Private Investigator Fights Back: Sues Sparks Police Department

by Kendra Budd, Editor

As the long, twisting saga of Trackergate continues, a private investigator in Nevada has continued to push back even as he’s on the precipice of being compelled to reveal the name of his client in court.

Beginning with our Spring 2023 issue, Working PI delved into the Nevada case of Schieve vs. McNeely et al., in which Hillary Schieve, the longstanding Mayor of Reno, sued private investigator David McNeely after finding a GPS tracker on her vehicle.

Schieve discovered the device just a week before the city’s general election on Nov. 8, 2022 and filed her lawsuit almost immediately after detectives traced the device back to McNeely. She accused him, as well as his client (John Doe), of invasion of privacy, violating Nevada’s anti-doxing laws, trespassing and civil conspiracy.

In a follow-up story in our Fall 2023 issue, we discussed how former Washoe County Commissioner Vaughn Hartung added his name to the lawsuit, after a local media investigation discovered McNeely had also surveilled Hartung for the same client using the same GPS tracker. Though District Court Judge David Hardy ordered McNeely to reveal the name of the person who hired him, the private investigator successfully appealed the issue to the Nevada Supreme Court, arguing that the identity of his client is a trade secret and an investigator-client privilege exists to protect the client’s identity.

The case has made waves across the state’s political spectrum and already resulted in Gov. Joe Lombardo signing legislation (Assembly Bill 356) that makes it a crime to put mobile tracking devices on another person’s vehicle without the owner’s consent (except for law enforcement). The law went into effect July 1, 2023.

Meanwhile, those following the case closely, including legal investigators, have been waiting to see if McNeely would be forced to give up the name of the person of who hired him. Though several appeals filed by McNeely have enabled him to keep his client’s identity a secret, the Nevada Supreme Court unanimously dismissed McNeely’s argument in April, effectively allowing Judge Hardy’s order to stand.

In additional legal action, McNeely subsequently sued the Sparks, Nevada, Police Department (SPD) for unlawful search and seizure, as well as damages, in connection to the initial investigation that led to the Schieve lawsuit against McNeely.

Here’s what we know regarding the latest developments.

McNeely Sues
Through several appeals and the public nature of the Schieve lawsuit, which the local press has aptly dubbed Trackergate, McNeely has claimed his career and business have taken a substantial hit. Late last year, he decided to punch back via a separate lawsuit against the SPD.

In the federal court filing, McNeely’s attorney, Sigal Chattah, claims “Sparks police were improperly trained in search and seizure principles and safekeeping private information,” wrote Mark Robison of the Reno Gazette-Journal. The lawsuit alleges that Sparks police violated McNeely’s constitutional rights in their efforts to appease Schieve, who was in the final stretch of the Reno mayoral election.

The suit accuses Police Chief Chris Crawforth and detectives Peter Loeschner and Kevin Dach of engaging in unlawful conduct that caused “financial ruin, humiliation and destruction of McNeely’s life and livelihood.” As one example, the business website for McNeely’s private investigative firm, 5 Alpha Industries, has been offline since the genesis of the Schieve case.

In the filing, Chattah alleges that the phone record subpoenas that led SPD to McNeely were mishandled and out of compliance with SPD protocol. She also argues that since McNeely’s actions didn’t break federal or state law (at the time), his identity throughout case proceedings should have been kept anonymous. From the lawsuit:

McNeely was retaliated against including but not limited to the following: 1) Obtaining evidence unconstitutionally through the use and abuse of Administrative Subpoenas; 2) Unmasking his identity to Schieve; 3) Encouraging Schieve to take legal action against McNeely; 4) Encouraging Schieve to contact public officials to pass laws against McNeely’s conduct; 5) Encouraging Schieve to violate McNeely’s anonymity and publicize McNeely’s identity and acts. … Most significant though, there was absolutely no public interest in disclosing McNeely’s identity, allowing for retaliation against him—other than to ingratiate a public official.

The lawsuit maintains: “The unmasking and public dissemination of McNeely’s identity has subjected him to public humiliation, civil litigation for engaging in completely lawful conduct, public embarrassment and a complete destruction of his livelihood as a private investigator.” It also calls SPD’s actions “intolerable” and “extreme.”

McNeely seeks compensatory, punitive and general damages—including for past and future physical and mental suffering—in addition to recovery of attorney fees and termination of the two detectives without severance. 

(story continues below)

(story continues)

Case Dismissal
The city of Sparks subsequently filed a motion to dismiss the case, and on May 13, U.S. District Judge Larry Hicks did just that, calling McNeely’s arguments that his First and Fourth Amendment rights were violated as “unpersuasive and unsupported.” Hicks dismissed the case with prejudice. Though that means a similar lawsuit cannot be refiled, McNeely can still appeal the court’s decision.

