Case 2:14-cv GMN-PAL Document 29 Filed 02/20/15 Page 1 of 18 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA. ) ) Plaintiff,

(1)

P A C IFIC L E GAL F OUNDAT IO N 930 G S treet S acrament o , C A 95814 (916) 419-7111 F A X (916) 419-7747 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

TIMOTHY SANDEFUR, Cal. Bar No. 224436* ANASTASIA P. BODEN, Cal. Bar No. 281911* Pacific Legal Foundation

930 G Street Sacramento, California 95814 Telephone: (916) 419-7111 Facsimile: (916) 419-7747 E-mail: tsandefur@pacificlegal.org E-Mail: apb@pacificlegal.org

*pro hac vice

LEE IGLODY, Nev. Bar No. 7757 Iglody Hulet PLLC

7450 Arroyo Crossing Parkway, Suite 270 Las Vegas, Nevada 89113

Telephone: (702) 425-5366 Facsimile: (702) 425-5148 E-mail: lee@iglodyhulet.com Attorneys for Plaintiff

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA

TROY CASTILLO, Plaintiff, vs.

KEVIN INGRAM, in his official capacity as Executive Director of the Nevada Private Investigator’s Licensing Board; DAVID SPENCER, in his official capacity as Chairman of the Nevada Private Investigator’s Licensing Board; MARK ZANE, in his official capacity as Board Member of the Nevada Private Investigator’s Licensing Board; JAMES NADEAU, in his official capacity as a Board Member of the Nevada Private Investigator’s Licensing Board; JAMES COLBERT, in his official capacity as a Board Member of the Nevada Private Investigator’s Licensing Board; ROBERT UITHOVEN, in his official capacity as a Board Member of the Nevada Private Investigator’s Licensing Board,

Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. 2:14-cv-00332-GMN-PAL PLAINTIFF’S VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF— CIVIL RIGHTS [42 U.S.C. § 1983]

(2)

P A C IFIC L E GAL F OUNDAT IO N 930 G S treet S acrament o , C A 95814 (916) 419-7111 F A X (916) 419-7747 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 INTRODUCTION

1. This lawsuit seeks to vindicate the right of Plaintiff Troy Castillo to earn a living as a private investigator in Nevada, and to exercise his First Amendment right to freedom of expression. That state’s licensing laws discriminate against out-of-state private investigators (a term the licensing laws define extremely broadly), thus violating Mr. Castillo’s right to earn a living in the occupation of his choice and to speak freely. Nev. Rev. Stat. § 648.148 requires Mr. Castillo, who resides in California and whose business is headquartered there, to expend considerable time and money opening a principal place of business in Nevada in order to earn a living as a private investigator in that state. This requirement favors in-state private investigators over those headquartered in other states, and bears no rational relationship to the public health, safety, or welfare. Also, because of the statute’s broad definition of “private investigator,” Nevada’s licensing requirements apply to people in professions far afield of private investigation, and burdens their protected speech rights. Mr. Castillo seeks prospective relief under the United States Constitution’s Commerce Clause, Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV, the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and the First Amendment.

2. Mr. Castillo seeks a declaratory judgment that the challenged laws are invalid, unenforceable, and void; permanent injunctions against further enforcement of the challenged laws and implementation of any similar policy; and reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

3. Mr. Castillo alleges, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the deprivation of rights secured by the Commerce Clause (U.S. Const. art. I, § 8), the Privileges and Immunities Clause (U.S. Const. art. IV, § 2), the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and the First Amendment. Jurisdiction over his claims is proper under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343, 2201, 2202. ///

(3)

4. Venue is proper in this Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) on the grounds that some or all of the conduct at issue took place in, and/or some or all of the Defendants reside in, the District of Nevada.

PARTIES Plaintiff

5. Plaintiff Troy Castillo is a United States citizen and resident of Palm Springs, California.

6. Mr. Castillo spent nearly a third of his 29-year career with the Palm Springs Police Department as a detective handling violent crimes, and retired from that position in March, 2013. 7. Mr. Castillo acted as President of the Desert Investigators Association for over 10 years. He is the founder and owner of Paloma Investigative Services. He does not keep an office, and primarily works from his Palm Springs, California, home or in the field.

