant carve-out)
- N.C.G.S. § 74C-3(b)(10) (consultant exemption, added Oct 1, 1987)
- N.C.G.S. § 74C-8(d)(3) (PI license experience prerequisite)
- Food Stores v. Board of Alcoholic Control, 268 N.C. 624 (1966)
- State v. Fulcher, 294 N.C. 503 (1978)
- In re Hardy, 294 N.C. 90 (1977)
- Person v. Garrett, 280 N.C. 163 (1971)
- Hobbs v. Moore County, 267 N.C. 665 (1966)
- State v. Burrell, 256 N.C. 288 (1962)
- Kennard v. Rosenberg, 127 Cal. App. 2d 340 (1954)
Original opinion text
Requested By: Montgomery T. Speir Executive Secretary State Board of Registration for Professional Engineers and Land Surveyors
Question: Must a professional engineer duly licensed under Chapter 89C of the General Statutes of North Carolina also be licensed as a private investigator under Chapter 74C in order to provide engineering related services which include investigative and consultant work?
Conclusion: No.
The applicable portions of Chapter 89C of the General Statutes provide:
"§ 89C-3(6). Practice of Engineering. – a. The term, "practice of engineering," within the intent of this Chapter, shall mean . . . such services or creative work as consultation, investigation, evaluation, planning, and design of engineering works and systems . . . ." (emphasis added)
Prior to October 1, 1987, the applicable portions of Chapter 74C of the General Statutes read:
"§ 74C-2(a) Licenses Required. – No private person, firm, association or corporation shall engage in, perform any services as, or in any way represent or hold itself out as engaging in a private protective service business or activity in this State without having first complied with the provisions of this Chapter."
§ 74C-3(a) private protective services business defined. – . . .
(a)(8) 'Private detective' or 'private investigator' means any person who engages in the business of or accepts employment to furnish, agrees to make, or makes an investigation for the purpose of obtaining information with reference to . . . .
(d) The cause or responsibility for fires, libels, losses, accidents, damages or injuries to persons or to properties, provided that scientific research laboratories and consultants shall not be included in this definition . . . ."
§ 74C-8(d) . . . the applicant shall be required to show that he meets all of the following requirements and qualifications hereby made prerequisite to obtaining a license. . . (3) For a private detective license, that he has had at least three years experience within the past five years in private investigative work, or in an investigative capacity as a member of any federal law enforcement agency, any State law enforcement agency, any municipal law enforcement department or any county law enforcement or sheriff's department.
Effective October 1, 1987, G.S. § 74C-3(b) was amended to read:
§ 74C-3(b) 'Private protective services' shall not mean:
(10) A consultant who analyzes, tests, or in any way applies his expertise to interpreting, evaluating, or analyzing facts or evidence submitted by another in order to determine the cause or effect of physical or psychological occurrences, and furnishes his opinion and findings to the requesting source or to a designee of requestor . . .'
Under the provisions of the applicable sections of the General Statutes as set out above, it is concluded that if a professional engineer duly licensed under Chapter 89C were to conduct an investigation within the scope of his work, training and expertise as a professional engineer, he would not be required to obtain a license as a private investigator under Chapter 74C.
To properly understand this conclusion, it is necessary to review rules of statutory construction. Initially, statutes containing specific language control over statutes containing general language. Food Stores v. Board of Alcoholic Control, 268 N.C. 624, 151 S.E.2d 582 (1966).
'Where there is one statute dealing with a subject in general and comprehensive terms, [Chapter 74C] and another dealing with a part of the same subject in a more minute and definite way, [Chapter 89C] the two should be read together and harmonized, . . . but to the extent of any necessary repugnancy between them, the special statute . . . [Chapter 89C] will prevail over the general statute [Chapter 74C] . . . .'
Food Stores, 268 N.C. at 628.