On McNeely’s claim that his “First Amendment right to privacy, speech and petition” were violated, Hicks opined that “the First Amendment neither provides Plaintiff a ‘right to privacy’ nor prohibits Defendants from notifying the Mayor of Plaintiff’s identity under the circumstances.”

In addressing McNeely’s Fourth Amendment claims, Hicks wrote: “Plaintiff fails to state a Fourth Amendment claim that is plausible on its face. Plaintiff cannot show that he had a legitimate expectation of privacy against Defendants use of administrative subpoenas to identify the source of the GPS Tracker secretly installed on the Mayor’s vehicle. Nor can Plaintiff show that he had a legitimate expectation of privacy against Defendants disclosing his identity to the Mayor during the course of SPD’s investigation.”

In coming to that conclusion, Hicks used McNeely’s experience as a private investigator and retired law enforcement against him, writing that McNeely “is undoubtedly familiar with police investigations” and “surely understood the serious nature of Defendants’ investigation.” As such, the judge surmised that McNeely should have known his name would be revealed but “did not request that his identity be withheld from the Mayor, nor did Plaintiff even raise any hint of concern as to his ‘anonymity.’ Rather, after being discovered, Plaintiff unapologetically admitted to installing the GPS Tracker on the Mayor’s vehicle and tracking her location.”

The judge further asserted: “Even if Plaintiff could establish a subjective expectation of privacy, he cannot establish that society is prepared to recognize it as objectively reasonable. Plaintiff cannot show that he had a legitimate expectation of privacy.”

Hicks also dismissed out of hand McNeely’s claim under Nevada law that he suffered “intentional infliction of emotional distress” (IIED). To prove that assertion, McNeely would have to successfully argue that SPD’s revealing of his name amounted to “extreme and outrageous conduct.” “Under the circumstances, this is simply not an action under which an IIED claim could be successfully alleged against Defendants because no extreme and outrageous conduct on the part of Defendants occurred, whatsoever.”

John Doe to Be Unveiled?
While the dismissal of McNeely’s lawsuit against SPD is a personal and professional setback (pending appeal), the larger ramifications of a private investigator being forced to reveal a client are still at play. The Nevada Supreme Court’s rejection of McNeely’s assertion of investigator-client privilege and identity protection as a trade secret was a serious blow that will likely result in the unveiling of John Doe’s real name, but Doe himself is also fighting to protect his identity.

You may recall that days after Washoe County Judge Hardy ordered McNeely to divulge his client’s identity, Doe filed a motion for summary judgment with the Nevada Supreme Court, stating that he never ordered McNeely to place the tracking device on Schieve’s vehicle and alleging his right to privacy was being violated.

The motion claims “Defendant John Doe is a resident of Washoe County who is concerned with potential corruption and malfeasance in local government,” which he asserts he has the right to uncover as a voter. Doe claims he hired McNeely to investigate Schieve and Hartung for “serious misconduct.” Though the Nevada Supreme Court’s April ruling rejected McNeely’s claims, the court didn’t weigh in on Doe’s motion.

Interestingly, Doe subsequently filed another motion for a protection order to keep his identity secret. It states: “John Doe has the right to engage in anonymous political conduct, including defending himself in this Court under a pseudonym, and this Court should issue a protective order shielding John Doe’s identity from disclosure.” Doe argues his actions in hiring McNeely were protected under the First Amendment and that he only wished to uncover if Schieve and Hartung were participating in misconduct as he had heard through rumors.

The protection-order motion raises a California case in which attorney Bruce Tichinin was fired from a committee by the city council after hiring a private investigator to uncover whether two local officials were having an affair. Tichinin sued, alleging the city council’s actions defamed him and hurt his business. According to Doe’s motion, the court ruled in Tichinin’s favor, citing that hiring a private investigator falls under the right to free speech.

The motion also argues that Schieve and Hartung should be satisfied with the outcome of the case thus far without needing to know who Doe really is: “John Doe has appeared in the district court case and is represented by counsel. He is now a part of the litigation. Discovery regarding John Doe’s legal identity now serves no real purpose at all—except to interfere with John Doe’s right to anonymously engage in political activity.” However, if Schieve and Hartung want to press charges against McNeely’s client specifically, they cannot do so without knowing his true identity.

In their response, attorneys for Schieve and Hartung called into question the legitimacy of the John Doe motions, even raising the possibility that they weren’t filed by the same person and, thus, can’t be taken seriously, according to the Reno Gazette-Journal. “John Doe is not a valid party to this litigation,” the attorneys wrote. “Plaintiffs request that the Court strike all filings by John Doe, which are rogue and fugitive filings that have no legal effect.”