8. Mr. Castillo does not have a principal place of business in Nevada. Defendants

9. Defendant Kevin Ingram is the Executive Director and chief administrative officer of the Nevada Private Investigator’s Licensing Board (PILB or Board). Mr. Ingram is authorized in his official capacity to adopt regulations implementing Nev. Rev. Stat. §§ 648.005-648.210, to establish criteria for the licensing of private investigators, to grant or deny licenses, to adjudicate violations of the regulations, and to levy fines and penalties. Nev. Rev. Stat. §§ 648.025, 648.030, 648.150, 648.166. In all of his actions and omissions alleged herein, Mr. Ingram was acting under color of state law and is being sued in his official capacity pursuant to Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908).

10. Defendant David Spencer is the Chairman of the PILB. Mr. Spencer is authorized in his official capacity to adopt rules and regulations implementing the licensing laws, to establish criteria for the licensing of private investigators, to grant or deny licenses, to adjudicate violations of the regulations, and to levy fines and penalties. Nev. Rev. Stat. §§ 648.030, 648.150, 648.166.

(4)

In all of his actions and omissions alleged herein, Mr. Spencer was acting under color of state law and is being sued in his official capacity pursuant to Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908).

11. Defendants Mark Zane, James Nadeau, James Colbert, and Robert Uithoven are PILB members. In their official capacity, they are authorized to adopt rules and regulations implementing the licensing laws, to establish criteria for the licensing of private investigators, to grant or deny licenses, to adjudicate violations of the regulations, and to levy fines and penalties. Nev. Rev. Stat. §§ 648.030, 648.150, 648.166. In all of their actions and omissions alleged herein, Defendants were acting under color of state law and are being sued in their official capacity pursuant to Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908).

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS I

THE CHALLENGED LAWS

12. Mr. Castillo incorporates and re-alleges each and every allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint.

13. Nev. Rev. Stat. § 648.060(1) forbids any person from working as a private investigator without a license.

14. Nev. Rev. Stat. § 648.012 defines “private investigator” as, inter alia, any person who agrees to research, or is paid or employed to communicate information related to:

• the “identity, habits, conduct, business, occupation, honesty, integrity, credibility, knowledge, trustworthiness, efficiency, loyalty, activity, movement, whereabouts, affiliations, transactions, acts, reputation or character of any person;”

• the “location, disposition or recovery of lost or stolen property;”

• the “cause or responsibility for fires, libels, losses, accidents or damage or injury to persons or to property;”

• “crime[s] or tort[s] that [have] been committed, attempted, threatened or suspected, except an expert witness or a consultant who is retained for litigation or a trial;”

(5)

• “[s]ecuring evidence to be used before any court, board, officer or investigating committee;” or

• “[t]he prevention, detection and removal of surreptitiously installed devices for eavesdropping or observation.”

15. The only statutory exceptions to the definition of private investigator in Nev. Rev. Stat. § 648.012 are for expert witnesses or consultants for litigation; Nevada police detectives and police officers; Nevada-licensed insurance adjusters; employees who regularly perform such functions in connection with the internal affairs of their employers; repossesors; persons employed to perform financial ratings of others; Nevada charitable philanthropic nonprofit organizations; attorneys; Nevada collection agencies; Nevada insurance agents and brokers; Nevada or national banks; those supervise people in residential confinement; commercial registered agents; Nevada public accountants; and computer repairmen. Nev. Rev. Stat. §§ § 648.012(4), 648.018.

16. To obtain a private investigator license, an applicant must, among other things, pay an examination fee and pass a written examination; be at least 21-years old; have U.S. citizenship; be of “good moral character and temperate habits;” have no conviction relating to the profession; have at least 5 years (equivalent to 10,000 hours) experience as an investigator; self-insure in an amount not less than $200,000; and pay an annual renewal fee of no more than $500. Nev. Rev. Stat. §§ 648.070, 648.100(1), 648.110(1), 648.110(2)(a), 648.110(4), 648.120(1).

17. When a candidate files an application, the Board investigates his character and the truthfulness of his application. Nev. Rev. Stat. § 648.100(2). Any applicant who resides in Nevada is responsible for up to $750 of the costs of this investigation. Id. Applicants residing out-of-state are responsible for up to $1,500 of the costs of this investigation. Id.

18. In 2013, the Nevada legislature passed A.B. 306, which amended the private investigator licensing laws. This legislation went into effect as Nev. Rev. Stat. § 648.148 on October 1, 2013.

