Introduction
The United States Constitution provides protection of civilians from irrelevant searches and seizures of individuals and premises. Such protection is provided specifically by the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution. In fire incidents, investigations are needed to ensure that a potential recurrence of the fire is prevented, to ascertain whether the fire was caused accidentally or intentionally, and to protect potential criminal evidence from possible destruction. Nevertheless, fire investigations have to follow a certain procedure that ensures that the constitutional rights of the owners are upheld. The purpose of this paper is to analyze the procedure used in fire investigations with reference to Michigan v. Tyler, 436 U.S. 499 (1978) and Michigan v. Clifford, 464 U.S. 287 (1984).
The Suppression of Evidence in Subsequent Examinations of the Scenes
In Michigan v. Tyler, 436 U.S. 499 (1978), evidence obtained after the material day of the fire (January 22, 1970) was suppressed by the supreme court of Michigan. In Michigan v. Clifford, 464 U.S. 287 (1984), the evidence obtained by the arson investigators five hours after the firefighters extinguished the fire was suppressed by the court of appeals of Michigan. The reason behind the suppression of the evidence in these two cases lies in the unconstitutional investigation process followed by the fire investigators. For evidence to be admissible in court, the investigators must have either obtained consent from owners of the burned premises or a warrant (administrative or criminal search warrant) to search the origin and cause of the fire or to determine any possibilities of arson.
In Michigan v. Tyler (1978), the first investigation efforts began when the firefighters were called in to extinguish the fire. Due to lack of visibility as a result of the smoke and darkness, the investigators left the store and returned four hours later when there was enough light and the smoke had subsided. This second investigation was considered by the supreme court of Michigan as a continuation of the first investigation which was interrupted by the smoke and the darkness. As a result, all the evidence obtained during this investigation was admissible in court. This is because a burning building provides exigent circumstances for which no consent or warrant is required to conduct a search or a seizure. However, the fire investigators carried out additional searches about three weeks after the material day without any consent from the owners or warrant from the department. Although further evidence for arson was found, the evidence was inadmissible in court because the investigators did not follow the constitutional process of search and seizure. Specifically, the subsequent investigations violated the privacy rights of the store owners which are protected by the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution.
In Michigan v. Clifford (1984), the fire broke out in the defendant’s residence when they were away. The firefighters rushed to the scene together with fire officials and police officials but no investigations were conducted during the fire extinguishing process. Nevertheless, a Coleman fuel can be found on the driveway in plain view of the firefighters. Five hours after the firefighters left the home the arson investigators returned to the home and began their investigators without consent from the homeowners or an administrative or search warrant. Their investigations began in the basement where several cans of Coleman fuel, crockpot and electrical timer were found and seized by the investigators. The establishment of the origin and cause of the fire did not end the investigators’ search and further searches and seizures were conducted in the upper rooms of the home. Although strong evidence for arson was found during these thorough investigations, they became inadmissible in court. Only the one Coleman fuel that can find in plain view on the driveway was used against the defendants. The reasoning used in Michigan v. Clifford is similar to the one used in Michigan v. Tyler.
The investigators did not obtain consent from the homeowners thus they violated their privacy rights. Moreover, they did not obtain a warrant to search the home and seize any physical evidence for arson. To make matters worsen, even after establishing the origin and cause of the fire, the investigators proceeded to conduct a criminal search. Even if the investigators would have obtained an administrative warrant to determine the cause and origin of the fire, the warrant would not have justified their further criminal investigation. A criminal investigation would have necessitated a criminal search warrant after the probable cause had been identified. As such, the investigators erred in conducting an investigation that violated the constitution, specifically the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments (Michigan v. Clifford, 1984).
The Legal Right of Investigators to be on the Property to Conduct the Investigation
When a fire breaks out either in a commercial premise or a residential home, firefighters as well as fire officials and investigators are required to go to the scene immediately after notification. The main duty of the firefighters is to extinguish the fire to ensure that further damage is prevented. However, the fire officials have other important duties to play particularly as they relate to the investigation. Fire officials and investigations are required to establish the origin and cause of the fire. As a result, as the fire is being extinguished, any evidence whether in plain view or not is collected. The significance of finding the origin and cause of the fire is to prevent another fire incident from occurring. Thus, the detection of potentially dangerous objects such as a faulty electric wire is important in preventing further fire outbreaks (Kirk & DeHaan, 2002).