At press time, Judge Hardy had not issued a ruling. Given what’s transpired in the last year in relation to these legal actions, additional back and forth is likely, even if it only delays the inevitable. If Hardy denies the latest John Doe motion, he’ll still have the opportunity to appeal to the Nevada Supreme Court (again).

Thus, it might be some time before John Doe’s true identity comes to light. However, as we previously reported, the name floated by Schieve to SPD was Robert Beadles.

(story continues below)

(story continues)

Who Is Robert Beadles?
Beadles, a member of the Washoe County Republican Party’s Executive Committee, previously funded two unsuccessful recall campaigns against Hartung and runs a blog where he has referred to Schieve as “Hide’n Hillary Schieve.” Last year, he sued three Washoe County officials in state court, alleging voter fraud and seeking to get them removed from their positions. The county officials targeted were Jamie Rodriguez, then-Washoe County registrar of voters; Eric Brown, county manager; and Alexis Hill, county commission chair.

So, where does that case stand, and could it be why Schieve suspects he’s the one who hired McNeely to track her? According to the Reno Gazette-Journal, Beadles withdrew his lawsuit, which had been moved to federal court, after the Washoe County District Attorney’s Office sent him a warning letter that sanctions would be pursued. The letter called his claims “inaccurate rantings of a conspiracy theorist.”

Beadles then removed two causes of action that alleged violations of the 14th Amendment and filed an appeal with the Nevada Supreme Court. The focus of the revised lawsuit was narrowed to remove the county officials from office who hadn’t addressed his election grievances. Nevertheless, his overall goal remained the same: “It’s quite simple; I need to be in state court as the 2 main causes of action I seek are the removal of the ROV (registrar of voters), County manager, and County Commission Chair and to expose our election issues, then correct them,” he wrote in a blog post.

While Beadles maintains Nevada law ensures that “Each voter has the right … to have complaints about elections and election contests resolved fairly, accurately and efficiently,” the district attorney’s letter counters that Rodriguez, Brown and Hill had no duty to respond to him.

Beyond targeting Rodriguez, Brown and Hill, Beadles’ many grievances include issues with voter registration, election ballot counting and signature verification. The DA’s office has disputed all claims. A fact-check published by the Reno Gazette-Journal states: “Affidavits do not show Washoe votes were cast without voters’ consent, as Beadles claims.” Washoe County spokesperson Bethany Drysdale also told the publication that the county conducts fair and accurate elections.

Beadles demanded the Supreme Court stop Rodriguez, Brown and Hill from “using any voting and tabulation machines for election in Washoe County” and called for only paper ballots to be used at polling locations in all Nevada elections.

On May 15, the state supreme court denied his appeal. “Taking all the factual allegations in the complaint as true and drawing every inference in favor of Beadles, he can prove no set facts that would entitle him to relief as pleaded,” the justices ruled.

Though on its face Beadles’ case has no direct connection to Schieve or Hartung, it does reflect his ever-continuing criticism of elections and elected officials in the state. It’s not a stretch to see why Schieve believes he could be the one who hired McNeely.

For now, though, everyone continues to wait to learn John Doe’s true identity.

Final Thoughts
These cases have raised interesting questions with respect to constitutional rights and privacy laws. Trackergate has already impacted private investigators in Nevada via related legislation that rescinded their ability to place tracking devices on target vehicles. The latest court rulings place additional risk on the notion of investigator-client privilege in Nevada and a PI’s ability to protect the secrecy of their clients. Without protections in place, what else could a licensed investigator be compelled to reveal?

The dismissals of McNeely’s supreme court appeal and lawsuit against SPD drastically reduce his options going forward, and John Doe’s path to protecting his own identity appears to have similarly hit a dead end, barring another Hail Mary to the Nevada Supreme Court. Meanwhile, Schieve and Hartung appear to be on the verge of learning who hired a private investigator to track them, with additional legal action likely to follow.

With final outcomes still pending, the full ramifications for private investigators—including potential new liabilities—remain unknown. However, as Working PI has previously reported, the Schieve case makes clear that even lawful actions an investigator might make while conducting business or an investigation can carry significant risk in the civil arena.

We will keep a close eye on this case to observe its outcomes and determine if John Doe’s identity is finally disclosed.

About the Author
Kendra Budd is the Editor of Working PI magazine and the Marketing Coordinator for OREP. She graduated with a BA in Theatre and English from Western Washington University, and an MFA in Creative Writing from Full Sail University.

We’re always listening. Send your story submission/idea to the Editor: kendra@orep.org.