(6)

19. Pursuant to those amendments, the licensing statute requires all licensed private investigators to maintain a principal place of business in Nevada. Nev. Rev. Stat. § 648.148.

20. A Nevada resident may designate his home as his principal place of business in the state, while out-of-state residents may not. See Nev. Rev. Stat. § 648.148.

21. Licensees are required to renew their private investigator licenses annually. Nev. Rev. Stat. § 648.144.

22. Any person who violates the licensing laws is guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of up to $1,000 and imprisonment for up to 6 months. Nev. Rev. Stat. §§ 648.210, 193.120. Any subsequent violation is considered a gross misdemeanor, which carries a penalty of up to $2,000 and up to 364 days of imprisonment. Nev. Rev. Stat. § 193.1605.

II

TROY CASTILLO WISHES TO WORK AS A PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR IN NEVADA

24. In 2006, Mr. Castillo established Paloma Investigative Services in Palm Springs, California, where he currently works as a private investigator.

25. Mr. Castillo is licensed as a private investigator in California (License No. 25258), Arizona (No. 1636373), and Nevada (No. 1716).

26. Mr. Castillo obtained his Nevada license in 2012, before the in-state office requirement went into effect. Mr. Castillo’s license was held in abeyance until he retired from the Palm Springs Police Department in 2013.

27. Mr. Castillo does not have a “primary place of business” in Nevada, and has no employees who work in Nevada. He has no plans to open a primary place of business in Nevada. 28. Mr. Castillo worked as a private investigator in Nevada after his license was taken out of abeyance in 2013.

(7)

29. Since the challenged laws have gone into effect, he has refused offers of business contracts in Nevada because he fears that Defendants will prosecute him for failing to maintain an office there, in violation of Section 648.148. However, he continues to desire to work as a private investigator in the state and is ready, willing, and able to do so except for the “primary place of business” requirement.

30. Mr. Castillo regularly receives requests from colleagues to engage in investigative work in Nevada.

31. In the last two months alone Castillo received ten requests for private investigation work by email from the California Association of Licensed Investigators. Referring investigators requested services ranging from running Nevada license plates, investigating a parent in a child custody case, following vehicles, obtaining video footage of people and vehicles, obtaining marriage records and other legal documents, completing service of process, researching insurance claims, and conducting interviews for litigation. In total, Mr. Castillo has had to refuse over 20 offers for employment as a private investigator since the law went into effect.

32. Since he has stopped working in Nevada, Mr. Castillo has also received telephone calls from two potential Nevada clients that he was forced to refer to a colleague who, unlike Castillo, complies with the in-state office requirement.

33. If not for the challenged laws, Mr. Castillo would have engaged in these specific offers for employment, and he would have solicited and obtained other jobs in the state. Mr. Castillo intends to solicit and engage such opportunities in the future if Nev. Rev. Stat. § 648.148 is struck down by this Court.

(8)

P A C IFIC L E GAL F OUNDAT IO N 930 G S treet S acrament o , C A 95814 (916) 419-7111 F A X (916) 419-7747 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 III DEFENDANTS ENFORCEMENT OF THE CHALLENGED LAWS

34. Because obtaining an office in Nevada would require a substantial investment of time and money, Mr. Castillo has not opened and does not intend to open any physical business office in Nevada.

35. This means that, although Mr. Castillo currently has a Nevada private investigator license, he is currently in violation of the licensing requirement of Nev. Rev. Stat. § 648.148 which requires all “licensees” to “maintain a principal place of business” in Nevada.

36. On January 22, 2015, Defendants sent Mr. Castillo an email notifying him that his mandatory certificate of liability insurance was deficient because it listed his principal place of business as California, instead of Nevada, and requesting that he provide them with a Nevada office address, as required by Nev. Rev. Stat. § 648.148.

37. Although Defendants later retracted that request, they also attached to their email a copy of the February, 2014, issue of the Private Investigator Licensing Board Newsletter, which states that “all licensees [must] maintain a principal place of business in Nevada,” and that “[f]ailure to comply” with this and other requirements “is grounds for possible suspension, revocation, or denial of an application for licensure.”

38. A true and correct copy of the February, 2014, issue of the Private Investigator

Licensing Board Newsletter is attached hereto as Exhibit A.