Second, fire officials have the legal right of conducting investigations at the scene of the fire to ensure that potential criminal evidence is not intentionally or unintentionally destroyed. Third, an investigation by the fire officials immediately after the fire breaks out is important in preventing the investigators from interfering with the owners’ privacy. Because a burning building is an exigent circumstance, no consent or warrant is required to conduct a search or a seizure. However, once the fire has been extinguished, the investigators would require consent from the owners or a warrant from the department. This delay may adversely affect the investigators’ opportunity of collecting important criminal evidence if it exists. Due to these reasons, fire investigators have a legal right to remain on fire-damaged premises for a reasonable amount of time (Lentini, 2006).
Requirements Needed to Conduct Investigation once the Crime of Arson has been Identified
When fire officials establish that arson has taken place, there are three requirements that must be followed to conduct further investigations. These include: consent, administrative warrant and criminal search warrant. Consent refers to the permission given by the premise owners to the investigators to conduct investigations in their premises. The need for consent lies in the need to protect the owners’ privacy interests. Even when a building is damaged by fire, the privacy interests of the owners may still remain, for instance, the owners’ personal effects may still be intact, the owners may still want to continue residing or conducting their business in the building. Thus, their privacy interests must be protected according to the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. In cases where consent is freely given by the premise owners, a warrant is not a requirement. Nevertheless, there are some cases where consent is not given and such situations necessitate a warrant. There are two types of warrants: an administrative warrant and a criminal search warrant. The type of warrant granted is dependent on the primary goal of the investigation (Kirk & DeHaan, 2002).
In fire investigations, “an administrative warrant is required to establish the origin and cause of the fire” (Lentini, 2006, p. 67). This warrant is granted in cases where the origin and cause of the fire have not yet been determined. However, before an administrative warrant is given the fire officials must show that fire has broken out in a specific premise, that the extent of the search is reasonable and will not violate the owners’ privacy and that the investigation will be conducted at a sensible and suitable time.
A criminal search warrant on the other hand is granted if the investigators want to collect evidence that shows that the fire is of a criminal nature, that is, deliberate fire such as arson. The duty of the fire officials before being granted the warrant is to prove probable cause to trust that criminal evidence will be obtained at the scene of fire. Note that an administrative search can only be used to seize criminal evidence only under the “plain view” doctrine which may then be used as the basis for granting a criminal search warrant (Lentini, 2006).
Effect of Different Local Policies on Different Practices in Granting Lawful Entry to a Fire Scene
Some local policies may grant investigators the right to enter a fire scene without consent from the owners or a warrant. For instance, in Michigan v. Clifford, the investigations carried out by the arson investigators at Clifford’s home without consent or warrant were done based on a policy of the Arson Division of the Detroit Fire Department. This policy allows fire investigators to enter a fire-damaged premise and conduct investigations as long as: the owners of the premises are absent, the premise has trespassed, and the investigation took place within a rational time of the occurrence of the fire. All these conditions supported the warrantless and nonconsensual search in this case. However, because this policy does not apply in Michigan v. Tyler, it was held by the court of appeals of Michigan as inapplicable. This shows that different states and counties may have different policies regarding the fire investigation process.
Conclusion
Fire investigations, like other investigations, must adhere to the constitutionally provided procedure to ensure that the rights of the owners of the fire-damaged premises are protected. Specifically, the fire investigators must obtain consent from the owners as well as a warrant where required. The only situation that calls for warrantless and nonconsensual investigation is an exigent circumstance. Failure to follow the right procedure renders the evidence collected inadmissible in court.
Reference List
Kirk, P., & DeHaan, J. (2002). Kirk’s fire investigation (5th ed.). New York: Prentice Hall.
Lentini, J. (2006). Scientific protocols for fire investigation. Boca Raton, FL: Taylor & Francis.
Michigan v. Clifford, 464 U.S. 287. (1984). Michigan v. Clifford. Web.
Michigan v. Tyler, 436 U.S. 499. (1978). Michigan v. Tyler. Web.