It is a cardinal principle of statutory construction that the intent of the Legislature is controlling. State v. Fulcher, 294 N.C. 503, 243 S.E.2d 338 (1978); In re Hardy, 294 N.C. 90, 240 S.E.2d 367 (1977). Further, "[a] construction which will defeat or impair the object of the statute must be avoided if that can reasonably be done without violence to the legislative language." Hardy, 294
N.C. at 96.
The language of G.S. § 89C-3(6) specifically grants a licensed professional engineer the authority to perform work such as investigation and consultation. Applying Food Stores, the specific provisions of G.S. § 89C-3(6) should prevail over the more general provisions of G.S. § 74C-3(a)(8).
The legislature has made it clear that licensed professional engineers need not be licensed as private investigators in order to engage in "investigation and consultation" that is included within the definition of the "practice of engineering" as defined by G.S. § 89C-3(6). Notably, the plain language of G.S. § 74C-8(d)(3), which prescribes the experience requirements to obtain a private detective license, has the practical effect of precluding a licensed professional engineer from becoming a licensed private detective. A major prerequisite for obtaining a private detective license is that applicants have law enforcement experience. The practice of engineering, as defined in G.S. § 89C-3(6), includes a listing of numerous activities which may be engaged in by a licensed professional engineer. However, from reviewing the permitted activities, it is apparent that none specifically relates to law enforcement. To interpret Chapter 74C as requiring licensed professional engineers to obtain a private investigator's license would defeat the intent of G.S. § 89C-3(6) which allows licensed professional engineers to conduct investigations. The language of the statute will be interpreted to avoid absurd consequences. Person v. Garrett, 280 N.C. 163, 184 S.E.2d 873 (1971); Hobbs v. Moore County, 267 N.C. 665, 149 S.E.2d 1 (1966); State v. Burrell, 256 N.C. 288, 123 S.E.2d 795 (1962).
Existing case law supports the conclusion reached herein. There are no cases in this jurisdiction which address this issue. Accordingly, it is appropriate to examine case law in other jurisdictions. Specifically, the decision of the California Court of Appeals in Kennard et. al. v. Rosenberg, 127 Cal. App. 2d 340, 273 P.2d 839 (1954) is instructive.
In Kennard, T. G. Kennard and J. F. Drake, both registered chemical engineers in the State of California, were hired by Mr. Rosenberg to investigate a fire which occurred on his property. The engineers sued Rosenberg for fees owed them after Rosenberg claimed the fees were not owed because they were not licensed as private investigators. California's Business and Professions Code §§ 7520 and 7521 prescribed the requirements to obtain a license as a private investigator:
§ 7520 "No person shall engage in a business regulated by this chapter; act or assume to act as; or represent himself to be a licensee unless he is licensed under this chapter; and no person shall falsely represent that he is employed by a licensee."
§ 7521 "A Private investigator within the meaning of this chapter is a person other than an insurance adjuster who, for any consideration whatsoever engages in business or accepts employment to furnish, or agrees to make, or makes, any investigation for the purpose of obtaining, information with reference to: * * * the cause or responsibility for fires, libels, losses, accidents, or damage or injury to persons or to property; or securing evidence to be used before any court, board, officer, or investigating committee."
Kennard, 273 P.2d at 841. n1
n1 It is noted that the California statute of 1954 is substantially identical to Chapter 74C.
The engineers conducted tests on samples obtained from the fire scene, examined the premises, interviewed witnesses, and examined photographs. The Court ruled:
. . . it was the intent of the legislature to require those who engage in business as private investigators and detectives to first procure a license so to do; that the statute was enacted to regulate and control this business in the public interest; that it was not intended to apply to persons who, as experts, where employed as here, to make tests, conduct experiments and act as consultants in a case requiring the use of technical knowledge.
Kennard, 273 P.2d at 842. (emphasis added)
Clearly, the Court's reasoning in Kennard is persuasive. Furthermore, Kennard supports the conclusion that a professional engineer duly licensed under Chapter 89C is not required to be licensed as a private investigator in order to provide engineering related services which include investigative and consultant work.
LACY H. THORNBURG ATTORNEY GENERAL
William W. Melvin Senior Deputy Attorney General