39. Mr. Castillo is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that Defendants intend to enforce Nev. Rev. Stat. § 648.148, as they threatened to do in their January 22, 2015, email, and as they have expressed their intention to do in their newsletter and meeting minutes.

40. Because he fears that the Board will bring an enforcement action against him for failing to comply with Nev. Rev. Stat. § 648.148, Mr. Castillo has refrained from accepting several offers of employment in Nevada, causing him to suffer economic harm.

(9)

41. Because he fears that the Board will bring an enforcement action against him for failing to comply with Nev. Rev. Stat. § 648.148, Mr. Castillo has refrained from exercising his speech rights, including making investigation into or furnishing information about many of the subjects in Nev. Rev. Stat. § 648.012. For example, Mr. Castillo has been forced to refrain from furnishing information on the “identity . . . activity . . . reputation or character” of “person[s],” which the statute defines as private investigation.

INJUNCTIVE RELIEF ALLEGATIONS

42. Mr. Castillo incorporates and re-alleges every allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint.

43. Mr. Castillo is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that he is subject to losing his license and incurring fines and penalties because he does not have a principal place of business in that state.

44. Due to Defendants’ enforcement of Nev. Rev. Stat. §§ 648.060-648.210, Mr. Castillo has been, is now, and will continue to be barred from exercising his constitutionally protected rights to compete on equal terms with Nevada citizens, to pursue his chosen occupation free of arbitrary restrictions, and to research and speak freely unless he complies with the principal place of business requirement and other licensing requirements.

45. If not enjoined by this Court, Defendants and their agents, representatives, and employees will continue to enforce the requirement that licensees maintain a principal place of business in Nevada, in contravention of the Commerce Clause, the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV, the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.

46. Nev. Rev. Stat. § 648.148 has caused, is now causing, and will continue to cause Mr. Castillo to suffer irreparable injury, including but not limited to loss of business opportunities, deprivation of his livelihood, and violation of his right to free speech. He has no plain, speedy, and ///

(10)

adequate remedy at law other than injunctive relief. Any other remedy would cause further irreparable harm to Mr. Castillo.

47. Defendants contend their actions are consistent with all applicable laws. 48. Accordingly, injunctive relief is appropriate.

DECLARATORY RELIEF ALLEGATIONS

49. Mr. Castillo incorporates and re-alleges each and every allegation in the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint.

50. An actual and substantial controversy exists between Mr. Castillo and Defendants as to their respective legal rights and duties. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Mr. Castillo contends that, on their face and as applied, the challenged laws violate the Commerce Clause; Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV; Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.

FIRST CLAIM FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF—NEVADA’S LOCATION

REQUIREMENT DISCRIMINATES AGAINST OUT-OF-STATE PRIVATE INVESTIGATORS IN VIOLATION OF THE COMMERCE CLAUSE, PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES CLAUSE, AND DUE PROCESS CLAUSE

(U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, art. IV § 2, and amend. XIV)

52. Under Nev. Rev. Stat. § 648.060(1), Mr. Castillo is prohibited on pain of civil and criminal penalties from working as a private investigator in Nevada without holding a license.

53. To comply with the licensing laws, Mr. Castillo must, among other things, maintain a “principal place of business” in Nevada. Nev. Rev. Stat. § 648.148.

(11)

54. Nev. Rev. Stat. § 648.148 has a discriminatory effect on out-of-state private investigators. Nevada residents may designate their homes as their principal places of business. Out-of-state residents must maintain a non-residential Nevada place of business, causing them to incur much greater costs than Nevada residents must incur in order to do business in that state.

55. Nev. Rev. Stat. § 648.148’s effect on out-of-state commerce is not incidental, and significantly drives up out-of-state residents’ cost of obtaining a Nevada license. The requirement forces out-of-state applicants to pay for additional rent, utilities, and other supplies in Nevada in order to obtain a license.

56. Because Nevada residents do not have to bear these additional costs, Nev. Rev. Stat. § 648.148 gives them a competitive advantage over out-of-state residents.

57. Mr. Castillo is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that an individual’s state of residence is wholly unrelated to his or her capacity to work as a private investigator, and that Nev. Rev. Stat. § 648.148 has no rational relationship to his fitness to work in Nevada.

58. Mr. Castillo is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that neither out-of-state private investigators nor their distance from the Board constitute a peculiar source of evil, or a risk to the public health, safety, or welfare, and do not significantly limit the state’s ability to properly regulate the profession.

