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 State Board of Registration for Professional Engineers and Land Surveyors asked whether an engineer licensed under Chapter 89C also needed a Chapter 74C private investigator license to provide engineering services involving investigation and consultation. The AG answered no for a professional engineer conducting an investigation “within the scope of his work, training and expertise as a professional engineer.” The conclusion concerns an individual engineer and that defined work.

The opinion quotes G.S. § 89C-3(6), which includes “consultation, investigation, evaluation, planning, and design of engineering works and systems” in engineering practice. It also quotes Chapter 74C’s broad definition of private investigation, which included inquiries into the causes of fires, losses, accidents, damages, and injuries. The AG read the two statutes together and applied the rule that a specific statute controls a more general one when they conflict. On that reading, the specific authorization for licensed engineering investigations was not overridden by the general private investigator licensing rule.

Chapter 74C’s text also mattered. The pre-October 1987 definition quoted in the opinion excluded scientific research laboratories and consultants from one category of private investigator. An amendment effective October 1, 1987 excluded a consultant who applies expertise to evidence submitted by another to determine the cause or effect of physical or psychological occurrences and gives findings to the requesting source. The opinion quotes those provisions in reaching its answer. It does not interpret their application to other professions or types of business.

Currency note

This opinion describes statutes as they stood in 1987. Check current Chapter 89C and Chapter 74C text before relying on its licensing conclusion today.

Background and statutory framework

The AG also reasoned that forcing licensed engineers to obtain a private detective license could defeat Chapter 89C’s express authorization to investigate within engineering practice. The opinion cites Chapter 74C’s experience requirements and says the engineering activities listed in Chapter 89C do not specifically relate to law enforcement. It invokes the rule against reading statutes to produce absurd consequences.

For a comparable dispute, the AG discussed Kennard et. al. v. Rosenberg, a California Court of Appeals case involving registered chemical engineers hired to investigate a fire. As quoted by the AG, that court concluded the private investigator statute did not apply to experts hired to test, experiment, and consult in a matter requiring technical knowledge. The AG found the reasoning persuasive for the North Carolina engineer question.

Common questions

Is a licensed engineer’s engineering investigation covered by this opinion?

Yes, when the engineer is investigating within the scope of that individual’s professional work, training, and expertise. That is the condition stated in the AG’s conclusion.

Does it decide whether a person without an engineering license needs a private investigator license?

No. The question and conclusion concern a professional engineer duly licensed under Chapter 89C. Licensing of non-engineers would require a separate analysis of Chapter 74C and any applicable exclusions.

Does the same conclusion automatically cover architects, doctors, or lawyers?

The opinion does not address those professions. Its specific-statute analysis concerns the engineering authority quoted from G.S. § 89C-3(6).

Does the opinion exempt an engineering firm as an entity?

It answers whether “a professional engineer duly licensed under Chapter 89C” needs another license for engineering-related work. It does not decide a firm’s licensing status.

Source

• Landing page: https://ncdoj.gov/opinions/licensing-professional-engineers/

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 et. al. v. Rosenberg, 127 Cal. App. 2d 340, 273 P.2d 839 (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