Before the Court en banc. Opinion by Chief Justice Pickering.
In this opinion, the Court considered whether services performed for the purposes of developing and providing expert opinion testimony in a civil case required a private investigator’s license under NRS 648.060. Appellant, State of Nevada Private Investigator’s Licensing Board (the “Board”) cited Respondents for engaging in the business of a private investigator without a Nevada license. Dwayne Tatalovich was hired as an expert witness and in preparation for such testimony, performed several functions which, as the Board asserted, constituted activities of a private investigator. The Court explained that, in Nevada, a person engaging in the business of a private investigator (as defined by NRS 648.012) must obtain a license to do so; however, the Court noted that such licensing restrictions exist to protect the public from unqualified individuals who lack the skills necessary to perform the tasks of professionals in that field. Furthermore, the Court emphasized, such policies are not served by applying the licensing requirements to experts whose credibility and qualifications are tested in court and subject to a separate set of rules. As such, the Court determined that the licensing scheme set forth in NRS 648.060 was never intended to encompass the conduct of expert witnesses performing tasks in preparation for testimony before a court. Importantly, the Court highlighted that, after the Respondents were cited by the Board, the Legislature amended the language of NRS 648.012 to specifically exempt expert witnesses from the licensing requirements of NRS 648.060. Thus, the Court concluded that expert witnesses are not required to obtain licenses to perform investigative work in preparation for developing and giving expert opinion testimony. Affirmed. (Amanda Perach, Associate in the Las Vegas office of McDonald Carano Wilson.)