59. Mr. Castillo is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that this discrimination does not further any legitimate or substantial state purpose, and instead operates solely to protect Nevada residents from legitimate out-of-state competition.

60. Mr. Castillo is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that Defendants believe their actions comply with all applicable laws.

61. By enforcing Nev. Rev. Stat. § 648.148’s discriminatory, unequal, and arbitrary requirements, Defendants, acting under color of state law, are arbitrarily discriminating and unless enjoined by this Court will continue to discriminate against out-of-state commerce.

(12)

62. By enforcing Nev. Rev. Stat. § 648.148’s discriminatory, unequal, and arbitrary requirements, Defendants, acting under color of state law, are depriving and unless enjoined by this Court will continue to deprive Mr. Castillo of his fundamental right to ply his trade on substantially equal terms as Nevada citizens.

63. By enforcing the arbitrary and irrational discriminatory and protectionist requirements established in Nev. Rev. Stat. § 648.148, Defendants, acting under the color of state law, are arbitrarily depriving and unless enjoined by this Court will continue to deprive Mr. Castillo of his constitutional right to earn a living in his chosen profession.

SECOND CLAIM FOR DECLARATORY

AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF—UNCONSTITUTIONAL PRIOR RESTRAINT ON FREEDOM OF SPEECH

(U.S. Const. amend. I)

65. Pursuant to Nev. Rev. Stat. §§ 648.060(1) and 648.012, Defendants, acting under color of state law, forbid any person—with certain limited exceptions inapplicable here—from agreeing, being paid, or obtaining employment to research or communicate information related to people’s identity, conduct, and character; or lost or stolen property; or crimes, torts, and other subjects, without first obtaining a license.

66. The licensing requirements of Nev. Rev. Stat. §§ 648.060-648.210 apply to Mr. Castillo’s business activities based solely on the subject matter of the information he researches and communicates—i.e., the requirements depend on whether that information is related to people, lost or stolen property, crimes, torts, etc. These licensing requirements apply regardless of whether Mr. Castillo is engaged in private investigation, and regardless of the quality or truth of the information he wishes to share.

(13)

67. Mr. Castillo is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that the licensing requirements are unrelated to the public health, safety, or welfare.

68. In particular, Mr. Castillo alleges that Nev. Rev. Stat. § 648.148’s requirement that private investigators maintain a principal place of business in Nevada is more burdensome than necessary to protect the public from fraudulent or abusive work by private investigators, or any other risk to the public associated with private investigation.

69. Thus, Defendants’ enforcement of Nev. Rev. Stat. § 648.148’s costly, time-consuming, and largely irrelevant requirement that Mr. Castillo maintain a principal place of business in Nevada operates as a content-based prior restraint on his freedom of speech that is more burdensome than necessary to serve any compelling or substantial state interest.

70. Because Mr. Castillo fears that Defendants will enforce Nev. Rev. Stat. § 648.148 against him, he has refrained from exercising his First Amendment right to make investigation into and furnish information about the list of topics in Nev. Rev. Stat. § 648.012. In particular, he has turned down job offers in Nevada which would have required him to make such investigations and furnish such information.

71. By enforcing the broad, content-based restrictions on speech contained in Nev. Rev. Stat. §§ 648.060, 648.012, and 648.148, Defendants, acting under color of state law, are depriving and unless enjoined by this Court will continue to deprive Mr. Castillo of his right to free speech. 72. Mr. Castillo is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that Defendants believe their actions comply with all applicable laws.

THIRD CLAIM FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF—NEVADA’S LICENSING LAWS ARE FACIALLY OVERBROAD

(U.S. Const. amend. I)

(14)

74. Under Nev. Rev. Stat. § 648.060(1), private investigators cannot research or speak about certain subjects without first obtaining a private investigator’s license.

75. Nev. Rev. Stat. § 648.012 defines private investigator as anyone who agrees, is paid, or employed to research or communicate information related to people’s identity, conduct, and character; lost or stolen property; crimes, torts, and other subjects.

76. Mr. Castillo is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that this definition encompasses the freedom of speech or of the press protected by the First Amendment, including the speech of persons engaged in occupations far afield from private investigation, including, but not limited to, the speech of journalists, lecturers, genealogists, historians, biographers, and teachers, and therefore threatens a substantial amount of protected free speech.

77. Mr. Castillo is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that Nev. Rev. Stat. §§ 648.060(1) and 648.012’s broad scope renders the licensing requirement a prior restraint on free speech, as well as a content-based restriction on speech, and that it will chill the protected speech rights of and cause irreparable injury to speakers including, but not limited to, these individuals. 78. Mr. Castillo is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that a limiting construction cannot be placed on Nev. Rev. Stat. § 648.012.

79. Accordingly, Nev. Rev. Stat. § 648.012 prohibits constitutionally protected activity and speech, and is facially overbroad.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests relief as follows:

1. To enter a declaratory judgment that Nev. Rev. Stat. § 648.148 facially and as applied violates the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution;

2. To enter a declaratory judgment that Nev. Rev. Stat. § 648.148 facially and as applied deprives Plaintiff of his Privileges and Immunities as protected by Article IV of the United States Constitution;

(15)

3. To enter a declaratory judgment that Nev. Rev. Stat. § 648.148 facially and as applied deprives Plaintiff of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution;

4. To enter a declaratory judgment that Nev. Rev. Stat. § 648.148 facially and as applied deprives Plaintiff of his right to free speech in violation of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution;

5. To enter a declaratory judgment that Nev. Rev. Stat. § 648.012 is facially overbroad in violation of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution;

6. To permanently enjoin Defendants, their agents, representatives, and employees from enforcing Nev. Rev. Stat. §§ 648.148 and 648.012 as well as any and all implementing rules and regulations and the policies and practices by which Defendants enforce these provisions, including, but not limited to: (a) the policy of prohibiting Plaintiff from obtaining a private investigator license without being subject to the arbitrary and discriminatory in-state office requirement Nev. Rev. Stat. § 648.148, and (b) seeking or imposing fines or penalties against Plaintiff, or otherwise subjecting Plaintiff to harassment;

7. For cost of suit;

(16)

9. Any such further legal and equitable relief as the Court may deem just and proper. DATED: February 20, 2015.

Respectfully submitted, TIMOTHY SANDEFUR* ANASTASIA P. BODEN* Pacific Legal Foundation LEE IGLODY

Iglody Hulet PLLC

By s/ Anastasia P. Boden ANASTASIA P. BODEN, Cal. Bar No. 281911* Attorneys for Plaintiff

(17)

z

t--""'" 0 t--... t--E-< I

<

0\ -.:t-~ --.:t 00 ,-.., II"> \C) ....,0\-0~<~ ~t5u><: ....:lr..:J o<

< ...

~ r..:JO~- ~~~-...:l ... ;::: u <..) I C<SO\ ... oo-e:= ""'" u

_co

<

-~ 0\ ' - '

1 TROY CASTILLO VERIFICATION

2 I, Troy Castillo, hereby declare as follows:

3 I am a plaintiff in this matter. I have read the VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED 4 COMPLAINT and know its contents. The facts alleged in this matter are within my own personal 5 knowledge, and I know these facts to be true, except for matters stated on information and belief, 6 and I believe them to be true.

7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct, and that this verification was executed this

___!2_

day of February, 2015.

Pltfs Veri 1st Amend Complaint No. 2:14-cv-00332-GMN-PAL

(18)

P A C IFIC L E GAL F OUNDAT IO N 930 G S treet S acrament o , C A 95814 (916) 419-7111 F A X (916) 419-7747 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on February 20, 2015, the foregoing was filed electronically with the Clerk of the Court to be served by operation of the Court’s electronic filing system upon the following:

COLLEEN LELANI PLATT

E-Mail: Cplatt@ag.nv.gov, sgeyer@ag.nv.gov

Counsel for Defendants

TIMOTHY SANDEFUR

E-Mail: tms@pacificlegal.org, IncomingLit@pacificlegal.org, bas@pacificlegal.org

ANASTASIA PAULINNA BODEN

E-Mail: apb@pacificlegal.org, tae@pacificlegal.org, incominglit@pacificlegal.org

LEE I. IGLODY

E-Mail: lee@iglody.com, patty@iglody.com

Counsel for Plaintiff

s/ Anastasia P. Boden ANASTASIA P. BODEN, Cal. Bar No. 281911* Attorney for Plaintiff

(19)

PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR'S LICENSING BOARD __ _ 1·

:>

AB306

:>

Updating Contact Information

:>

Renewal Notices

:>

Organizational Chart

:>

Violation Reminders

:>

Acceptable Work Cards

~

Assembly Bill 306

Assembly Bill 306 became law on October 1, 2013, and was set in place to standardize licensees in the State. It requires all licensees to maintain a principal place of business in Nevada; as well as have a representative (qualified agent) for the corporation present within the State to supervise employees. The term principal place of business is defined in Board regulations and NRS 648.148 as -the business needs to be accessible to the Board's staff to inspect records, along with a place to display their business license in this state. At this location licensees must maintain all employee roster(s), personnel

documentation, payroll records, and display their business license for audit purposes. Please note, virtual offices would meet the criteria described in the law for licensees not having employees; however post office boxes will not. Each licensee needed to file with the Board the complete address of their principal place of business by January 1, 2014. Therefore, all licensees with registered employees working in Nevada are required to comply immediately. Failure to comply is grounds for possible suspension, revocation, or denial of an application for licensure.

Southern Office 3110 S. Durango Dr. Suite 202 Las Vegas, NV 89117 P: (702) 486-3003 F: (702) 486-3009 Northern Office 704 W. Nye Lane Suite 203 Carson City, NV 89703 P: (775) 687-3223 F: (775) 687-3226

Email: PILBINFO@ag.nv.gov www.nevadaPiboard.org

(20)

Licensee renewal

notices

&

updating

contact information

June 30th will be here sooner than expected. Which means it is license renewal time!!

Notices for renewing licenses will be emailed March 2014. Therefore pursuant to NRS 648.142 and NRS 648.148 all licensees are required to ensure the PILB has updated contact information including a current email address. Licensees are encouraged to access our website [www.nevadapiboard.org] to update their information. However, you can also call, email, or visit one of our

locations and we can update your profile

as well.

Please Note: licensees were emailed this newsletter on 02/1812014. If you did not receive the email it would be a good indicator that the PILB does not have a good email address for you.

. .

.

•

• Criminal Investigators 0 0 0 Matt Schmelzer Criminal Investigator I Office Manager (Northern)

Jason Harris

Criminal Investigator (Southern) Jaclyn O'Malley Criminal Investigator (Northern)

All licensees and qualified agents are strongly encouraged to renew their license online. The benefits of renewing ONLINE are:

~ Receive renewal license INSTANTLY!!

~ Avoid the hassle of printing, copying, and completing forms by hand

~ Fee able to be paid online with credit card

•

The Board

I

Executive Director Kevin Ingram (Southern office)

lnvestliaton/ Compliance lnv.

0

Cl 0

Bruce Yarborough Investigator (Southern)

Tom Ferrara Investigator (Southern)

Bob Ealey Investigator (Southern)

Lori Irizarry

0 Compliance Investigator/auditor

(Southern)

STEPS TO RENEW ONLINE -'0 Go to our website

-'0 Click Licensee Services tab

-'0 Click Online Renewal (middle of

screen)

-'0 Log· in (license #and password)

-'0 Follow the prompts to complete the applications

IF YOU FORGET YOUR PASSWORD PLEASE

CONTACT MARY KLEMME IN THE NORTHERN OFFICE 775-687-3223

Admlnlst ... ttve Staff

Mary Klemme

0 Investigative Assistant (Northern)

0 Investigative Assistant (Northern) Donna Artz

0 Mary Jane Daugherty

Administrative Aide (Northern) 0 Assistant to the Director (Southern) Shelly Donald 0 Patricia Gonzalez

Administrative Assistant (Southern)

0 Receptionist Temp (Northern) LaceyHix [] Lauren Marshall

(21)

INTERESliNG FACT

Work Card applications in 2013

• Denied Renewals ew

Figures based on 6,323 work card applications completed in 2013

Violation Reminders

Please Note: NRS 648 and NAC 648 are set to be revised m the near future. As a result fine amounts are subject to change. It is the responsibility of the licensee to read and review Nevada Revised Statute Chapter 648 and Nevada Administrative Code 648 to determine their rights and/or obligations.

Employee Registration Violations

Pursuant to NRS 648.140 a licensee must maintain all employee records including proper registration of employees with the ability to furnish the documents to the Board if need be. All licensees are also required to update their online employee roster within 3 days after such employees begin or terminate their employment.

:>

Not updating the online roster within 3 days could result in a $25 fine per person.

If you are unable to find or add someone in the GLSuite system it is generally because they do not have an active work card, therefore they are not authorized to begin working for a licensee. Pursuant to NAC 648.3385 a licensee shall not employ a person unless the person employed is provisionally registered or registered by the PI LB. Being such, it is the responsibility of the licensee to terminate/refuse the employment of any person not properly registered.

:>

Paying wages to a person not properly registered by the PILB could result in a $50-$100 fine per person.

Taking the extra step of copying each employee's PILB work card when they are initially hired and every 5 years when they renew; as well as updating the online system at the same time could

PILB License Numbers

Pursuant to NAC 648.525 a licensee must

include their PILB issued license number in every advertisement and any written communication. Not displaying a PILB License number properly could result in a S 100 fine per item.

Advertisements and communications include (but not limited to):

:>

Email signatures (for all

company employees)

:>

Brochures

:>

Business cards

:>

Contracts

:>

Company vehicles

:>

TV, radio, internet ads

:>

Letterhead or official stationary Certificates of Insurance

Every licensee is required to provide proof of adequate protection insurance.

A copy of the certificate of liability

insurance coverage is required before issuing any license or annual renewal license.

Failure to provide an updated certificate of insurance within 10 days of license issuance/renewal is grounds for suspension of license and could carry a fine between $50 -$200.

(22)

The purpose of work cards is to regulate business, trades, and professions that require a high degree of supervision by the PILB.

All employees (including clerical staff) working for a PILB licensee or within the perspective PILB fields are required to get a PILB work card once their previously issued sheriff card expires. Professions that require a PILB work card are:

:>

Security Guard

:>

Private Investigator

:>

Mystery Shopper

:>

Process Server

:>

Repossessor

:>

Canine Handler

:>

Polygraph intern

:>

Personal Protection s-ATE Of NEVADA ~IVATE INVFST GAlORS liCENS NG BOARO JOAN SIERRA R-867530 E>.pUes: 0113011018 UNAR..-;0 REGISTERED EMPLOYEE

A registered employee of a licensee may be armed while on duty if they have successfully completed and received certification from a course of training performed by a certified firearm instructor and approved by the Board in carrying, handling, and using firearms safely.

STATE 01' NEVADA

PRIVATE INVES-IGATORS

liCENSING BOARD

JIM5TMNS

R-4123023

Eapnn 061D.r201B

IUU1EO

card (work card) program for certain professions has been replaced with the State of Nevada work card program. However, since work cards are valid for 5 years there are still some active

acceptable work cards not set to expire until December 31'\ 2014.

Las Vegas Metropolitan Police

Department (LVMPD) sheriff cards with the words armed security or unarmed security are valid.

Las Vegas Metropolitan

Police Department I)NARMED SECURIT!_ r~

0

(_

DEANDRE JONES lOt 5997001 E<p tl-4'-20" JOSE RAMIREZ IDt: IOZOIZ E•p: 01-J0-2014

Washoe County sheriff cards with the occupation not listing solicitor or peddler are valid.

SI{J:Ril-1· WASHOECOill-OY Rr:"-10 NV WORJ< l'l::RMTI MORRIS, COOY 1910Q.OYSI ST RfNO, NV 89433 ('CII '" _>fS•

!\UCHAEL HALEY, liERIFr WA I Ot <"Ol 'iT\

Las Vegas Metropolitan Police

Department (LVMPD) sheriff cards with the words gaming or non-gaming are NOT valid.

Washoe County sheriff cards with the occupation listing solicitor or peddler are NOT valid.

"IIIIWI

\\ A"llOI <.ol N"l) IU '10 N\

\\ OI{K 1'1 !{Mil

JONfS, JOHN 1313IIIOOCIIG BIRD WAY RfNO, NV 89521

lt1 "1

"'

WUtiTOII

Case 2:14-cv GMN-PAL Document 29 Filed 02/20/15 Page 1 of 18 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA. ) ) Plaintiff,

z

<

< ...

co

<

___!2_

In this Article

:>

:>

:>

:>

:>

:>

~

Licensee renewal

notices

&

updating

contact information

. .

.

•

•

I

Violation Reminders

:>

:>

:>

:>

:>

:>

:>

:>

:>

:>

:>

:>

:>

:>

:>

:>

:>

0

(_

"'

_co